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.
Comment. Why are these not nominated as empty speedy deletes? I have no problem doing the deletes if someone will close these discussions. Just give me the word.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:45, 21 January 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.
Unused NA-Class articles categories
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.
Unused Non-article pages categories
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:Pocket PC software
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. While there is agreement that a rename is in order, there is no agreement as to what. I recommend renominating this (yet again).
Kbdank7115:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: As multiple operating systems (such as
Linux) can be run on the
Pocket PC hardware platform, it should be clarified that software here is simply "Windows Mobile Professional" software. Also, the term "Pocket PC" which was coined by Microsoft is now referred to as a "Windows Mobile Professional device" or "Windows Mobile Classic device", so it's outdated.
Brianreading (
talk)
21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Point of information. Not all Windows Mobile software works across all versions of Windows Mobile. There are plenty of pieces of software that only work on Windows Mobile Professional, but don't on Windows Mobile Standard. Therefore, you may want to rethink your opposition based on that piece of logic.
Brianreading (
talk)
06:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Point of infomation. I have created
Category:Windows Mobile Standard software,
Category:Microsoft Windows CE software could probably be created seeing as how Windows Mobile and Windows CE are certainly not the same thing, nor do they run the same software. A "Microsoft Smartphone" is the same as a "Windows Mobile Standard device". The appropriate category
Category:Windows software already exists as well. Notice how it isn't called "PC software". You're making this extremely confusing though. The bottom line is that a "Pocket PC" is simply a "Windows Mobile Professional device" or "Windows Mobile Classic device", nothing else. This category should not be referring to the hardware, but the OS.
Then you want to subcategorize this as Mobile Pro. Since Pocket PC can refer to either Pro or Standard, or pre-"Mobile". Go ahead and subcategorize things. I still oppose renaming in your manner because it is wrong.
76.66.198.171 (
talk)
05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I hate to sound condescending, but you don't seem to be aware about a lot of background regarding Windows Mobile. Software is backwards compatible from older to newer versions. No need to differentiate software that was released during the time the platform was referred to as "Pocket PC". Hell, I could understand naming it "Windows Mobile Professional and Classic software", but simply leaving it as "Pocket PC software" is simply unwarranted. I really wish we could both get some more input from users.
Brianreading (
talk)
09:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I didn't say leave it as just Pocket PC. Didn't you notice THE VERY START of this thread? Are you saying that all Windows Mobile 6 software will run on Pocket PC 2002? That all new apps are compatible with old OSes?
76.66.198.171 (
talk)
05:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Look. This category is JUST reflective of Pocket PC software. We should use the CURRENT Microsoft naming scheme, not a phased-out one. Now I'm aware you don't like the idea of subcategorization regarding the OS versions, but the fact of the matter is that they're already subcategorized, just named with an outdated name. If you're looking to merge the
Category:Windows Mobile Standard software and
Category:Windows Mobile Professional software categories after renaming it, then fine. But that's a separate issue, and requires a separate nomination. There's no need to oppose the renaming simply because you're for merging the categories. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Brianreading (
talk)
08:55, 24 January 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:Public Key Cryptography
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:Pete Doherty singles
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:Communities of Pembrokeshire
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. Analog to recent renamings. I came across this while setting up Communities in Pembrokeshire and felt it was not right for me to empty the category myself.
Agathoclea (
talk)
16:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
The distinction seems to me to be a parallel one to that between
civil parishes in England and settlements in England: a settlement is the collection of buildings, people, and other amenities that are grouped together as villages, towns and cities, whereas a civil parish is a local government area that may contain (or be contained in) one or more villages, towns, etc. Because there are in certain parts of the England a tendency to have just one village per civil parish, the two are often conflated into a single article, as in
Tarporley, but in other parts of the England, there may be no core village in a civil parish - there may be widely distributed separate houses, as in
Somerford Booths, or there may be more than one village in a civil parish (e.g.,
Haslington. Also, in parts of England, one settlement may contain more than one civil parish (e.g.,
Burton on Trent.) I assume that communities are the equivalent in Wales to civil parishes in England, though I do not know if all the possible variations in their combinations, as outlined previously, occur. Consequently, there may be good reasons to allow for the different things to be represented by different categories.
