Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 5 February 7 >

February 6[edit]

Category:BIG3 coaches[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 result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 14#Category:BIG3_coaches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
also: Category:3 Headed Monsters players, Category:3's Company players, Category:Ball Hogs players, Category:Ghost Ballers players, Category:Killer 3's players, Category:Power (basketball) players, Category:Tri State players, Category:Trilogy (basketball) players, Category:BIG3 players
Nominator's rationale: Participating in the BIG3 competition is non-defining. It is essentially pick-up basketball for retired players. It is at best a footnote in the career of all participants. TM 23:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BIG3 Coaches and BIG3 players, Delete team-specific sub-categories - The league has a TV contract and high-profile names and is continuing for another season (so not a "one-shot"). I don't think team categories are warranted, but categorizing players who are a part of the first professional 3X3 basketball league seems relevant. 3X3 basketball is gaining popularity - added to the 2020 Olympics and has a FIBA-sponsored World Cup - I think we will see more 3X3 leagues crop up as part of this wave. Rikster2 (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how participation is defining of the biographies? That is the requirement for categorization.--TM 16:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are basketball players. If they are playing in the first iteration of a notable 3x3 league (a slightly different sport) that is part of their basketball career. It is the same as any number of minor league sport/team categories. These guys are paid, it isn't a hobby. If someone is a professional basketball player/coach then it seems like the relevant teams/leagues he played in are of interest. Rikster2 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having" That's the bar here. Can you demonstrate reliable sources that include participation in the BIG3 league as commonly and consistently included?--TM 16:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you advocating deletion of all minor league team and league categories? They usually aren't the reason a subject has an article but they are relevant to their career. BIG3 has been around for a year, so it is hard to demonstrate that these guys will going forward have this experience referred to consistently. Rikster2 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking that we follow the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. Take Mike Bibby, for example. His basketball reference entry does not include his time in BIG3. If it did, that would indicate that it is a defining characteristic.--TM 17:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
basketball-reference doesn't have in its scope to track the BIG3, just like it doesn't show most European leagues or the CBA. And Mike Bibby wouldn't be in the news anymore at all if he didn't play in the BIG3, yet there is no shortage of coverage of his BIG3 exploits in WP:RS. My question about minor leagues goes to underlying philosophy - you heavily edit articles affiliated with the Maine Red Claws - there is not a single player who derives his notability solely or even primarily from their affiliation with the Red Claws, yet you don't seem to apply the same standard to that. I think playing in a minor league that gets pretty extensive coverage is worthy of capturing in a category. Basketball figures are notable for the teams they play for and the leagues they play in. This qualifies. Next thing you will tell me is that Dominique Wilkins shouldn't carry the Boston Celtics player category because his notability was established with the Hawks. Rikster2 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent strawman argument you've developed, Rikster, but it's not based in policy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping these categories.--TM 20:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it goes to the logic for why team/league categories exist in the first place and why they are applied even in cases where the team/League in question isn’t the primary vehicle for the subject’s notability. Rikster2 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not adefining characteristic to those involved. We do not categoize people by everthing they did. thus we do not have categories for people based on having played high school sports for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But we do for professional sports, which this would be. Rikster2 (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2018 (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.

Years in the Holy Roman Empire redux[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 result of the discussion was: merge all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Per the advice of the closing admin of the first effort, am re-submitting this nomination minus the unfortunate error spotted- there are just not enough entries to justify their existence per WP:SMALLCAT. Decades are much more appropriate than years for the early centuries of the Empire. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comments:
  1. The section heading here does not match that used in the CFD tags on the categories, which makes it harder for editors following links from the category pages. These should be aligned.
  2. It appears that the effect of this nomination would be to empty Category:Years of the 10th century in the Holy Roman Empire. If that is the intent, it should be stated in the nom, and the cat should be tagged and listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comments reply allow me to express my thanks to BHG for her friendly intervention. Per her suggestion, I've amended the error in the tagging for Category:Years of the 10th century in the Holy Roman Empire and added it here as a deletion nomination. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a further procedural comment, nothing seems to be tagged apart from the first one, the tag of which doesn't point to "Years in the Holy Roman Empire redux". Oculi (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comments further reply Last time that I looked they were all properly tagged and pointing to this page. There have been a number of reversions to this nom. It's possible that that might have had the effect of clearing the tags. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was this before or after Armbrustbot? Oculi (talk)
Before. How annoying. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All ship shape now. Let the voting commence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, year categories of the Holy Roman Empire remain insufficiently populated until long after the period that has been nominated here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- SMALLCAT says it all. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We have gone way too far in creating small categories based on events or when established. On the other hand, we have way too many articles that have not been categorized into these schemes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2018 (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.

