Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11[edit]

Category:City councils in the United Kingdom[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. MER-C 09:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as a city council in the UK, and the existence of this category potentially misleads readers into thinking that there is. Types of local authorities in the UK include county councils, district councils, unitary authorities, London borough councils, metropolitan borough councils, parish councils and so on, but not city councils. The members of this category includes Cambridge City Council (a district council), Hull City Council (a unitary authority), Salisbury City Council (a parish council) and Westminster City Council (a London borough council). The only thing they have in common is the fact that they have the words "city council" in their name (because the places have city status, which has no relation to their local government status) – this does not seem to be a worthwhile reason for categorising them as such, and (as stated above), is potentially misleading. Also nominating the sub-categories below for the same reason. Number 57 22:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - these categories collect together similar entities (such as Bangor City Council) and deleting the categories will leave the articles adrift. In any case Bangor City Council describes itself as a City Council, as does Manchester City Council. Sheffield City Council elections - the nominator seems somewhat isolated in their belief that there is no such thing. Oculi (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oculi: This isn't anything to do with beliefs, it's basic facts about local government, in which I worked for over a decade. These categories are not grouping similar entities together – they are grouping different types of councils (unitary authorities, parish councils, metropolitan borough councils) that happen to share part of their name. In addition to the named councils listed above (which are all of different types), Bangor City Council is a community council, the Welsh equivalent of a parish council (note Bangor's inclusion in the Wales section of that article). This government list of English councils by type shows that Birmingham City Council is the same type of council as Barnsley Borough Council, Cambridge City Council is the same type as Adur District Council and Bristol City Council is the same as Bedford Borough Council. Also, deleting these category will not leave the articles adrift, as they are already in the correct categories for their actual council types (Bangor City Council is in Category:Community councils of Wales, Cambridge City Council is in Category:Non-metropolitan district councils of England etc). Number 57 11:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Similar names do not make them similar entities.Rathfelder (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and upmerge the contents to appropriate parent categories, on the basis that the content in reality is a variety of local authorities governing places with city status, who generally style themselves as 'city councils' but are unitary authority, borough, district, civil parish or community councils in reality. I'm willing to be proved wrong, having begun delving a bit deeper only recently and written the article for Cardiff City Council, a district council from 1974-1996 and a county borough council prior to that. Sionk (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all four. I have checked the pages held directly within the categories and all are now suitably categorised elsewhere within the necessary hierarchies, so no merging is needed. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 12 May 2019 (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:Holocaust deniers[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: withdrawn. This seems to be headed for a snow keep, so further discussion has proven frivolous. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is consensus at CfD and BLPN that we should not have a category of climate change deniers per WP:BLPCAT. Holocaust denial is just as contentious and therefore this should not be much different, except that the subcategory Category:People convicted of Holocaust denial offenses is a legitimate category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All [except UK subcats, see below] - Sorry, but it's just not the case that "Holocaust denial is just as contentious" as Climate change denial. First of all, Holocaust denial has been around far longer, and is part of the same ugly history of antisemitism and antisemitic conspiracy theories that was responsible for producing the Holocaust in the first place. As such, Holocaust denial has been studied in depth for many years, and there is extensive scholarly literature on the subject.
Secondly, the Holocaust itself is a historical fact, the details of which have been thoroughly and voluminously documented. As such, it is not a "contentious" issue. Climate Change, on the other hand, is still in the process of occurring, and the factual reality is still being documented, day by day. Even though there is a strong concensus on the subject among scientists, details are still being worked out and "debated" in the normal course of scientific inquiry. At the same time, much like the tobacco industry did for decades, the self-interested fossil fuel industry has expended considerable effort over the years to raising doubts among the public, with a generous helping of support from the Fox News crew and conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones.
The unfortunate result of all of this is that Climate Change is unquestionably a rather "contentious" issue -- and consequently, "Climate change denier" is a far more "contentious" term, which is reflected in the discussions you cited. Unlike Category:Climate_Change_deniers, however, Category:Holocaust deniers survived two previous CFD discussions, and has gone completely unchallenged for more than a decade. (See the April 2007 discussion and the August 2008 discussion.