DDStretch (talk)23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
It seems that the convention is to use "in" rather than "of" for geographical categories. However, I am not convinced that this convention needs to be so rigorously enforced for each type of these categories: some categories that could very reasonably exist for this level of local authority area within the United Kingdom may sound very clumsy using "in"; for example, "Civil parishes in the Isle of Wight" versus "Civil parishes of the Isle of Wight", where "of" seems more accurately descriptive of the matter. The issue then is whether to impose a uniform naming scheme which uses "in" or "of": (a) across the board (e.g., all categories dealing with geographical entities should be the same - either all "X of Y" or "X in Y"), (b) consistent within the same type of category, but not necessarily the same between different types of categories (e.g., "Civil parishes of X", "Communities of X", but "Villages in X"), or (c) different between different instances of use within each type of category (e.g., "Civil parishes in X", "Civil parishes of Y" because it reads better to use "of" with respect to Y than X). I think option c is not uniform enough, but option a may be too uniform so that it forces awkwardness. However, it does seem that the existing convention adopts option a, with the use of "in".
DDStretch (talk)23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge as nom. If we have articles on villages in a Community (equivalent of Civil Parish) with a different name, they can be placed in a category on villages in the county.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I was asked to expand the above comment. I see no objection to a village which has its own community council being categorised both as a village and as a community. However there will be communities containing several villages, where it may be convenient to have an article on each of the villages.
Category:Villages in Pembrokeshire is a legitmate and useful category, which should also be retianed. Real life is too complicated to get everything to fit any pattern perfectly. The point is that we do not need both the categories in the nomination, and they should be merged.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Expansion on my viewpoint: The situation is similar to that in England involving civil parishes, and my comment was meant to suggest that similar ways of proceeding are adopted here. The main features of this are: (a) the "one settlement in a community area" case - have one article about both settlement and community area, and categorize both in "Communities of X" and in "Villages/Towns of X" (b) one dominant village in a community, with other villages in the same community" case: community area and dominant village in one article which is categorized as both "communities of X" and "villages of X", the other villages, if sufficient material exists, is dealt with in articles of their own categorized as "villages of X"; if not their material is subsumed in the article about the dominant village. If two equally-dominant villages exist in a community, have one article solely about the community area and its governane (categorized in the "Communities of X"), and separate articles about each village (categorized as "Villages of X")
DDStretch (talk)13:29, 24 January 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:Video game visual styles
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. In keeping with the other categories in
Category:Video games. Earlier,
User:CaveatLector said, "The 'visuality' of video games extends beyond their graphics." This may be true, but the purpose of this category is only to discuss visual differences of a technical nature—not those with artistic differences.
SharkD (
talk)
06:43, 21 January 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.
Keep They became a quasi-ethnic group (after up to 150 years of almost entirely "marrying-in") when they were forced to leave France. There are plenty of similar categories for Cajuns, Liberian-Americans and so on.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Actually, Huguenots are Huguenots, any French person can join the Protestant church. The Huguenot people originally migrated from what is today Switzerland, to the South of France; after Plymouth Rock was discovered in 1620, Huguenots began leaving France and by 1630 most all had left and ended up settling in the US, England, South Africa, Australia, Canada, etc. --
Mr Accountable (
talk)
16:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This should only be applied to descendents of people who left France and formed an ethno-religious community elsewhere. Like many such communities they were endogamous to a significant extent, and thus retained their identity long after exile from France.
Delete double intersection of ethnicity and religion and of course nothing to tell us what % Huguenot you have to be - Barack Obama is a perfect example: do you really believe he retained his Huguenot identity? That's what all the hoopla was about a few days ago, the inauguration of a Huguenot president that we've been waiting for since the the
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Yeah, what planet are we on, folks.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
03:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't think this category is well-thought through. For one thing, it's a sub-category of
Category:Huguenots but the people in this category are not Huguenots, so it shouldn't be in that parent category. Personally, I don't favour any of the "by descent" categories. They link fairly random people through an event which happened centuries before they were born, and consequently look like an attempt to slip in
WP:TRIVIA and
family trees by categorization.
DrKiernan (
talk)
15:16, 26 January 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:Corvettes
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. While I strongly agree with Neier's note regarding naming conventions, there is the problem of what is the main article called, and the lack of a workable solution to dab categories.
