The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:University of Alabama athletics
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.
Support Rename to
Category:Alabama Crimson Tide My estimate is also 50-50 on including the word "athletics", but I prefer to match to the title of the parent article. We should address the "athletic" issue across the board in a separate discussion.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:43, 4 September 2009 (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:Closed hospitals in London
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Closed psychiatric hospitals in England
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Philosophical concepts in literature
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I would argue that none of the contents match the category name. The Stock characters subcat is clearly mis-categorized here, IMO. I would also suggest that the Holy Grail category is primarily a religious and mystical concept/entity, rather than a philosophical concept, per se. The three articles categorized here include a) two fictional elements from the Lemony Snickets books and b)
Hermetics, which is a literary and linguistic term for a writing style, not a philosophical concept. When one disregards the miscategorized subcats and articles, I for one believe what we have here is an empty category. And while I do see that a popcat had been added to the category page, there is such a profusion of "themes/subjects in works" categories that I think we need to be rigorous about weeding out the ambiguous ones. Literature addresses all philosophical concepts. There is no meaningful way to separate them out here, I believe.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:27, 28 August 2009 (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:Recipients of the Conspicuous Service Cross
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Canadian medal recipients
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to bring these into line with conventional category names for recipients of military/civil awards and decorations. --Xdamrtalk15:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, at present there is only one
Meritorious Service Decoration article. Off the top of my head I can't think of any more identically named medals (though it may be possible that one or more foreign-language awards may translate to that name). Per usual practice therefore, in the absence of any other medals of the same name, 'Canada' seems to be superfluous. --Xdamrtalk12:43, 31 August 2009 (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:Jewish footballers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. There is nothing about being a footballer that makes being Jewish noteworthy: there is nothing about being Jewish that makes it noteworthy that someone from within that religion becomes a footballer. We don't have articles for Christian/Muslim/Agnostic/Atheist footballers, nor should we.
Kevin McE (
talk)
14:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep per outcome of previous discussions. Not to mention that we were pretty fed up with all "Jewish" nominations. Was that just one month ago?
Debresser (
talk)
22:56, 29 August 2009 (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:Pakistani magicians
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Self-hating Jews
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
If the category is a redlink, all you need to do is remove it from the articles. No need to create and go through a CFD for a non-existent category.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:38, 28 August 2009 (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.
I defiance of the request not to add any comments here, I'd like to say something and ask something. 1. Indeed the nominator should just have deleted a redlinked category as per an explicit guideline somewhere on
wp:cat. 2. Who were in this category? You may anser on my talkpage.
Debresser (
talk)
22:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I would suggest that the IP editor be given an explanation for this action. These seemed good faith changes rather than the all-too-common libelling of left-leaning Jews.--
Peter cohen (
talk)
14:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Category:Reamonn CD covers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:British ballads
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.
Delete The "Category:Traditional ballads" is enough for traditional ones, & plain "ballads" includes '000s of modern commercial work, with a vague definition.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- This category tree certainly requires work, but this is not the right solution. Many Scottish ballads recount events in the lawless Scottish marches in the period before the formation of a single British kingdom. Otherwise, there should be a distinction between a ballad and an English folk song, in that a folk song should have descended in purely oral tradition, whereas an English ballad was written and published by some one and circulated as a pamphlet or handbill. I think the solution is to make the present category a parent for
Category:English ballads and
Category:Scottish ballads (though they are not quite the same thing) with a parallel
Category:Irish ballads. The contents of
Category:Traditional ballads then need to be distributed. The distinction between ballads and folksongs may be too fine, but that needs to be discussed properly, which can hardly be done here. The collectors of the
English Folk Dance and Song Society were specifically not interested in collecting Victorian (published) ballads, so that it would seem that there is a real distinction.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:15, 31 August 2009 (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:Indigenous inhabitant people in Hong Kong
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think this category is pretty bizarre, especially in its vague wording. It could apply to a large segment of the population of Hong Kong for no particular reason. Category tagged.
