Category:Jewish historians
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus.
Kbdank71 (
talk)
15:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Jewish historians (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete following the deletion of
Category:Jewish academics (as non-notable intersection of religion and profession)
in this recent debate; perhaps upmerge to
Category:Historians to be on the safe side.
Bencherlite
Talk
23:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Historians do not work differently based on their nationality/ethnicity, but are categorized this way anyways because of their contribution toward their nation or ethnic group. This category does not even have the location-specific implication of "academics" (i.e. of being at a certain university), and is also in
Category:Jewish scholars, which was not deleted. --
Eliyak
T·
C
16:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Is it being used as a "historians of Judaism" category, or a "historians who are Jewish" category? If the former, perhaps a rename instead is merited to make that clear (possibly also renaming the other sub-cats of
Category:Jewish scholars. If the latter, then in principle it's no different from the deleted "Jewish academics" category.
Bencherlite
Talk
17:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Please forgive me, Bencherlite, but I simply must say that I really don't understand why people persist in treating Jewish categories as though they were nothing more than "religious categories". As as been pointed out so many times, being Jewish is also an ethnicity -- so only those Jewish categories that deal with explicitly religious issues should be treated as such. Regards,
Cgingold
23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC).
reply
- No offence taken (as even though I don't think I've ever had a nomination reason of mine called "absurd" before, I know that's not the same as calling me "absurd"! Incidentally, I don't think I have ever participated in, let alone nominated, a Jewish-related category, but I'm sure you weren't targeting me directly with your comments about "people persistently" etc.) An explanation of how/why this was nominated may help. I was tidying up at
WP:CFDW, where bots and others implement the decisions at CfD, and saw that
Category:Jewish academics had been emptied, save for this sub-cat, and so couldn't be deleted until that had been resolved. I then removed the to-be-deleted category from
Category:Jewish historians, deleted
Category:Jewish academics (which is why my name appears on the deletion log) and then had the "bright idea" that the argument about deleting the parent category of "academics" would also apply to the sub-category of "historians". As I don't keep particular note of the various Jewish-related CfDs, the fact that an earlier CfD on a related topic had closed as "no consensus" didn't register with me. (A "no consensus", of course, means that there is no consensus to keep such a category or to delete it, but simply has the practical result of keeping the status quo). I was going by the immediately related previous discussion, which had closed as "delete". It's not my fault that a validly nominated and discussed prior debate (open for nearly 6 calendar days) was closed as "delete" without such points being made in the course of it.
Bencherlite
Talk
00:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you for the explanation.
Cgingold
10:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - To begin with,
Category:Jewish academics never should have been lumped in with
Category:Latter Day Saint academics under the heading of "Academics by religion". That CFD sailed "under the radar". If I had been able to participate, I would have forcefully reminded people of the point I just made (above) about ethnicity. At the same time, the deletion of that particular category was of little consequence, since according to the closing admin it had only a single article (which was already in one of its sub-cats). So all in all, it's absurd to regard that CFD as a precedent to be cited and used as a basis for other CFDs.
This category is hardly some "random intersection". The attraction of large numbers of Jewish scholars to the field of history is a noteworthy socio-cultural phenomenon. And that is hardly an accident, considering that the keeping of written historical records began several millenia ago by the earlist Jewish scribes, and has been fundamental to preserving Jewish identity and continuity ever since.
While certain editors may feel that ethnic categories such as this should not be permitted, that is in no way the concensus view, as reflected in the
recent CFD for
Category:Jewish scientists. The arguments I made there apply here, as well.
Cgingold
23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep -- why do people keep trying to irrationally chip away at the Jewish categories on Wikipedia, especially when many/most of them contain hundreds of valid entries? --
Wassermann
02:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Wii Zapper games
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus.
Kbdank71 (
talk)
15:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wii Zapper games (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. The Wii Zapper is only a shell used to hold the Wii remote. It's not a required accessory for any game. Any game for the Wii can be used for the Zapper. This appears to be overcategorization as well.