Kbdank7114:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep The existing name is far from "completely" ambiguous. Even car magazines invariable introduce a vehicle as make and model, not just model, and I find it highly doubtful someone editing a Chevy Corvette article would fail to find
Category:Chevrolet Corvette. From the user navigational side, I find it equally unlikely someone interested in the car would enter the bare model name directly, as cars are named after everything from
wild horses to
zodiacal constellations. Besides, do "most people" really think of the car when hearing "Corvette"? This isn't 1975, after all; everyone I know who could afford one owns something German :-).-
choster (
talk)
03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I think most people don't know a Corvette is a ship (or a destroyer or a cruiser, or a frigate, or a sloop, for that matter), so yes, they do think of the car.
76.66.198.171 (
talk)
05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep If this is moved there won't be a category named
Category:Corvettes (or is the nom proposing adding a category redirect as well?). I've added a disambig link at the top of the existing category. Anyone who manages to get to this category who wants the car related category is one click away from where they want to be. Given the article named
Corvette is about the ship, not having the category have the same name seems extremely peculiar. --
Rick Block (
talk)
03:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Categories require maintenance, since ambiguous names are maintenance issues, the dab link is only navigation not upkeep, so patrolling this to keep Corvette car stuff out of it is required.
76.66.198.171 (
talk)
05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Renaming this category does nothing whatsoever to help address this issue (if it is an issue). If it's renamed now and
category:Corvettes is left non-existent, this doesn't prevent someone at some point in the future from adding an article to it. Patrolling it to keep car stuff out is no more work than patrolling it to keep it empty. Actually, keeping it empty is probably more work since any car or ship stuff added in the future would have to be recategorized, whereas now only car stuff is misplaced. --
Rick Block (
talk)
15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Corvettes as a ship type have been around since the 1670s. The Chevrolet Corvette has only been around since 1953. Established useage is therefore in favour of the ship type.
Mjroots (
talk)
11:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose to rename. Main article for the ship is at
Corvette (with strong consensus to stay there as Maralia pointed out above), so it makes little sense for the category to be at a different name. As for the anon's contention that this will require a lot of maintenance: First of all, what category doesn't from time to time? Second, there are only 22 articles and no subcategories for the car's category, with a potential of a new article once, perhaps, every couple of years when a new model come out. In contrast there are 6 subcategories for
Category:Corvettes, with a further 30 sub-subcategories one level down, and even more subcategories farther down. The article tally probably numbers in the hundreds within all of these subcategories, with over a hundred more potential articles for
Flower-class corvettes alone (see all of the
redlinks in {{Flower class corvette}}), just to pick a single example. The categories are already named appropriately. —
Bellhalla (
talk)
11:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Corvette (the ship) is the primary link. I, personally, doubt in other English speaking nations that the car is that well known over the ship. The article also states that the car is named after the ship.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
12:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I personally doubt most people know that corvette is a kind of ship, I think that most people only know of battleship, aircraft carrier and submarine as the only types of warship. Any other classifcation is pushing it. Since car magazines have high circulation rates in English speaking counties, and they frequently review Ferraris, Lambourghinis, Maseratis and Corvettes, and teen boys are frequently car fans, that yes, the American car is likely to be very well known.
76.66.198.171 (
talk)
05:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Where do "teen boys" come into it? I'm a little uncomfortable with privileging a piece of US-specific terminology over a generic technical term...
Shimgray |
talk |
22:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply
You'd have to be a ship enthusiast to know that corvettes as a type of ship even exist, or a Navy brat. Pass by the newsie, and you can read any one of two dozen car magazines and see Corvettes every other month. Or have one pass you on the street. The local car show would have Corvettes, you'd need to live near an accessible harbour to go to a Navy tattoo to see a ship.
76.66.198.171 (
talk)
07:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per
WP:NCCAT#General naming conventions; specifically, Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories. The category names are held to much higher standards than article names, where redirects and the such are able to keep things relatively clearer.
Neier (
talk)
12:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)reply
If we do rename it (which I'm not sold is a good idea), can it please be something marginally less ugly than the proposed name? "Corvettes (ships)" would at least agree grammatically...
Shimgray |
talk |
22:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment on google results. As someone completely indifferent to both the ship and the car, I did a google search for "corvette" to see which was more commonly used. The
first page of results are all for automobile references and after a cursory look I couldn't find a single ship reference in the first 10 pages of results! I'm a little surprised that the article name hasn't been disambiguated, and is probably is being held there by some fairly strong WP interest group. It's the emergence of the "Corvette (ship) Cabal"! :) Please don't be upset—I jest, I jest ...