Rms125a@hotmail.com (
talk)
03:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -- There is a potential distinction between those whose ancestors came from Hong Kong and a (probably larger) group who came from other parts of China. I believe those from the New Territories also to be an identifiable subgroup. However, I presume there has been a lot of intermarriage, so that the category may not in fact be a useful one. If retained, it needs to be better defined. However, I am English and not an expert on this. Can some one list this on a Hong Kong related page, so that we get comments from those who really know the subject.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Though the article for this category of people -
Indigenous inhabitant - needs a lot of work, this is a category of people that is legally recognised by Hong Kong law (see Article 40 of Chapter III of the Basic Law -
[2]). In other words, this category is neither bizarre nor vague.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs)
04:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
The same source
[3] cited by
User:HongQiGong goes to great lengths to define "permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region", but has little to say about indigenous inhabitants. With the factors of intermarriage and migration, how can we definitively know who is and is not "indigenous"?
Rms125a@hotmail.com (
talk)
22:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
That is a great question for
Talk:Indigenous inhabitant and the various articles that have been thus categorised, but not a reason to delete the category in the face of the fact that it is a legally recognised categorisation in Hong Kong law. This categorisation is not invented by WP. It is invented by Hong Kong law. If Hong Kong law is vague on this subject matter, that is reason to improve the article on the subject matter and research if articles thus categorised here on WP should actually be categorised so. It is not reason to delete the category.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs)
06:09, 3 September 2009 (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:Oregon beauty pageant contestants
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.
Categorisation by participation in a contest is
overategorisation. However in this case the category in question is being used to categorise winners, not merely participants. That being the case, the category should be renamed accordingly. I am content for this category to be immediately renominated should any editors wish to query this categorisation on the basis of state competitions.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I think this is OCAT. If we categorize by participation in any beauty pageant we are clearly not categorizing by defining characteristics.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not really sure what the best way to characterize these ladies is, and I don't really have a strong preference. But there is certainly a natural category in there. There aren't that many notable pageants, I don't think...and those who win any of them share the quality of being part of the various Oregon-based pageants (several of which are affiliated with one another).
Delete. Speaking from the UK point of view. I can see a need for categories about the national competitions, but not for state competitions. Categories (and articles) should be about achievement (or notability); merely entering a competition is irrelevant. A quick look at the articles suggests that
Danijela Krstić should be deleted (does not seem to be notable); also
Jodi Ann Paterson (does not appear to achieved anything).
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
07:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Propose alternative cat structure: Sorry, I should have been clearer. Every person currently in the category is the winner of a statewide pageant. Certainly merely competing would give no automatic claim to notability. I'm not sure whether winning does, either; I'm not really familiar with how much news coverage a typical
Miss Oregon Teen USA, for instance, gets; such winners may often fail
WP:V or
WP:NOTE. In the examples given, I tend to agree about
Danijela Krstić (though further sources may reveal her to be notable); but
Jodi Ann Paterson was a Playmate of the Year, clearly notable.
Ok, I can live with a category for pageant winners, but I still don't think that is a matter of notability (at state level that is). I do agree that there should be lists of these people with a brief bio.
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
And what's your thinking on simply renaming the cat to "Oregon beauty pageant winners" or "…title holders", or creating separate cats for each pageant? Once again, doing such a rename would not exclude any entry from the category; every woman currently listed (or anticipated to be listed) is a winner, not merely a contestant, of the pageant in question. -
Pete (
talk)
22:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - separation out to the state level is normal and often accepted (see
here where subcats can be used to break up large categories, as well as the alternate where the state is an integral part of the characteristic as the state is where the pageant was won, which in both cases applies here). Cats have absolutely nothing to do with notability. Person from the City of Foo, is not notable, but the people in there are supposedly notable. If people in a cat are not notable, then that is a separate issue dealt with in those individual articles (for instance Krstić I think is quite notable due to the
press coverage of her/father's immigration status along with the beauty portion; remember that
notability is not importance, just be noticed by the media). Notability is not dealt with at the category level. Notability only concerns whether or not we have an article on the topic, not whether we can cover something somewhere or even have a category. Most winners of a major state level beauty contest are going to pass
WP:BIO as there is going to be mentions in the main state paper(s) as well as the local newspaper(s) when they win, and how they fair at the national contest, plus in more modern times the local TV stations will also have content available online. All of this means they usually pass
WP:NOTE/
WP:BIO, as notability is not international notability, as a small percentage of topics out of the 3,000,000 Wikipedia articles would pass for world-wide notability (for instance I have no idea who the mayor of London is, assuming they have a mayor, and I doubt too many people in China do either, but he/she is still notable).