Category:Cards of Bengal[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 result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Indian card games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, little potential for growth —swpbT go beyond 19:19, 6 February 2018 (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.

Category:Miller surname[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 result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME - no indication these are related. —swpbT go beyond 19:17, 6 February 2018 (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.

Category:Dolls of Bengal[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 result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with no potential for growth. —swpbT go beyond 19:13, 6 February 2018 (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.

Category:Wright[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 result of the discussion was: delete. All pages are already in the list Wright. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME - no indication that people sharing this name are related —swpbT go beyond 19:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – redundant to the list Wright. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the list article Wright. This is not a proper category, but a list article sitting in category space. Then delete category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2018 (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.

Category:Texas House of Representatives in 1848[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 result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT —swpbT go beyond 19:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep -- We have a UK MP category for each Parliament. I do not see why the state representatives should not have the like, or do we only allow that for US Senators and Congressmen. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete --vote changed in the light of the next two comments. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even for country representatives this is not an ideal solution, as it regularly leads to a lot of category clutter in the articles, so let's certainly not start this with state representatives. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do not do this for members of the US congress even. The longest serving member, John Dingell, served for 60 years, that is 30 terms. The category clutter we would get is terrifying. The senate is a worse prospect. Due to staggered elections, 1 term for a senator counts as 3 congresses. While due to other factors, there are some senators who have served in only one congress, others have served 40 or more years. The conditions in the United Kingdom are a little different, but even there this at times leads to absurd category clutter. In the US it is a nightmare waiting to happen. I shudder at what would happen if we extended this to the state level, since especially in the 19th-century some states elected new legislatures every year. Some people served as state representative, then state senator, than US representative and then US senator, sometimes not in that order, and sometimes resigning mid-term in one position to take another, so the potential category clutter is horrible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a bad idea even in the UK, where a long-serving MP ends up in five to ten categories that form an undulating wave of overlapping overcategorization — the only reason I haven't nominated the UK ones for deletion/merger myself is that I've learned not to stick my Canuckian nose into British categorization matters beyond basic cleanup. Lists of officeholders, such as the contents of Category:Canadian parliaments, are the better way to address membership in individual legislative sessions; categories should be reserved for the characteristics, such as political party, that don't comprehensively reset to a whole new category each and every time there's a general election. And in the US it's even more unwise, because as Johnpacklambert correctly notes a lot of people have served in both houses of a state legislature, sometimes under one-year terms, and then sometimes gone on to serve in the United States Congress too, with two-year or six-year terms depending which house — this would lead to the single biggest category bloat nightmare in Wikipedia history, because if it were upscaled to all 50 states and federally and to the territories some people's articles would end up with more category declarations than body text. Not to mention that if we did that, then I absolutely guarantee you that eventually somebody would try further subcatting them into "[Democratic/Republican/Whig] caucus in the # United States Congress" categories too. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2018 (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.

Category:Interdependence[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 result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category name is extremely vague, and scope is unclear. Existing members suggest there may be an existing category appropriate to merge to. —swpbT go beyond 18:35, 6 February 2018 (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.