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I found one on the 2nd and 4th google results pages - the modern French Navy ships and the WWII ships, about half the other results were car dealers not providers of encyclopedic information.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
a) different google searches provide different results. b} If you are looking for corvettes on wikipedia, you are not looking to find a car dealer or car club.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
The basic search for just the word demonstrates that by far the prevailing usage among "the commoners" or non-specialists (if we can assume that the internet provides a rough representation of such) is for the car, not the ship. Just something to consider when deciding whether we need to disambiguate. I think disambiguating both references to the car and the ship would be appropriate.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:02, 26 January 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:Posthumously born people
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. I read through this several times. One of the main concerns about people categories is that they be defining for the individual. I see nothing in the keep arguments that this characteristic is in fact defining. The closest may come in the case of royalty, but even there it is a nice point of interest but nothing that really shows why it is defining. The other keep arguments like well populated, verifiable, the death is a major event for the child or it is legitimate; don't get to the heart of it being defining. If there is really a need to group people by this, it can return as a list that explains why this is defining for that individual. Another point is that this category is somewhat of an arbitrary point of time. Why is this more defining then the case of a mother dieing in child birth? Why is this more defining if one or both parents die in 1 month, or 4 months or a year?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seemingly oxymoronic category is for people who were born after one of their parents died: see
posthumous birth. Most of these (though not all) will be instances where a person is born after their biological father dies (there are also post-maternal-death births, but they are more rare). A rather arbitrary way to categorize people for starters, but it's also non-defining for the people in the same way most of the "timing-of-birth" or "parent–child relationship" categories are. This is not to say that having a parent die before being born would not affect a person, and that is not my claim. It's just that this is not a situation that is in any defining way different from people whose father deserted the mother prior to birth; or from people whose father died after their birth but before they formed any memories of him; or from people whose parent died in their childhood; etc.; etc. The different permutations are endless once we start down this path.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why you tar this with the epithet "seemingly oxymoronic". You've already shown that you know it's not oxymoronic, so why persist with that irrelevant observation? It adds nothing to your argument. Notable people whose father deserted their mother, or divorced their mother, prior to birth, or where one parent left in their early years, or where the child was abandoned, adopted out etc, would be very numerous indeed; and there's nothing particularly noteworthy about such cases. Posthumously born people are considerably fewer in number; they take on special significance in the case of royalty, where the child in utero at the time of the father's death may well be born a monarch. Naturally, as the creator of the category, I'm strongly biased towards keeping it, but I'll just state for the record that I vote to keep it. --
JackofOz (
talk)
05:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Q: "I'm not sure why you tar this with the epithet 'seemingly oxymoronic.'" A: Because on its face (looking at the name only) it can have an oxymoronic meaning. It's not an "epithet", it's just an observation (not an irrelevant one) that suggests that even if kept, the name of the category should probably somehow be clarified. But yes, this point will be irrelevant for someone who agrees with deletion, but that might not be everybody.
Good Ol’factory(talk)07:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC).reply
If this category is to be kept, it needs to be renamed. It is, as Good Olfactory, says oxymoronic and open to more than one interpretation. My first thought was "Posthumously born? When you're born after your own death, you're still-born, not posthumously born." To use an analogy, a posthumous laureate receives an award after his own death, not after the death of the award or of another person. A
posthumous world champion wins the world title after his own death, not after the death of someone else or something else.
Aecis·(away)talk09:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Except that the meaning of this term is spelled out at the start of
Posthumous birth: A posthumous birth is the birth of a child after the death of a parent.[1] A person born in these circumstances is called a posthumous child or a posthumously born person. I had thought it was a reasonably well-known term in any case; but apparently not so. It would be odd to have an article named in such a way, and a category using some different terminology. --
JackofOz (
talk)
12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - the only subset of this that could possibly have any definingness would be
Category:People born after the death of their mother, which I would whole-heartedly support as a defining characteristic. We have determined through a number of CFDs that the circumstances surrounding the events of ones birth are in most if not all cases non-defining, most recently a slew of "adoptive parents" categories along with "born in prison".
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
keep It is clear from the article that this is a distinction of interest, one that has had consequences both for the individuals involved and history. It is not up to CfD to second guess what article editors have placed in their articles. It is up to categories to reflect what has been documented in articles to help interested readers to navigate to the articles.