RobJ1981 (
talk)
23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: The design of the object is not in question. Nintendo uses the Wii Zapper "compatibility" for marketing, clearly making some games appropriate for it, and others not. Not all games involve point and click (i.e. shoot). Wii Zapper games are identified as such on the box. The infobox of the games in this category even had the mention in the list of accessories prior to category creation.
Arasaka (
talk)
03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Listify if they are identified as such...
132.205.99.122
20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete no more useful than
Category:Video games requiring a joystick,
Category:Video games requiring a keyboard and other trivial things.
Carlossuarez46
18:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Listify: I agree that the idea is novel, but a list format would be much more appropriate. For example, look at the Guncom. For that, there exists a list. I think it would be much easier to browse through and more practical for the matter at hand.
Zemalia
19:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: While there aren't many titles listed there now, there may be many more in the future. If the category was deleted, it'd require remaking later on; ergo it is a waste of time deleting it.
WorMzy (
talk)
14:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete, empty (the only article it contained was deleted whilst the category was under discussion.
Bencherlite
Talk
00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Outlook (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Created for a
how to guide (
Vacation Messages) for
Microsoft Outlook. I don't see much use for this category on Wikipedia. +
m
t
22:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete!!! This is a "how to," appropriate for a Help system, not for an encyclopedia. I at least fixed it so the category didn't list itself as a parent! The article is sure to be deleted, and then the category will be empty. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Portia1780 (
talk •
contribs)
22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Retrograde categories
Category:Organizations for female writers
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedily deleted as empty by
Orange Mike.
Bencherlite
Talk
07:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose deleting
Category:Organizations for female writers
- Nominator's rationale:
Rename. Delete
Category:Organizations for female writers and Keep
Category:Organizations for women writers This is part of the discussion "women writers" v. "female writers". I believe that "women writer" is the preferred compound noun for this occupation. A google search will show 1,700,000 hits for "women writer" and only 362,000 for "female writer"
Portia1780 (
talk)
21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I've already merged the article back. The old category can be deleted now, if the discussion so chooses.
Portia1780
02:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Done. Don't know the official procedure for closing this. --
Orange Mike |
Talk
05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per nom. This newly created category is duplicative and should not have been created in the first place, as it was only created in furtherance of one editor's POV in an ongoing debate.
Category:Organizations for women writers should have been brought to this page to discuss and resolve the issue. I hope the editor will refrain from such maneuvers in the future.
Cgingold
00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Towers in Business Bay
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
14:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Towers in Business Bay (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete we already have
Category:Skyscrapers in Dubai in which both articles are also categorized. I am unaware of any other categorization of buildings by office park or development, which is probably OCAT, esp. given that there are only 2 articles here, one of which is already nominated for deletion. Probably too small to support such a category.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Comics by author
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus.
Kbdank71 (
talk)
14:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by author to
Category:Comics by creator
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by Al Columbia to
Category:Comics created by Al Columbia
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by Alan Moore to
Category:Comics created by Alan Moore
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by André Franquin to
Category:Comics created by André Franquin
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by Chris Ware to
Category:Comics created by Chris Ware
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by Daniel Clowes to
Category:Comics created by Daniel Clowes
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by Garth Ennis to
Category:Comics created by Garth Ennis
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by Grant Morrison to
Category:Comics created by Grant Morrison
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by Jim Woodring to
Category:Comics created by Jim Woodring
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by Joe Sacco to
Category:Comics created by Joe Sacco
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by Morris to
Category:Comics created by Morris
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by Neil Gaiman to
Category:Comics created by Neil Gaiman
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by Robert Crumb to
Category:Comics created by Robert Crumb
- Propose renaming
Category:Comics by Warren Ellis to
Category:Comics created by Warren Ellis
The "by author" format is misleading and limiting here. According to the current scheme we can't credit artists like
Bob Kane and
Jack Kirby for the comics that they started, and we can’t credit authors like
Stan Lee for the comics that they originated but didn't draw. I maintain that the only thing that's important for our purposes is who created the comic, and sometimes that's one person (like
Category:Comics by Chris Ware) and sometimes it's two (like Lee and Kirby for the
Fantastic Four). It likely won't ever include an inker, a letterer, or an editor. Changing to a "by creator" scheme will make these problems go away.