And lastly, please take note of the inclusion criteria, which have been in place since 2008. The category is restricted to people who have "actively promoted" Holocaust denial. Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I can't see any BLP issues for people who actively promoted Holocaust denial. And by the way I also can't see any BLP issues for people who actively promoted climate change denial. In both cases (unfortunately the other one went astray) we might change the name of the categories to "denial activists" instead of "deniers". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most The English/Scottish/N Irish sub-categories should be merged into British. I actually removed two individuals from the Scottish sub-cat and one from English as there was no mention of Holocaust denial in any of their articles (including Thomas Mair (murderer). They were all far-right figures who might very well be deniers, but with not even the briefest mention of this on their articles. In each case also, 'Scottishness' was based on having been born in Scotland - Scottishness/Englishness/Welshness/N-Irishness is better seen as being a cultural identification, akin to ethnic self-identification elsewhere, rather than being acquired at birth. There is no good reason to think that Scottishness/Englishness/Welshness/N-Irishness is a distinguishing feature of these individuals or their denial. The English sub-cat seems equally problematic and unnecessary - most of these are described as British in their own articles. Also, the Irish category contains a single Northern Irish person, who is described as British on his own article and is therefore only Irish in the sense of born on the island of Ireland.Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason, many British-people categories have English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern-Irish subcategories. I would almost say it is standard. If they are to be removed, we should not just talk about the Holocaust denier ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The usual criteria for inclusion is common/self designation, rather than place of birth. Thus Tony Blair is not in ANY Scottish categories, whereas Gordon Brown is in several, despite both being Scottish-born, though Brown being much more associated with Scotland. This 'cultural' distinction makes sense but none of the Scots or English or NI deniers seemed to be meaningfully Scottish or English or Irish. Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A wee bit of Wiki History on this issue: Back around 2006-7 there was an upsurge of English nationalism from a contingent of editors who were insisting on designating people as "English" instead of "British" in their Wiki bios. Here in the States, we were shaking our heads in dismay & puzzlement, not realizing that this was happening because of an upsurge of English nationalism in the real world (presumably in response to the rise in Scottish nationalism). Before long there was a myriad of subcats for ALL 4 of the national identities in the not-so-United Kingdom. You can be quite sure there will be a battle royale if there is a large-scale effort to upmerge most of those subcategories. Cheers, Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Deleting the Climate change deniers category was a mistake that will be undone when the climate gets worse. At the moment climate change deniers are still too successful in their propaganda, and not enough people are aware that it is a scientific fact the way the holocaust is a historical fact. Using the result of that Cfd as a reason for this one is a non-sequitur - the facticity of the holocaust is too well-established. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all.--Galassi (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should I withdraw this nomination and question the grounds on which Category:Climate change deniers was deleted? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly free to withdraw this nom if you wish to; it does appear to be heading for a SNOWBALL KEEP. As for the other category, rather than trying to resurrect that exact category, I think perhaps it might be better to drop the word "denier", which is something of a hot-button term, and refer to them as "Climate change skeptics" -- though I seem to recall that having been tried at one time, as well. But I think the ground may have shifted enough to support such a category now. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all In several cases, publishing works about Holocaust denial is what these people are known for. Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most and merge rest -- Some of these people are notable only for holding this opinion. Merging the various British categories together is probably a good idea, and perhaps upmerging any small categories. The categories may need pruning of some articles, for people for whom denial was a minor incident of their life. There is ample historical evidence for the holocaust. Climate change is only a matter of scientific consensus: we cannot be completely sure that the world's ecosystem is not resilient enough to be able to absorb all green house gases. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most and merge rest. There may be some merit in merging some SMALLCAT regionals. The cat itself, however, is a defining one for many individuals (in some cases being their main claim to notability) and is well supported by sources. Unlike climate change denial, which is a somewhat contested factually (i.e. there is a not small minority opposing the label), Holocaust denial (at least in the "hardcore" sense and not the "softcore" (terms per Lipstadt)) is very well defined and opposition to the defining elements of the label are very deep in fringe turf.Icewhiz (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amending my Keep vote - After looking at the British subcategories, two of which contain only one article, I agree with other editors that they should be Merged into Category:British Holocaust deniers. Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2019 (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:Thai people by rank[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2019 (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:Iranian journalists by subject[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate category. Only content is Category:Iranian music journalists‎ Rathfelder (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, an easy one - clearly not needed. Merge as proposed. Anomalous+0 (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2019 (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:Recall elections in the United Kingdom[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 to Category:Recall in the United Kingdom. MER-C 09:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The UK doesn't have recall elections like the US, but rather a petition process outlined under the Recall of MPs Act 2015. If successful this then triggers a by-election; though these by elections are functionally and legally identical to those triggered by other means.