Hmains (
talk)
04:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep The death of a parent is a major event; the death of a parent before the child is born is a strong defining characteristic for that child. There is a clear, properly-sourced parent article at
Posthumous birth and no valid excuse has been offered for deletion other than the fact that the nominator has decided that he just doesn't like this category. For all the usual nonsensical arguments about the dreaded slippery slope of other categories that will be created if the existence of this one is tolerated, the proffered alternatives of
Category:People Born With Four Grandparents Alive at Birth,
Category:People Born With Three Grandparents Alive at Birth are not only utterly moronic but are not accompanied by a parent article. Any of these dreaded permutations can be addressed once they are created and presented to us for deletion without necessitating deletion of this one. The purpose of categories is to allow similar articles to be grouped together by defining characteristics, and no evidence other than the usual obfuscations has been offered to justify deletion.
Alansohn (
talk)
05:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I gave quite a valid reason in my "delete" opinion, that it falls under the "Non-defining or trivial characteristic" criteria of
WP:OCAT. Yes, my examples were moronic; they had to be, to compare to the moronic nature of the cat we're discussing.
Tarc (
talk)
14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Bit of a strawman argument there, I think. This has nothing to do with parent articles or sourcing, it simply has to do with the trivial characteristic of a father dying before one is born. There is simply no notability regarding what relatives were alive or deceased when one is born.
Tarc (
talk)
14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a legitimate category for those whose father died between their conception and birth. It may occasionally apply to those born by caesarian operation after the mother's death (presumably including Julius Caesar). That the father died before theri birth is a notable characteristic, since they had the disadvantage of being brought up by only one parent. Posthumous sons are very commonly named after theri father. Possibly
Category:Posthumous children might be a better name.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment on proposed rename (nominator). The proposed rename to
Category:Posthumous children highlights the real problem with the category. We don't categorize people as "children" unless they are notable and defined by things that occurred when they were children. (This is because everyone was once a child.) Most of those included in this particular category, however, are defined by things that occurred when they are adults. The fact that they were a posthumous child is interesting and definitely worthy of mention in their articles. But I find the suggestion that
Muhammad,
Pope Clement VII,
Bill Clinton,
Red Skelton, and
Isaac Newton are all defined by being "posthumous children" quite silly, really. (If we want a category for royalty in the situation, where it can have a significant impact on succession issues, then let's make such a category for royalty, but let's not try to pretend this is defining for non-royals.)
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. We usually don't
categorize people unless it serves some encyclopedic purpose. For instance, someone's religion or ethnicity is not typically included in a category unless it has some bearing on that person's significance. From this aspect, unless there is some measure of such significance of posthumous birth in the life of the individual, categorization as a "posthumous birth" seems to be quite a
trivial categorization. What next,
Category:Illegitimate children (already deleted)?
Category:Caesarean sections?
Category:Bald people? Sure, being bald is "significant" in a personal sense, but it is not generally regarded as an encyclopedic category: see
Wikipedia:Overcategorization.
siℓℓy rabbit (
talk)
03:55, 23 January 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:People of the Federated States of Micronesia
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. Of the member states of the UN, this is the last top-level nationality category that is not in the format "Fooian people" or "Foo people". I suggest we change it for consistency. (Without prejudice, of course, to a potential future effort to globally change all of the nationality categories to "People from Foo".) The subcategories use "Federated States of Micronesia foo". Note that
Category:Micronesian people is not used for the nationality as it applies to people beyond this country as well. See recent and similar
CFD for São Tomé and Príncipe people.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:34, 21 January 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:Metal bands in El Salvador
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:16 July births
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.
Comment I would argue that the day someone is born on is more defining than the year! But in this case, delete, it's a bad idea to start cat'ing people by the day they were born. I'm sure there's a precedent for this in a previous CFD. Lugnuts (
talk)
07:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We used to link birth and death dates, but have stopped doing so, and all dates are being progressively delinked. Birthday and death anniversary categories should not be retained.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:53, 22 January 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:University Ucinf
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment. Why are these not nominated as empty speedy deletes? I have no problem doing the deletes if someone will close these discussions. Just give me the word.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:45, 21 January 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.
Unused NA-Class articles categories
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.
Unused Non-article pages categories
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:Pocket PC software
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. While there is agreement that a rename is in order, there is no agreement as to what. I recommend renominating this (yet again).
Kbdank7115:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: As multiple operating systems (such as
Linux) can be run on the
Pocket PC hardware platform, it should be clarified that software here is simply "Windows Mobile Professional" software. Also, the term "Pocket PC" which was coined by Microsoft is now referred to as a "Windows Mobile Professional device" or "Windows Mobile Classic device", so it's outdated.