This discussion is also relevant.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Question - is the intended scope of these categories to be for individual comics titles that are written and drawn by the same person? For instance as noted in the last discussion
Garth Ennis is just a writer. Or are you envisioning categorizing separately by writer and artist?
Otto4711 (
talk)
18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
- And is this categorization to be restricted to articles that are about specific titles (such as Watchmen for instance) or extended to individual characters (such as for instance Spider-Man who's headlined a dozen or more separate titles), and maybe this is something that would lend itself better to templates or lists rather than categories?
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom; who created the comic is the more defining feature for these article than the various people who may take over for longer or shorter times when that person retires, dies, etc.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Comics titles created by Foo and limit to articles about specific titles. The character boxes for comics characters, for example {{superherobox}}, already contain spaces for the creators of the actual characters and for significant creators, for example
Alan Moore, a navtemplate (such as already exists for Moore) and/or in-article list or list article along with being linked through the character boxes will pull together the material in a much less problematic way than trying to categorize who is or isn't significant enough to a particular character to warrant having a Comics created by category tagged onto the article. A character like Superman or Batman who's been re-invented countless times over their fictional histories could easily end up with any number of created by categories which would be category clutter and inaccurate to the point of misleading, not to mention ending up the target of edit wars as people duke out who should or shouldn't be included.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Every comics reader may indeed know that. If we were an encyclopedia for comics readers that would be fine but we are an encyclopedia for people who have never heard of either Seigel or Schuster, let alone having heard of Superman.
Otto4711 (
talk)
04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Everybody who edits the Superman page has heard of Superman. Let's lay out some ground rules in the category header, and put some trust in the editors. Your system puts Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, The Hulk, Spider-Man, and the Fantastic Four outside of its boundaries. That's just not doing the subject matter justice.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
05:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the content of Wikipedia was for anyone who might be interested in it, not just for the people who might edit a particular article. All of the examples that you list have their creators listed in their infoboxes, so anyone who's interested in finding out what (if any) other characters the creator of those characters created can click on the link to the creator's article in the infobox.
Otto4711 (
talk)
06:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I really hate when you try to bait me, Otto. I'm trying to make these categories, which no one had complained about before, a bit more inclusive. You apparently want this debate to be about something else. If so, bring it to my talk page. Meantime, I've given my suggestions, and am tired of this back and forth.--
Mike Selinker
14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- And I really hate it when you fail to assume good faith on my part. I'm not the one who brought up the category structure last week by nominating the Joe Sacco category, but now that it's under discussion I'm going to give my suggestions too. Sorry if you don't like my suggestions but I don't think these categories are a good idea in the way you're envisioning them.
Otto4711
16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comments first... Based on past preformance and the article strctures, limiting the cats isn't going to work. The inclinations have always been to tag anything a writer or artist has had an impact on. Series, issues, and characters. On a lot of articles that will lead to a lot of clutter. Limiting it may aliviate that, but it would mean someone would have to sit on the cats to pull unwanted articles as they are added.
And how it's limited is going to be a problem. Right now the tendancy is for the relavent articles to mix characters and series as often as there being separate articles. And such blended articles are more likely to be under the character, not the series. Limiting to one or the other is going to cause friction. So is which artists and writers get cats.
Looking at it over all, the cats will need constant looking after, lend themselves to clutter, and in a couple of cases have nav boxes in place that bypass the problems. I'm tempted to say Delete the cats in favor of the nav boxes. -
J Greb
16:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Female writers (10th century)
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge all "female" categories into corresponding "women" categories.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Female writers (10th century) (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty. Should be "Women writers (10th century), an existing category with the same scope.