Category:Native American fashion designers[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 result of the discussion was: rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Due to the semantic ambiguity of Native American, i.e. the question of whether it refers to all indigenous peoples of the North and South American continents or only the ones from the United States, Wikipedia has a standing practice of using the term in the latter, uncontroversial sense rather than the former, highly loaded one -- if a category is meant to be inclusive of everyone from Ellesmere Island to Tierra del Fuego, then we use the wording "Indigenous X of the Americas" (as witness parent category Category:Indigenous artists of the Americas and its other subcategories) rather than "Native American". It would also be acceptable to create the proposed rename as a separate category, and then move the four Canadians to it while retaining this as a US-specific subcategory, but with just 15 people filed here so far I'm not convinced that national subcategorization would be necessary yet. But what cannot happen is this category staying at this name, and being filed as a subcategory of US-specific categories, while simultaneously staying inclusive of Canadian Inuit and First Nations people. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seperate out the First Nations individuals. THe reason this category is not being used for people from south of the Rio Grande is because in fashion design there is just not a long standing, transnational practice of the art in the sense that makes it a logical sub-cat of the generalized indigenous Americas artists category. I have to admit I am less than convinced that this is a case where the intersection of ethnicity and occupation is defining. In a category like Category:Native American potters the people involved often are using or at least highly influenced by ethnic practices, I am less than convinced this is the case in fashion design.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Just FYI, to Bearcat, Kaffeklubben Island, Greenland, is the most northern point of North America, not Ellesmere Island. The Inughuit are the most northern ethnic group in the world. Yuchitown (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Well, to be fair, one of the people who's been added here (the one who I was already familiar with, because I created her article in the first place through my work with WikiProject Film) is a costume designer who has worked exclusively on films in which what she had to design was traditional Inuit garb — and I just spotchecked several of the other articles, all of which explicitly stated that the subject incorporated indigenous influences into their clothing design, such as beadwork and fabric patterning. So I'm more comfortable with calling this a validly defining characteristic — and I don't believe the creator actually intended this to be restricted exclusively to Canada and the United States, either: I suspect that the real reason this isn't being used for people from south of the Rio Grande is just that either we don't have articles about indigenous clothing designers from south of the Rio Grande yet or we do and the creator just hasn't found them. I don't see any evidence that the creator intended to restrict its scope to "Canada/US only" — the usage note on the category page, in fact, says it's for designers from North and South America. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As creator of the category, I must say I intended it to be able to cover native fashion designers from anywhere in North and South America. For me, Native American (see here) is therefore the appropriate term but that may not be the case for North American usage. (I see, you Bearcat, are Canadian.) I just created the category yesterday and have populated it primarily with people from the United States and Canada as I am more familiar with their traditions. At WiR, we are in the process of expanding coverage of fashion designers and I expect that sooner or later we will have biographies of native fashion designers from Latin America too. I therefore have nothing against a change in line with the proposal although I think "Native American" is a more familiar term for users. Furthermore, it allows straightforward inclusion in Category:Native American people by occupation and Category:Native American artists. If it is to be moved to "Indigenous...", then probably all the other Native American occupation categories should be moved too. I note, btw, that there are only 13 subcategories in Category:Indigenous people of the Americas by occupation compared to 23 in Category:Native American people by occupation. SusunW who proposed the category and Ser Amantio di Nicolao who has been involved in earlier discussions may also like to comment.--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources which refer to the topic clearly use Native American fashion designers [1] with over 3 million hits for the topic. For indigenous fashion designers in the Americas the result is 963,000 hits, but note that the majority are titled Native American fashion designers. A narrowed search with quotations results in 177,000 articles for Native American fashion designers and 0 for indigenous fashion designers (and for First Nations fashion designers 5,540). In researching the article I am writing on the topic, it is very clear that the movement encompasses all of the Americas, with designers from the entirety competing in major fashion centers across the region. In fact, most of the South American designers I have been able to find information about was through the search for Native American fashion and their inclusion in fashion shows. The term "Native American fashion" refers specifically to people participating in haute couture, not artisans producing traditional clothing. Initially all the designers used a pan-Indian focus including recognizable elements of native cultures, to create a broad "market appeal" and acceptance for their work. As they gained acceptance, the trend has been to move away from broad focus and now design as representatives of their individual communities. Their designs may or may not include elements of their tribal heritage, but the defining characteristic is that they must be producing goods for the fashion industry (not craftwork) and must belong to a recognized indigenous identity. As both the museum industry and the fashion industry have recognized that this is a specific subgroup of fashion designers, I hardly see why we would not, to address John Pack Lambert's concerns. The potential for designers in the category is fairly substantial. I understand the logic of Bearcat's proposal and would have no problem with adding an additional category of indigenous designers, but as the sourcing validates the current naming scheme it seems illogical to eliminate it. SusunW (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, just to be clear, we have some category trees where there's a more finely developed scheme of subcategorizing indigenous North American peoples more specifically than just one Ellesmere-to-Fuego sweep — "Native Americans" is an entirely appropriate term when the category is US-specific, but not when it's meant to be inclusive of Canadian First Nations, Inuit or Métis or Central/South American indigenous peoples. So we don't necessarily need to rename all "Native American" categories — most of them are already US-specific and parented by a broader continental "Indigenous X of the Americas", and the few that aren't need to be fixed. "Native American" is an entirely acceptable name when the category's scope is US-specific, it's just not appropriate for a category that's meant to include Canadians and Brazilians and Peruvians and Mexicans too. So we need to either rename the category if consensus would prefer keeping everybody all together in one transnational category, or create a transnational parent for it and move the non-USians up to there if consensus would prefer two categories. I'm fine with either solution, just not with leaving Canadians in a category whose name remains "Native American". Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support one transnational parent with creation of additional categories for specific groups, based on the rationale presented. As the topic expands, it may well be that First Nations fashion designers, Puruhá fashion designers, etc. will be a large enough group to support their own category as well. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Category:Native American people is the country-specific subcat for the ones from the United States specifically, while Category:Indigenous people of the Americas is the transnational parent category for Native Americans and Canadian First Nations/Inuit/Métis and Central and Latin American peoples all the way down to Tierra del Fuego. There's no conflict between that and this; in fact, it bolsters this rather than contradicting it, because it proves that we use the terms the way I described in my nomination statement. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 January 13 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck earlier comment after Bearcat's reply. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Native American" on Wikipedia refers to Native Americans in the United States and the first entry in the current category is Atuat Akkitirq, a Canadian Inuk. There are many up-and-coming Latin American Indigenous fashion designers, too, that will hopefully be covered in Wikipedia in the future—particularly in Colombia, Mexico, and Bolivia. Yuchitown (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[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.