Brianreading (
talk)
21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Point of information. Not all Windows Mobile software works across all versions of Windows Mobile. There are plenty of pieces of software that only work on Windows Mobile Professional, but don't on Windows Mobile Standard. Therefore, you may want to rethink your opposition based on that piece of logic.
Brianreading (
talk)
06:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Point of infomation. I have created
Category:Windows Mobile Standard software,
Category:Microsoft Windows CE software could probably be created seeing as how Windows Mobile and Windows CE are certainly not the same thing, nor do they run the same software. A "Microsoft Smartphone" is the same as a "Windows Mobile Standard device". The appropriate category
Category:Windows software already exists as well. Notice how it isn't called "PC software". You're making this extremely confusing though. The bottom line is that a "Pocket PC" is simply a "Windows Mobile Professional device" or "Windows Mobile Classic device", nothing else. This category should not be referring to the hardware, but the OS.
Then you want to subcategorize this as Mobile Pro. Since Pocket PC can refer to either Pro or Standard, or pre-"Mobile". Go ahead and subcategorize things. I still oppose renaming in your manner because it is wrong.
76.66.198.171 (
talk)
05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I hate to sound condescending, but you don't seem to be aware about a lot of background regarding Windows Mobile. Software is backwards compatible from older to newer versions. No need to differentiate software that was released during the time the platform was referred to as "Pocket PC". Hell, I could understand naming it "Windows Mobile Professional and Classic software", but simply leaving it as "Pocket PC software" is simply unwarranted. I really wish we could both get some more input from users.
Brianreading (
talk)
09:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I didn't say leave it as just Pocket PC. Didn't you notice THE VERY START of this thread? Are you saying that all Windows Mobile 6 software will run on Pocket PC 2002? That all new apps are compatible with old OSes?
76.66.198.171 (
talk)
05:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Look. This category is JUST reflective of Pocket PC software. We should use the CURRENT Microsoft naming scheme, not a phased-out one. Now I'm aware you don't like the idea of subcategorization regarding the OS versions, but the fact of the matter is that they're already subcategorized, just named with an outdated name. If you're looking to merge the
Category:Windows Mobile Standard software and
Category:Windows Mobile Professional software categories after renaming it, then fine. But that's a separate issue, and requires a separate nomination. There's no need to oppose the renaming simply because you're for merging the categories. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Brianreading (
talk)
08:55, 24 January 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:Public Key Cryptography
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:Pete Doherty singles
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:Communities of Pembrokeshire
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. Analog to recent renamings. I came across this while setting up Communities in Pembrokeshire and felt it was not right for me to empty the category myself.
Agathoclea (
talk)
16:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
The distinction seems to me to be a parallel one to that between
civil parishes in England and settlements in England: a settlement is the collection of buildings, people, and other amenities that are grouped together as villages, towns and cities, whereas a civil parish is a local government area that may contain (or be contained in) one or more villages, towns, etc. Because there are in certain parts of the England a tendency to have just one village per civil parish, the two are often conflated into a single article, as in
Tarporley, but in other parts of the England, there may be no core village in a civil parish - there may be widely distributed separate houses, as in
Somerford Booths, or there may be more than one village in a civil parish (e.g.,
Haslington. Also, in parts of England, one settlement may contain more than one civil parish (e.g.,
Burton on Trent.) I assume that communities are the equivalent in Wales to civil parishes in England, though I do not know if all the possible variations in their combinations, as outlined previously, occur. Consequently, there may be good reasons to allow for the different things to be represented by different categories.
DDStretch (talk)23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
It seems that the convention is to use "in" rather than "of" for geographical categories. However, I am not convinced that this convention needs to be so rigorously enforced for each type of these categories: some categories that could very reasonably exist for this level of local authority area within the United Kingdom may sound very clumsy using "in"; for example, "Civil parishes in the Isle of Wight" versus "Civil parishes of the Isle of Wight", where "of" seems more accurately descriptive of the matter. The issue then is whether to impose a uniform naming scheme which uses "in" or "of": (a) across the board (e.g., all categories dealing with geographical entities should be the same - either all "X of Y" or "X in Y"), (b) consistent within the same type of category, but not necessarily the same between different types of categories (e.g., "Civil parishes of X", "Communities of X", but "Villages in X"), or (c) different between different instances of use within each type of category (e.g., "Civil parishes in X", "Civil parishes of Y" because it reads better to use "of" with respect to Y than X). I think option c is not uniform enough, but option a may be too uniform so that it forces awkwardness. However, it does seem that the existing convention adopts option a, with the use of "in".