Portia1780 (
talk)
17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Also
Category:Female writers (16th century) >
Category:Women writers (16th century)
Portia1780 (
talk)
18:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Female writers (11th century) >
Category:Women writers (11th century)
-
Category:Female writers (12th century)>
Category:Women writers (12th century)
-
Category:Female writers (13th century)>
Category:Women writers (13th century)
-
Category:Female writers (14th century)>
Category:Women writers (14th century)
-
Category:Female writers (15th century) >
Category:Women writers (15th century)
-
Category:Female writers (17th century) >
Category:Women writers (17th century)
-
Category:Female writers (18th century) >
Category:Women writers (18th century)
-
Category:Female writers (19th century) >
Category:Women writers (19th century)
-
Category:Female writers (20th century) >
Category:Women writers (20th century)
-
Category:Female writers by historical period>
Category:Women writers by historical period
-
Category:Female writers by century>
Category:Women writers by century —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Portia1780 (
talk •
contribs)
21:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- and also
Category:Female writers >
Category:Women writers (already tagged but not on this list)
Bencherlite
Talk
00:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - Err, just to fill in the context for discussion: An existing tree of
Category:Women writers is well-established (and previously defended and well-supported at CFD & DRV). The term "women writers" was advisedly chosen based on prevalence of that phrase as opposed to "female writers"; Portia1780 pointed out at
Category talk:Women writers that it is better thought of as a compound noun than as an adjective+noun. Portia1780 also cited Ghits which overwhelmingly demonstrate popularity of "women writers" phrase over "female writers". Editor
User:Matthew Proctor posted months ago suggesting that FW was the better term on grammar considerations; receiving no answer for a long time he recently began a large-scale move/redirect project, which caused multiple editors to ping him on
his talk page. --
Lquilter (
talk)
17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep "Women writers" tree and delete/merge "Female writers" tree. Although I ordinarily like proper grammar, I am swayed by Portia1780's compound noun point and common usage point. --
Lquilter (
talk)
17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge all to women writers per both above.
Johnbod (
talk)
19:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Women writers, you mean? --
Lquilter (
talk)
20:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Of course
- Seeing as that's part of the rationale behind my original (however misguided, as I now see) rename, I've made a proposal
here on just that. --
Matthew Proctor
06:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Aberdeen IronBirds alumni
Category:Comic book navbox templates
Category:Political parties by ideology
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all.
Bencherlite
Talk
00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Various sub-subcats of
Category:Political parties by ideology (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Various subcats proposed for renaming in order to get a more constistent naming scheme.
Soman (
talk)
11:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
A renaming might be in order, but I certainly think deleting them all would be a mistake. they serve their respective purposes well, and they would just be recreated. Maybe socialist and far right/fascist should be them uniform designation of some of them--
Dudeman5685 (
talk)
17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename all. I like it when a more limited adjective takes the place of a broader adjective as the category content narrows. Here, the
Category:Political parties in France gets the eminently logical subcategory
Category:Monarchist parties in France. That's elegant. (I don't know about changing
Category:Canadian socialist organizations to
Category:Socialist parties in Canada, though. Those don't all look like parties to me.)--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
18:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment, I think we should employ a rather broad definition of the term 'party' here. Even if some of the groups included are not labelled as parties in their names, they are party-like organisations. --
Soman (
talk)
19:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I think if it doesn't field candidates, it's probably not a political party.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- This is a slighly off-topic discussion, but I would disagree. The essential definition of a political party lies in its role to aggregate political interest, not in candidacies. --
Soman (
talk)
07:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I have never heard of that use of "political party." Wouldn't that simply be a
Political organization? --
Eliyak
T·
C
16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- 'Political organization' is a far more broader concept, involving advocacy and lobbying groups, etc.. The delimiations are not always clear, but the defining characteristic cannot be candidacies. Many parties never run in elections at all (they might, for example, be banned or clandestine for some other reason), but work through other methods to achieve their goals. I'm not really happy with the state of the
political party article (older versions like
[1] had more clear defintions). I'll try to address the issue at some point in that article. --
Soman
19:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename all. Proposed rename looks good, consistent. --
Martin Wisse (
talk)
18:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename all.