This category should be moved as proposed and only contain the articles about the petitions (three to date) and the parent article Recall of MPs Act 2015. This would eject 2019 Peterborough by-election from the category, as this is a by-election, not a recall petition. LukeSurl t c 12:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - since however by-elections triggered by recall petitions, such as the 2019 Peterborough by-election, are of especial interest, there is an argument either for retaining them in this cat if it is appropriately renamed, or failing that, creating a cat for the purpose. Ingratis (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2019 Peterborough by-election is currently the only such by-election so it would be in a category of its own (at least for now). Currently we do not subcategorise UK by-elections by their cause (which has normally been death or resignation) but only by location. --LukeSurl t c 09:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason not to do it.Ingratis (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Category:Recall in the United Kingdom as per User:Marcocapelle and keep the contents together. Ingratis (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should keep the election with the recall petitions, at least until we get enough similar elections to give them their own category. Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now support Ingratis. That is a good solution to the problem that I raised. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2019 (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.

People of the Umayyad Caliphate[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 to "from". There is general consensus that the categories should be renamed, but no consensus about whether to use "of" or "from". There seems to be slightly more support for "from". Since the closing instructions for CfDs don't seem to cover this, the general guideline for renaming (WP:RMCLOSE) says (in WP:THREEOUTCOMES):There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place. Thus, this close is without prejudice to speedy renomination for further discussion of moving some or all of the categories to "of". (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to reduce ambiguity: "Umayyad people" may either refer to people of the Umayyad dynasty (more likely so) or to people of the Umayyad Caliphate (as intended in the above categories). The nomination also brings the category names in line with the parent Category:People of the Umayyad Caliphate. A similar case is Category:People of the Ottoman Empire and all of its subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same in this case, e.g. Category:Umayyad scholars describes people of the Umayyad Caliphate who were scholars, but Category:Scholars of the Umayyad Caliphate describes people of any era who studied the Umayyad Caliphate.
Sadly, the uncritical support of a flawed proposal at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 13#Ottoman_people has cascaded into many other similar categories, replicating the same basic problem across many hundreds of categories.my mass nomination at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 28#People_from_the_Ottoman_Empire was closed as no consensus despite the opposes including non-arguments sch as they're grand as the are and nominator has not laid out why the Ottoman Empire should be different, even tho the nomination laid out a large list of problems) and "reluctant oppose" which noted the "absurd results" of the "of the Ottoman Empire" naming format.
It's sad to see that the proposer of this broken naming convention is proposing it yet again, as if the flaws of the "of Foo Empire" format had never been noted before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Especially for the sake of scholars it makes sense to avoid "of" (for the other categories it is less of an issue). As nominator I am equally fine with "from" and once suggested "under". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, "under" implies managerial or hierachical control which is not always the case. It probably applies to generals, but less so the scholars and poets (or maybe not at all).
"From" is indeed less problematic.
I think we need an RFC on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please comment on a rename to "X from the Umayyad Caliphate".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator, after the discussion above, I'd rather provide a clear replacement vote in favour of "from" instead of "of", since "of" results in issues and "from" does not. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original proposal. Ah yes, I remember BHG's reasoning in the last proposal. She was concerned that large numbers of readers would interpret "Painters of the Ottoman Empire" to consist of people who painted the entire Empire (we didn't go into the niceties of whether that might be Ottoman red or Imperial purple). What a hoot that discussion was! And yes, they're grand as the are. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least there seems to be consensus that the current names should not be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for 'from' in the title as the nominator later accepted the proposal. Störm (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle No strong view on which preposition: "under" would certainly so, perhaps "of", even "for". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, preferably using "from" as unambiguous. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original proposal for generals and governors as they were agents of the Umayyad state not merely from the territory which the caliphate controlled; "from" is fine for scholars and poets. —Al Ameer (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2019 (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.