Category:Lists of Georgian people[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 result of the discussion was: merge and dab (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; suggest keeping name as category redirect. Tim! (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and also follow the sagacious advice of BHG above. Oculi (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support BHG, accoridng to long precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2018 (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.

Category:Churches in Sterling, Colorado[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 result of the discussion was: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category (2 articles) for a small town >15,000 residents that is unlikely to grow. Also merge into Category:Churches in Logan County, Colorado. TM 16:31, 6 February 2018 (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.

Category:Republicans[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 result of the discussion was: no consensus. The discussion concluded that the current name of the category ambiguous and undesirable, but absolutely no viable alternative was agreed upon to any extent. A subsequent renomination may be needed to determine the category name, as this particular discussion did not accomplish that. ℯxplicit 02:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous name. This category is intended for people who support the establishment of small-r republican government in a monarchy, but we end up having to constantly monitor it for the incorrect addition of people who really belong in Category:Republicans (United States) -- and as so often happens, the usage note on the page is not actually controlling the problem. So the category should have a disambiguator added to it for extra clarity, but I don't know what the best choice would be. Note: due to the ambiguity, I would request that the old category be retained as a "category disambiguation" page rather than a straight redirect to the new category. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 January 29 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bearcat: As the nominator, you might want to react on suggestions posted so far, in order to reach some form of consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a strong opinion that either of the suggestions was preferable to the other, then that might contribute toward consensus — but if I think both suggestions are viable and have no preference between them, then there's really nothing for me to say. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irish Republicans are probably a category of their own, just like the US Republicans. In most other countries republicans are simply people who want to transform their own country from a monarchy to a republic. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to supporters of republicanism. I think that is the simplist way to convey this idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At second thought, I think Category:Supporters of republicanism is not a good solution. It does not solve the problem since it does not exclude American Republicans. And worse, by adding "supporters" in the category name, editors may add biographies of people who are not even active in politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So far there is agreement that the current title is unworkably ambiguous, but no agreement on a replacement title.
It seems to me that any new title has to include some degree of description of the nature of this Republicanism. Neither @Laurel Lodged's "Supporters of republicanism" nor @Peterkingiron's "political principle exponents" really does that. The intent is obviously good, but I'd oppose both as adding verbosity without ultimately adding much clarity.
@Marcocapelle's suggested "anti-monarchists" does try to explain what the ideology is, and I'd say it's the best option so far.
However "anti-monarchists" is not ideal, because it describes in negative terms an ideology which also has a strong positive side.
I have been reviewing the article Republicanism and offer a few more suggestions:
  1. "Advocates of a republican form of government" is verbose, but it does mirror the fact that republican form of government redirects to Republic.
  2. "Republicans (res publica)" is unambiguous, but it is obscure to anyone who neither speaks latin nor has studied political theory
  3. "Republicans (popular sovereignty)" may be a little more accessible, but popular sovereignty arguably overlaps with popular monarchy, and probably excludes classical republicanism.
I will post at WT:POLITICS to ask for more input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WT:POLITICS notified.[2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 15 February 2018 (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.

Category:Rapid transit in Chile[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 result of the discussion was: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the category refers not only to rapid transit-related pages, but also to commuter rail-related ones. 93.57.250.33 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Note that the category had not been tagged by the nominator. I have tagged it[3] for this relisting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 6 February 2018 (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.