Masterpiece2000 (
talk)
04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Support only when the rename does not change "organizations" to "parties." --
Eliyak
T·
C
16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Indian nationalist political parties
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus.
Kbdank71 (
talk)
14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Indian nationalist political parties (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This category would be extremly difficult to delimitate in a useful and correct way. The term Nationalism doesn't function in the same way in Indian politics as in Western Europe, and thus it becomes a quite odd subcat to 'Nationalist parties'. At present, the cat only includes Hindu nationalist parties, whose concept of nationhood is contrary to the secular-oriented Indian nationalism (i.e. which favours Indian nationality over ethnic, linguistic, religious affiliations) historically promoted by the Indian National Congress.
Soman (
talk)
11:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
Keep A perfectly valid category. If at present the cat has only some nationalist parties please feel free to add to it other Indian nationalist parties however that can be ground for deletion.
Shyamsunder
20:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)}}}
reply
- Comment, the problem is that 'nationalism' is not a defining criteria for political parties in India. In a broad sense, virtually all major political parties are nationalist. Also there is the issue of competing national projects, is say the
Mizo National Front an 'Indian nationalist party'? --
Soman
10:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus.
Kbdank71 (
talk)
14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Labour parties (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This is categorization by name, not ideological orientation. There are already communist, socialist and social democratic party categories.
Soman (
talk)
11:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- comment before this is deleted, each article needs to checked and the party placed in its correct ideological category. Just deletion leaves these articles as orphans outside their individual country's categories.
Hmains (
talk)
04:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment note that most articles on political parties are only indexed by country. Those articles in this category that fit into another existing category should of course be categorized there. --
Soman
15:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment in what sense is it coherent? If that sense is identical to the delimination of the
Category:Social democratic parties, then this cat is superfluos. --
Soman
10:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I would have said
Category:Social democratic parties was the more dubious category. The Labour parties all, I think, have trade union origins, whereas the social democrats are much vaguer.
Johnbod
21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- That's what I wasn't sure about - whether they all had trade union origins or not. If so, then it's categorizing by historical origin which seems reasonable to me. --
Lquilter (
talk)
21:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The assertion of a historical connection between the various parties in various nations is unsupported. If this connection exists then it needs to be set forth in an article with reliable sources, not a category.
Otto4711 (
talk)
15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Authoritarian political parties
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was relisted on dec 12.
Kbdank71 (
talk)
15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Authoritarian political parties (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Criteria for inclusion will always be highly subjective and pov-ish.
Soman (
talk)
11:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Well, I was actually considering adding this to
Sanacja. Some category for the for the
single party or
The Party (politics) would be useful. We have
Category:Parties of single-party systems, but what about wannabies? Parties who support authoritarianism, may have excessive parties, but are no monopolies? --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |
talk
18:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment the problem lies in delimitation. No state is 100% free (by its nature as an organ holding repressive power), nor is any state 100% unfree (by the sheer fact that any regime, even dictatorship, needs some degree of popular legitimacy). Single-party system parties is a valid cat, cause its delimitation is based on more or less formalized one-party systems. 'Authoritarian' is highly dubious criteria. --
Soman (
talk)
15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Municipalities in Tindouf Province
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete as empty at the end of the discussion, without prejudice to recreation if necessary.
Bencherlite
Talk
00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Municipalities in Tindouf Province (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Obseleted by
Category:Tindouf Province.
escondites
10:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Not really, actually..."Municipalities in X Province" is a perfectly valid subcategory to have, as a province category very often should contain more than just articles about municipalities. Admittedly I'm not overly familiar with how thorough our coverage of Algerian topics is at present, but for Canadian provinces, American states, Australian states, and on and so forth, the dedicated province or state category has a subcat for its municipalities. Keep both, with municipalities as a subcat of the other, unless our coverage of Algeria really is so poor that there's nothing else to file in the province categories anyway. And if that's the case, then we really need to improve our coverage rather than pruning our categories.