Aboutmovies (
talk)
21:46, 3 September 2009 (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:Books about the 2001 War in Afghanistan
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the parent category,
Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–present); in the case of the prisoners of war category, a rename is also needed in order to clarify to which Afghanistan War (see
War in Afghanistan) the category applies. Note that my proposal does not involve using an
en dash after "2001", even though the parent category does include an en dash, since past CfD discussions suggest that there is no consensus to use en dashes in category titles instead of regular dashes. (All category creators notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)00:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename This would seem uncontroversial to me, as I can see it is part of a larger process of uncontroversial article movements being carried out by the nominator to achieve consistency among articles related to an ultimate parent article, the
War in Afghanistan (2001–present) itself. Further, as the category creator, I had originally named it to conform to a parent article (
Opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War) that has already been moved for the sake of this consistency process, and I see no reason to not continue this process to conclusion.--
Cast (
talk)
00:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
That would probably require a change at the level of the parent category or the main article, both of which use "–present", but I can't think of an appropriate replacement. I wonder when the time will come that we can replace "present" with an actual end year... –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)06:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator. I am against the use of special dashes in names of articles and categories in general. Isn't there any guideline on this account? If there is, please drop me a note on my talkpage.
Debresser (
talk)
22:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I think that "post 2001 Afghanistan conflict" also would become obsolete at some point, such as when a new conflict begins in Afghanistan or when the current conflict enters a new phase (e.g. ISAF troops withdraw). –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)17:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. I am not happy with the '-present' but I don't see a better alternative so far. So let's change to something better then what we have today and see if a solution to my concern appears.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:University of Alabama athletics
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.
Support Rename to
Category:Alabama Crimson Tide My estimate is also 50-50 on including the word "athletics", but I prefer to match to the title of the parent article. We should address the "athletic" issue across the board in a separate discussion.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:43, 4 September 2009 (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:Closed hospitals in London
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Closed psychiatric hospitals in England
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Philosophical concepts in literature
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I would argue that none of the contents match the category name. The Stock characters subcat is clearly mis-categorized here, IMO. I would also suggest that the Holy Grail category is primarily a religious and mystical concept/entity, rather than a philosophical concept, per se. The three articles categorized here include a) two fictional elements from the Lemony Snickets books and b)
Hermetics, which is a literary and linguistic term for a writing style, not a philosophical concept. When one disregards the miscategorized subcats and articles, I for one believe what we have here is an empty category. And while I do see that a popcat had been added to the category page, there is such a profusion of "themes/subjects in works" categories that I think we need to be rigorous about weeding out the ambiguous ones. Literature addresses all philosophical concepts. There is no meaningful way to separate them out here, I believe.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:27, 28 August 2009 (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:Recipients of the Conspicuous Service Cross
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Canadian medal recipients
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to bring these into line with conventional category names for recipients of military/civil awards and decorations. --Xdamrtalk15:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, at present there is only one
Meritorious Service Decoration article. Off the top of my head I can't think of any more identically named medals (though it may be possible that one or more foreign-language awards may translate to that name). Per usual practice therefore, in the absence of any other medals of the same name, 'Canada' seems to be superfluous. --Xdamrtalk12:43, 31 August 2009 (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:Jewish footballers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. There is nothing about being a footballer that makes being Jewish noteworthy: there is nothing about being Jewish that makes it noteworthy that someone from within that religion becomes a footballer. We don't have articles for Christian/Muslim/Agnostic/Atheist footballers, nor should we.
Kevin McE (
talk)
14:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep per outcome of previous discussions. Not to mention that we were pretty fed up with all "Jewish" nominations. Was that just one month ago?