Political candidate categories[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 result of the discussion was: delete. Ultimately, the persuasive arguments contended that being a failed gubernatorial candidate is not a defining characteristic of the politicians in these categories.. ℯxplicit 02:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
Category:Alaska gubernatorial candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Illinois gubernatorial candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kentucky gubernatorial candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Louisiana gubernatorial candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Maine gubernatorial candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Massachusetts gubernatorial candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:New Jersey gubernatorial candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:New York gubernatorial candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:North Dakota gubernatorial candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Oklahoma gubernatorial candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Oregon gubernatorial candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Utah gubernatorial candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per the no consensus decision when I nominated only one of these categories, I clearly erred in doing that. I'm nominating them all now in the hopes of making consensus. All "keep" votes from the last deletion discussion were WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Actual rationale from the last discussion stands: These categories are for a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. Failed candidates for office are not automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN, so therefore these articles aren't notable for being losing candidates, but for other things. I didn't include the other subcats of Category:American political candidates because they do seem to be different, based on list articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CLCStudent (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I encourage you to bring up the other candidate categories for deletion instead. American political candidates should be up for deletion as well as candidates by year. Running for a high level political office like Governor of a US state or President are usually defining of an individual's career. However, if you were to bring up the other subcategories, I would support deleting those.--TM 16:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Running isn't defining. Winning is. I agree with Marcocapelle that the other categories would require a separate discussion because they're too different. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Running for a high profile office like Governor or President is in fact a defining feature of many politicians' careers. Take, for example, former two-time independent candidate for Governor of Maine Eliot Cutler. Virtually every time his name is written in the news, it mentions his previous candidacies. even years after he stopped running for the office.--TM 16:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and note that it's not reasonable to request co-nomination of candidates by year that also contain vice-presidential and presidential candidates, which would surely require a different discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is too WP:DNWAUC. We have other categories such as Category:20th-century American politicians. DexDor (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We allow categories for failed candidates for President and Vice-president. Conversely failed candidates for local and legislature office are routinely deleted as NN. Successful candidates will after election go into the governor category, so that this is mainly about failed candidates. How many failed candidates are notable? If most are already notable for other reasons, such as having been a state senator, meaning that the category can be well populated, it may be worth keeping. The two delete votes above do not address this issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is exceptional when a failed gubernatorial candidate isn't a notable politician already, e.g. as a senator. One exception I found is Frank O. Hellstrom who was a candidate governor in North Dakota. He is also Category:North Dakota Democrats and I think it is sufficient to have him in that category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Do not write articles using categories Chetsford (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a candidate for governor, especially when these categories do not require winning a nomination, is not only not enough to make one notable, for some people, especially those otherwise notable who run as 3rd party candidates or who are trounced in the primary, it tends not even to be notable. Similarly, most of these categories are set up to include those who won the election, and so in some cases will mainly just serve to add category clutter to the articles on governors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Running (only only winning) for a high profile office like Governor or President is in fact a defining feature of many politicians' careers. Addtionally, information in the category further enhances Wikipedia as a source of encyclopedic information: Who has run for office of governor of a particular state, which is not gathered in such another easily acesssible formatDjflem (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are categorizing articles, not politicians' careers. If wp should have info about who the candidates were in each election then that would be much better presented as a list/table (or an article such as Maine gubernatorial election, 2014) than as a category. DexDor (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are using criteria to determine what is defining a politician (such as running for major office), are we not? An existing category for the articles is addtionally helpful for cross-referencing, as would be the yet-to-be created, non-existent lists suggestedDjflem (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These categories aren't being restricted to people who actually ran on the general election ballot as their party's gubernatorial candidate, but are also including people who merely ran in but lost a gubernatorial primary — so not everybody is equally "defined" by this the way some people have been claimed to be above. Defining of the individual or not, it's not a reason why somebody needs to be able to consult a comprehensive group of them — it's not a criterion on which anybody needs Fred Preaus to be sitting directly alongside David Duke, or Benjamin Gitlow next to John Faso, in a single category. And as noted, being an unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate is not in and of itself a reason why somebody gets a Wikipedia article in most cases — most of the people who are here are here for other reasons, like serving in the state legislature or Congress, rather than being notable specifically because they ran for governor and lost. No objection to the creation of lists, if desired, but it's not a useful basis for a category. Bearcat (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tighten definition. --RAN (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Being a gubernatorial candidate is not by itself notable. Those comparing to presidential candidates are not making a valid comparison. In almost all cases presidential candidates have held some other notable position, whereas gubernatorial candidates have not.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2018 (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.

Category:Burials at Old Saint Joseph's Cemetery (Waterbury, Connecticut)[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 result of the discussion was: merge. I infer from @Johnpacklambert's comment an argument that people should be categorised by place of burial only if the burial is in a notable cemetery, and should not be categorised by simply region of burial; in other words, Category:Burials in Connecticut should be {{container category}}. I am sure JPL could make a good case for that, but most of the by-state subcats of Category:Burials in the United States by state are not being used as containers, and nor are many of the by-country subcats of Category:Burials by country. A proposal to containerise them would make an interesting discussion, but since there is not yet a consensus to containerise, this one should be merged to the state category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category only has one entry. The cemetery in question doesn't have an article either. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:19, 6 February 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_6&oldid=871693306"