Category:Alumni of Royal Military Academy of Belgium[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
If needed, I'll be happy to assist in implementation of the proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: CSN is no longer necessarily the name of these networks, hence the main page is now titled based on the division itself. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:relisted at 2017 May 14.
Nominator's rationale: "Hyperlocal" is an adjective, not a noun, so just saying something is "hyperlocal" doesn't actually clarify what it is, and the categories accordingly have to specify hyperlocal what. In this context it refers to media startups, generally on the web, but even a hyperlocal media startup can't just be referred to as "hyperlocal" without the noun "media" attached. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REname but to Category:Local media in the United Kingdom, also England and Scotland. "Hyperlocal" is a NEOLOGISM, which I have never heard of in UK, where there are a mass of local newspapers, community radio stations, and parish newaletters, which are never so-described. If the term is used in USA, I would support the change there, with the UK items parented to the hyperlocal parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Peterkingiron for UK categories (this is a term i've never heard used), could consider an upmerge to Category:Media in the United Kingdom since this is a small category. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Local media. I checked a few US websites of media that were listed in the category and if they mention anything about it then it's "local", not "hyperlocal". Also I wonder if we shouldn't upmerge the California and Masschusetts categories: as they are a child category of a media by state category already, isn't that local enough by definition? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TOPTEN - subjective and arbitrary —swpbT 14:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Swpb: Would it change if we would simply remove the header text on the category page? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, my rationale would just change to WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, of which WP:TOPTEN is a specific case. There needs to be a firm, non-subjective criterion for determining category membership, which doesn't exist in this case. Discussion of what films should be considered "psychological science fiction" belongs in article space, where statements can be explained, caveated, and most importantly, individually cited. It's just not an appropriate basis for a category, no matter whose list is used. —swpbT 19:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge; although there was not much participation here, this is a follow-up to the previous discussion which had a stronger consensus. – FayenaticLondon 21:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CATGENDER, A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. That is not the case here: men have not been historically under-represented in these occupations, nor is there a particular male genre of doing these occupations because men differ from the norms of that occupation (because men predominate).
However, per WP:CATGENDER, a female category does not need to be balanced with an equivalent female category (or vice versa) unless the profession is inherently segregated by gender, as with acting or some sports. This occupations is not inherently segregated by gender, so the case for each gendered category must be made on its own merits. I am personally unpersuaded on the merits of the female categories, but that is a separate discussion, because the two do not have to be balanced. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are two different and non-equivalent scenarios where gender categories are warranted: either the occupation is inherently gender-segregated (e.g. sports, where men and women do not generally compete directly against each other, but each compete in their own separate gender-specific platforms), or women were historically underrepresented enough in the field that a significant volume of reliable source analysis exists about the phenomenon of women joining it (e.g. politics, where a vast body of books and academic papers and feature journalism exists to examine the question of whether women do politics differently than men do or not.) If a field meets the former condition, then both male and female gender categories are justified; and if it meets the second condition then a female category is justified but a male category is not. This, however, is definitely not of the first type — and it's at best debatable whether it's even of the second type. As always, Wikipedia's goal is not a comprehensive system of gendering every category that exists to contain people; we do so only when the intersection of gender with occupation can be reliably sourced as a WP:DEFINING characteristic, and that's definitely not the case here. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Presumably you mean "merge as nominated" instead of "delete", don't you? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merging isn't such a great idea after all. Many are already in a subcat of Indian producers by language. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bengali film producers, Hindi film producers, Kannada film producers, Malayalam film producers, Odia film producers, Tamil film producers, Telugu film producers. See https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=995033
There are 266 results, out of 426 pages in the category. In other words, merger would be required for at least those 266. – FayenaticLondon 21:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, glad you're able to fully check that, that makes this a clear merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This Legislative assembly completed its tenure of 5 years. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy close, this is the wrong platform to discuss article deletions (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge, trivial intersections between current and former polities. Also there is room for discussion whether we should have a tree for establishment of populated places by former polity at all, since currently we only have an established tree of Category:Populated places by year of establishment. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I really think it's not a good idea to have cities categorized by every former polity, it may well lead to a lot of category clutter in articles about mainland European cities. And besides it's a typical example of User:DexDor's WP:DNWAUC. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only categorization a town/city needs is by the location - i.e. the (current) country/region it is in - that is sufficient to place each town/city in a category. Where a town/city has a date of establishment then it can also be put in a by century category (example) (although that's much less defining). Categorizing by what country a town/city was in when it was built (is that the same thing as when it was established?) is unnecessary, unlikely to be useful (as many/most towns/cities don't have a clear "built" date and/or haven't changed country) and tends to lead to articles being category-tagged for no clear reason (e.g. the Zhdanivka article[1] makes no mention of the Soviet Union or any dates before 2001 so does not belong in a Soviet Union category). DexDor(talk) 20:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. The two people are in the surname article already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's unclear what this category is for - people named Marta Cunningham? If so, violates WP:EPCATPERS. Alex Cohn(let's chat!) 02:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Oculi (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OCAT by shared name. Clearly the intention here was for the category to serve as a quasi-disambiguation page, but that isn't how we do it. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