Debresser (
talk)
22:56, 29 August 2009 (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:Pakistani magicians
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Self-hating Jews
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
If the category is a redlink, all you need to do is remove it from the articles. No need to create and go through a CFD for a non-existent category.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:38, 28 August 2009 (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.
I defiance of the request not to add any comments here, I'd like to say something and ask something. 1. Indeed the nominator should just have deleted a redlinked category as per an explicit guideline somewhere on
wp:cat. 2. Who were in this category? You may anser on my talkpage.
Debresser (
talk)
22:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I would suggest that the IP editor be given an explanation for this action. These seemed good faith changes rather than the all-too-common libelling of left-leaning Jews.--
Peter cohen (
talk)
14:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Category:Reamonn CD covers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:British ballads
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.
Delete The "Category:Traditional ballads" is enough for traditional ones, & plain "ballads" includes '000s of modern commercial work, with a vague definition.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- This category tree certainly requires work, but this is not the right solution. Many Scottish ballads recount events in the lawless Scottish marches in the period before the formation of a single British kingdom. Otherwise, there should be a distinction between a ballad and an English folk song, in that a folk song should have descended in purely oral tradition, whereas an English ballad was written and published by some one and circulated as a pamphlet or handbill. I think the solution is to make the present category a parent for
Category:English ballads and
Category:Scottish ballads (though they are not quite the same thing) with a parallel
Category:Irish ballads. The contents of
Category:Traditional ballads then need to be distributed. The distinction between ballads and folksongs may be too fine, but that needs to be discussed properly, which can hardly be done here. The collectors of the
English Folk Dance and Song Society were specifically not interested in collecting Victorian (published) ballads, so that it would seem that there is a real distinction.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:15, 31 August 2009 (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:Indigenous inhabitant people in Hong Kong
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think this category is pretty bizarre, especially in its vague wording. It could apply to a large segment of the population of Hong Kong for no particular reason. Category tagged.
Rms125a@hotmail.com (
talk)
03:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -- There is a potential distinction between those whose ancestors came from Hong Kong and a (probably larger) group who came from other parts of China. I believe those from the New Territories also to be an identifiable subgroup. However, I presume there has been a lot of intermarriage, so that the category may not in fact be a useful one. If retained, it needs to be better defined. However, I am English and not an expert on this. Can some one list this on a Hong Kong related page, so that we get comments from those who really know the subject.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Though the article for this category of people -
Indigenous inhabitant - needs a lot of work, this is a category of people that is legally recognised by Hong Kong law (see Article 40 of Chapter III of the Basic Law -
[2]). In other words, this category is neither bizarre nor vague.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs)
04:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
The same source
[3] cited by
User:HongQiGong goes to great lengths to define "permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region", but has little to say about indigenous inhabitants. With the factors of intermarriage and migration, how can we definitively know who is and is not "indigenous"?
Rms125a@hotmail.com (
talk)
22:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
That is a great question for
Talk:Indigenous inhabitant and the various articles that have been thus categorised, but not a reason to delete the category in the face of the fact that it is a legally recognised categorisation in Hong Kong law. This categorisation is not invented by WP. It is invented by Hong Kong law. If Hong Kong law is vague on this subject matter, that is reason to improve the article on the subject matter and research if articles thus categorised here on WP should actually be categorised so. It is not reason to delete the category.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs)
06:09, 3 September 2009 (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:Oregon beauty pageant contestants
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.
Categorisation by participation in a contest is
overategorisation. However in this case the category in question is being used to categorise winners, not merely participants. That being the case, the category should be renamed accordingly. I am content for this category to be immediately renominated should any editors wish to query this categorisation on the basis of state competitions.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I think this is OCAT. If we categorize by participation in any beauty pageant we are clearly not categorizing by defining characteristics.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not really sure what the best way to characterize these ladies is, and I don't really have a strong preference. But there is certainly a natural category in there. There aren't that many notable pageants, I don't think...and those who win any of them share the quality of being part of the various Oregon-based pageants (several of which are affiliated with one another).