People of the Abbasid Caliphate[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 to "of". There is general consensus that the categories should be renamed, but no consensus about whether to use "of" or "from". There seems to be slightly more support for "of". Since the closing instructions for CfDs don't seem to cover this, the general guideline for renaming (WP:RMCLOSE) says (in WP:THREEOUTCOMES):There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place. Thus, this close is without prejudice to speedy renomination for further discussion of moving some or all of the categories to "from". (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to reduce ambiguity: "Abbasid people" may either refer to people of the Abbasid dynasty (more likely so) or to people of the Abbasid Caliphate (as intended in the above categories). The nomination also brings the category names in line with the parent Category:People of the Abbasid Caliphate. A similar case is Category:People of the Ottoman Empire and all of its subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same in this case, e.g. Category:Abbasid scholars describes people of the Abbasid Caliphate who were scholars, but Category:Scholars of the Abbasid Caliphate describes people of any era who studied the Abbasid Calipahate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please comment on a rename to "X from the Abbasid Caliphate".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator, after the discussion above, I'd rather provide a clear replacement vote in favour of "from" instead of "of", since "of" results in issues and "from" does not. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the original proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least there seems to be consensus that the current names should not be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original proposal. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original proposal for the government-related categories (admirals, courtiers, eunuchs, generals, governors, military personnel, officials, viziers), as there they are indeed of the Abbasid Caliphate; otherwise lean towards "from". Conversely, oppose move to from forms universally, since formulations like "Viziers from the Abbasid Caliphate" are nonsensical. Constantine ✍ 19:01, 31 May 2019 (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:Puerto Rican people of Dutch-Jewish descent[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:Puerto Rican people of Dutch descent. MER-C 17:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This narrow category contains only one page. serioushat 08:02, 11 May 2019 (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.

Roman Gaul[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 all. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, current category names are anachronistic, there was no France in Roman times. The proposal aligns with the category structure of Category:Roman Britain and Category:Roman Egypt. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2019 (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:Military musicians[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, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are all in the same class as Category:Musicians by band, and can be named in a similar manner. This would allow the more specific categories to be in the Musicians by band container category as well.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Corps of Army Music is not a band, it's a corps; every British Army musician is a member of it. This category is part of the Category:British Army soldiers tree, which refers only to non-commissioned soldiers, as opposed to Category:British Army officers (although there is currently no Category:Corps of Army Music officers, there could be). The nominator should have done a bit more research before including this category and it should be removed from the nomination. But in actual fact, there's no need to rename any of them. The current titles are the best. Military musicians are commonly called military musicians, not military band members (bandsmen once upon a time, yes, but that's generally been superseded) and putting them in Category:Musicians by band would be completely inaccurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not know that about the Corps of Army Music. Happy to back away from that one if the others pass. What I'd say to your greater point is that "musician" is not a rank in the US military. It's a job like cryptographer. So I could see Category:Military musicians staying as is. But the bands themselves are bands. Membership in them is not a job, it's an assignment. My somewhat tautological suggestion is that we should categorize these bands like bands because they're bands. And bands are categorized as "(band name) members."--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- because military bands inevitably consist of musicians and no non-musicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2019 (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:People with honorary American citizenship[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. of Mother Teresa). See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_3#Category:Honorary_citizens_of_Hamburg and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_10#Category:Honorary_citizens.  For info: there is a list here. DexDor (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:OCAWARD. Per the main article, this does not convey right to immigration or citizenship so it seems undefining. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- An unusual honour, mostly posthumous, but awarded because they were famous not to make them famous. There is already a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2019 (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:Monuments and memorials to Amelia Earhart[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. I find DexDor's suggestion worthy of further discussion. – Fayenatic London 08:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there was an earlier discussion of this and related categories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_27#Memorials where there was strong consensus to keep. – Fayenatic London 08:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME and the spirito of WP:C1, an empty category
No conceptual objection to this category, but it consists of articles with nothing to do with Amelia Earhart except for being named after her like the SS Amelia Earhart, Amelia Earhart Peak and Amelia Earhart Dam. (While not exactly a memorial, Amelia Earhart Birthplace is the only article that's defined by Ms. Earhart and it's already in a parent category so no upmerge is needed.) No objection to recreating the category if we ever get up to 5 or so articles of actual monuments and memorials and no objection to creating a list article now. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think you're applying too strict a standard here. I'm gonna assume that you're already aware of the parent for this, Category:Monuments and memorials by person, which has nearly 100 subcats. Just wondering why you singled out this one? I do think 4-5 articles is enough to justify a category, but you're discounting most of them. I mean, they're not just roads or streets, they're all pretty substantial things that were named for her in order to honor her in perpetuity.