Bearcat
09:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 women fashion designers
Category:Caucasian American rappers
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete.
Bencherlite
Talk
00:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Caucasian American rappers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Currently only has one entry (Eminem) and is not likely to grow anytime soon.
Poeloq (
talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Poeloq (
talk)
02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per discussion of
April 12th. --
Prove It
(talk)
02:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per ProveIt. (What,
Vanilla Ice wasn't so categorized? He's a veritable caucasian pioneer in the genre ... )
Snocrates
02:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I think there has actually been a few white rappers. (Looking it up at WP I find
Everlast (musician), who I've heard of, plus
Vinnie Paz (rapper) and
Necro (rapper)) Still it's unwise to divide this way. It might make more sense to be specific like "Irish American rappers" or something. Although whites seem to be more in the overall
Hip hop world than rap specifically.--
T. Anthony (
talk)
04:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, overcategorization by race/ethnicity. --
Soman (
talk)
10:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per above. We've seen versions of this one before.
Doczilla (
talk)
12:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete OCAT by race/ethnicity and occupation.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- We deleted this when it was called "White rappers", didn't we? Delete again, non-encyclopedic
WP:CATGRS violation.
Bearcat
09:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:American Academy of Arts and Sciences
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge to
Category:Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Bencherlite
Talk
00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:American Academy of Arts and Sciences (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
reply
Rename to
Category:Members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences to better reflect the actual usage of the category. (Similar to, for example,
Category:Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Sciences.) (Notified creator with {{
cfd-notify}})
Cgingold (
talk)
19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Listify and Delete -
overcategorization by award or honor. As a side note, I see that yet again we have a main article for an award that asserts without citation that this award is second only to the Nobel prize in terms of prestige. This must be the fifth award so claimed that's come up here in the last few months.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I tend to agree that national Academy memberships, while a signal honor that is usually a strong sign of notability, are rarely defining, per se. However, listifying gives me pause because membership is usually numerous, and since many people will be so involved, the list/articles are quite lengthy. --
Lquilter (
talk)
14:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Change proposal to Merge to
Category:Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. I just discovered that we have a parent
Category:Members of learned societies which has 30 sub-cats, among them
Category:Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Since that already exists, I think it makes more sense to make use of it rather than create a new and duplicative
Category:Members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In addition, it should be noted that the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences is fully on a par with the other groups in
Category:Members of learned societies, so
Category:American Academy of Arts and Sciences should not be singled out for deletion. And lastly, the parent cats of
Category:American Academy of Arts and Sciences should be added to
Category:Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, since it currently is only in the aforementioned
Category:Members of learned societies.
Cgingold (
talk)
13:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Bencherlite
Talk
00:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Relisted given nominator's change of view during the discussion, and lack of comments thereupon.
reply
- Merge per revised nom.
Johnbod (
talk)
03:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per Cgingold to get the name right, but I'm not happy with the state of affairs. National Academies membership is significant (I said earlier that I thought it was not defining; but that's a bare judgment call; it is certainly arguably defining: people will often be introduced as Academy members or that will be an early line in a short bio) and Academy memberships are so large that lists are not friendly. But particularly notable people will often be in multiple Academies and it leads to clutter. --
Lquilter (
talk)
04:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I agree that at 4,000 ordinary, plus 600 honourary (foreign+celebs) members, it might potentially get very large, but so far 11 months = 51 members here. I wouldn't mind excluding the honourary members completely, which might help - if they can be distinguished - see recent Freemen of City of London debate.
Johnbod (
talk)
09:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- They probably all, or most, are notable and should have articles. It's not just this academy, either; if it were only one academy it probably wouldn't even be as big a deal. But as WP gets better populated with Academies and academics/scholars, there will be lots of these at tghe bottom of many notable people. Much like the institutional affiliations categories now. (And I *wish* we could get rid of those. How many people, after death, are going to be known as a "University of X faculty member"? precious few. ... maybe that future-history perspective is what we should take on these.) --
Lquilter (
talk)
17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.