Delete. Speaking from the UK point of view. I can see a need for categories about the national competitions, but not for state competitions. Categories (and articles) should be about achievement (or notability); merely entering a competition is irrelevant. A quick look at the articles suggests that
Danijela Krstić should be deleted (does not seem to be notable); also
Jodi Ann Paterson (does not appear to achieved anything).
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
07:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Propose alternative cat structure: Sorry, I should have been clearer. Every person currently in the category is the winner of a statewide pageant. Certainly merely competing would give no automatic claim to notability. I'm not sure whether winning does, either; I'm not really familiar with how much news coverage a typical
Miss Oregon Teen USA, for instance, gets; such winners may often fail
WP:V or
WP:NOTE. In the examples given, I tend to agree about
Danijela Krstić (though further sources may reveal her to be notable); but
Jodi Ann Paterson was a Playmate of the Year, clearly notable.
Ok, I can live with a category for pageant winners, but I still don't think that is a matter of notability (at state level that is). I do agree that there should be lists of these people with a brief bio.
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
And what's your thinking on simply renaming the cat to "Oregon beauty pageant winners" or "…title holders", or creating separate cats for each pageant? Once again, doing such a rename would not exclude any entry from the category; every woman currently listed (or anticipated to be listed) is a winner, not merely a contestant, of the pageant in question. -
Pete (
talk)
22:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - separation out to the state level is normal and often accepted (see
here where subcats can be used to break up large categories, as well as the alternate where the state is an integral part of the characteristic as the state is where the pageant was won, which in both cases applies here). Cats have absolutely nothing to do with notability. Person from the City of Foo, is not notable, but the people in there are supposedly notable. If people in a cat are not notable, then that is a separate issue dealt with in those individual articles (for instance Krstić I think is quite notable due to the
press coverage of her/father's immigration status along with the beauty portion; remember that
notability is not importance, just be noticed by the media). Notability is not dealt with at the category level. Notability only concerns whether or not we have an article on the topic, not whether we can cover something somewhere or even have a category. Most winners of a major state level beauty contest are going to pass
WP:BIO as there is going to be mentions in the main state paper(s) as well as the local newspaper(s) when they win, and how they fair at the national contest, plus in more modern times the local TV stations will also have content available online. All of this means they usually pass
WP:NOTE/
WP:BIO, as notability is not international notability, as a small percentage of topics out of the 3,000,000 Wikipedia articles would pass for world-wide notability (for instance I have no idea who the mayor of London is, assuming they have a mayor, and I doubt too many people in China do either, but he/she is still notable).
Aboutmovies (
talk)
21:46, 3 September 2009 (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:Books about the 2001 War in Afghanistan
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the parent category,
Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–present); in the case of the prisoners of war category, a rename is also needed in order to clarify to which Afghanistan War (see
War in Afghanistan) the category applies. Note that my proposal does not involve using an
en dash after "2001", even though the parent category does include an en dash, since past CfD discussions suggest that there is no consensus to use en dashes in category titles instead of regular dashes. (All category creators notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)00:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename This would seem uncontroversial to me, as I can see it is part of a larger process of uncontroversial article movements being carried out by the nominator to achieve consistency among articles related to an ultimate parent article, the
War in Afghanistan (2001–present) itself. Further, as the category creator, I had originally named it to conform to a parent article (
Opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War) that has already been moved for the sake of this consistency process, and I see no reason to not continue this process to conclusion.--
Cast (
talk)
00:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
That would probably require a change at the level of the parent category or the main article, both of which use "–present", but I can't think of an appropriate replacement. I wonder when the time will come that we can replace "present" with an actual end year... –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)06:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator. I am against the use of special dashes in names of articles and categories in general. Isn't there any guideline on this account? If there is, please drop me a note on my talkpage.
Debresser (
talk)
22:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I think that "post 2001 Afghanistan conflict" also would become obsolete at some point, such as when a new conflict begins in Afghanistan or when the current conflict enters a new phase (e.g. ISAF troops withdraw). –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)17:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. I am not happy with the '-present' but I don't see a better alternative so far. So let's change to something better then what we have today and see if a solution to my concern appears.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:22, 4 September 2009 (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.