And I'm pretty sure there are more out there - I mean, she was literally one of the most famous and illustrious people on the planet in the 1930s. There must be an airport or two named for her. (It's a little surprising that Burbank Airport, which she frequently flew out of, wasn't renamed for her. There is, however, a freestanding statue of her in nearby North Hollywood, which could have its own article.) Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two more subcategories of Category:Monuments and memorials by person are nominated today with more to come. Honestly though, I was also suprised Wikipedia didn't have any existing articles that were clear momuments to Earhart and would welcome their creation. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of a category tree on memorials. Dimadick (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unless this is a test nom, intended to be followed by a general one, we should not single her out, as there are a lot of siblings. Nevertheless, SHAREDNAME would apply. If deleted, listify in the bio-article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context/Comment @Anomalous+0, Dimadick, and Peterkingiron: I obviously made a tactical mistake by nominating the category for the beloved Amelia Earhart first. The Category:Monuments and memorials by person tree has subcategories that consist of only actual memorials (which should be kept), categories like this one of things merely named after a person (which should be deleted IMO), and the vast majority are a blend (which should be purged). That situation doesn't lend itself to a mass nomination since they need to be individually considered. There are now 4 other open deletion nominations in CFD and at least 1 previous discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is not the "beloved" that bothers me. I have been doing some work on memorial-related categories, though I have not created any of them my self. I don't find "shared name" as a convincing argument to delete categories concerning works dedicated to specific individuals. Usually these works are specifically part of the person's legacy. Dimadick (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To elaborate further: I sincerely appreciate and commend you for your efforts to be fair and balanced in your CFD presentations, most of which I've supported, as you know. However, like I said above, I really think the standard you're applying here is way too narrow. It's just plain wrong to characterize most of these items as merely cases of "shared names" -- and then argue that they are therefore not to be regarded as legitimate monuments or memorials. In the great majority of items that I've looked at that simply is not the case. To the contrary, as a rule they were intended as genuine expressions of high regard for the individual.
To illustrate, consider the following excerpts pertaining to Amelia Earhart:
From USNS Amelia Earhart (a naval ship): "In early 2007, Alex Mandel along with members of the Amelia Earhart Society (AES) and Amelia Earhart Research Association (AERA) successfully petitioned the naming of the ship. // At 9 p.m. 6 April 2008, a ceremony was held to christen the Amelia Earhart, with the honors of breaking the traditional bottle of champagne given to Amelia Earhart's closest living relative, niece Amy Kleppner."
From Amelia Earhart Memorial Bridge (in Atchison, Kansas): "The bridge was renamed for aviator Amelia Earhart, a native of Atchison, in 1997 to honor the centennial of her birth in Atchison. The illumination along the trusses and xenon spotlights that shine straight up into the sky from the top of the bridge's two peaks were installed and debuted during the Amelia Earhart Centennial Celebration on July 24, 1997."
We're fortunate to have those kinds of details in the two articles I quoted from. I rather suspect that many if not most articles won't provide such details. But that doesn't mean that the items in question were not sincere expressions of regard. And the absence of such details certainly should not be construed as de facto evidence that they are not "legimate" monuments or memorials.
Lastly, I don't think it's helpful to deal with these categories on a piece-meal basis. We really should have some sort of centralized discussion that will hopefully produce agreement & guidance on the core issue of what constitutes a "legimate" monument or memorial. Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thank you both for the more detailed answer to clarify your concerns beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Obviously when a ship or mountain or a bridge is named ofter someone is not a coincidence and it's meant as a legacy to remember a person that will involve a speech at the opening and often a plaque and such recognition is often either included as a section in the bio article as a separate list. I thought that the WP:SHAREDNAME guidele did reflect a clear concensus for individual articles not to be defined/categorized in this way but let me hold off on further nominations in this tree until this nominaton closes to make sure. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read it. Looks like almost half the articles in Category:Libraries in Los Angeles are named after someone: Washington Irving Branch, John Muir Branch Library, Robert Louis Stevenson Branch Library, et al and I would guess they all have a bust, plaque, display case, or painting of their namesake in the lobby. So I also see potential broader implications to this discussion so I added a neutral notice here. I'm open to moving the whole conversation to that page if that brings consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some clear guidance for this whole category tree would be welcome. My own view is that we should only categorize something as a memorial if it was created specifically as a memorial (e.g. a statue); not things such as mountains, ships and dams (although wherever the line is drawn there are likely to be some borderline cases). DexDor (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these aren't monuments and memorials established to commemorate Amelia Earhart, they are just random things bearing her name. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still SHAREDNAME applies. The appropriate course (as I said) is to listify in the bio-article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ships are memorials, coins and stamps are memorials. This category is fine and consistent with many other categories listing honors for individuals. Why are such categories even under threat of deletion? Randy Kryn (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2019 (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:Places named after Thomas Jefferson[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 19#Category:Places named after Thomas Jefferson

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_11&oldid=1136462340"