DDStretch (talk)23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge as nom. If we have articles on villages in a Community (equivalent of Civil Parish) with a different name, they can be placed in a category on villages in the county.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I was asked to expand the above comment. I see no objection to a village which has its own community council being categorised both as a village and as a community. However there will be communities containing several villages, where it may be convenient to have an article on each of the villages.
Category:Villages in Pembrokeshire is a legitmate and useful category, which should also be retianed. Real life is too complicated to get everything to fit any pattern perfectly. The point is that we do not need both the categories in the nomination, and they should be merged.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Expansion on my viewpoint: The situation is similar to that in England involving civil parishes, and my comment was meant to suggest that similar ways of proceeding are adopted here. The main features of this are: (a) the "one settlement in a community area" case - have one article about both settlement and community area, and categorize both in "Communities of X" and in "Villages/Towns of X" (b) one dominant village in a community, with other villages in the same community" case: community area and dominant village in one article which is categorized as both "communities of X" and "villages of X", the other villages, if sufficient material exists, is dealt with in articles of their own categorized as "villages of X"; if not their material is subsumed in the article about the dominant village. If two equally-dominant villages exist in a community, have one article solely about the community area and its governane (categorized in the "Communities of X"), and separate articles about each village (categorized as "Villages of X")
DDStretch (talk)13:29, 24 January 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:Video game visual styles
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. In keeping with the other categories in
Category:Video games. Earlier,
User:CaveatLector said, "The 'visuality' of video games extends beyond their graphics." This may be true, but the purpose of this category is only to discuss visual differences of a technical nature—not those with artistic differences.
SharkD (
talk)
06:43, 21 January 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.
Keep They became a quasi-ethnic group (after up to 150 years of almost entirely "marrying-in") when they were forced to leave France. There are plenty of similar categories for Cajuns, Liberian-Americans and so on.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Actually, Huguenots are Huguenots, any French person can join the Protestant church. The Huguenot people originally migrated from what is today Switzerland, to the South of France; after Plymouth Rock was discovered in 1620, Huguenots began leaving France and by 1630 most all had left and ended up settling in the US, England, South Africa, Australia, Canada, etc. --
Mr Accountable (
talk)
16:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This should only be applied to descendents of people who left France and formed an ethno-religious community elsewhere. Like many such communities they were endogamous to a significant extent, and thus retained their identity long after exile from France.
Delete double intersection of ethnicity and religion and of course nothing to tell us what % Huguenot you have to be - Barack Obama is a perfect example: do you really believe he retained his Huguenot identity? That's what all the hoopla was about a few days ago, the inauguration of a Huguenot president that we've been waiting for since the the
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Yeah, what planet are we on, folks.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
03:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't think this category is well-thought through. For one thing, it's a sub-category of
Category:Huguenots but the people in this category are not Huguenots, so it shouldn't be in that parent category. Personally, I don't favour any of the "by descent" categories. They link fairly random people through an event which happened centuries before they were born, and consequently look like an attempt to slip in
WP:TRIVIA and
family trees by categorization.
DrKiernan (
talk)
15:16, 26 January 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:Corvettes
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. While I strongly agree with Neier's note regarding naming conventions, there is the problem of what is the main article called, and the lack of a workable solution to dab categories.
Kbdank7114:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep The existing name is far from "completely" ambiguous. Even car magazines invariable introduce a vehicle as make and model, not just model, and I find it highly doubtful someone editing a Chevy Corvette article would fail to find
Category:Chevrolet Corvette. From the user navigational side, I find it equally unlikely someone interested in the car would enter the bare model name directly, as cars are named after everything from
wild horses to
zodiacal constellations. Besides, do "most people" really think of the car when hearing "Corvette"? This isn't 1975, after all; everyone I know who could afford one owns something German :-).-
choster (
talk)
03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I think most people don't know a Corvette is a ship (or a destroyer or a cruiser, or a frigate, or a sloop, for that matter), so yes, they do think of the car.
76.66.198.171 (
talk)
05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep If this is moved there won't be a category named
Category:Corvettes (or is the nom proposing adding a category redirect as well?). I've added a disambig link at the top of the existing category. Anyone who manages to get to this category who wants the car related category is one click away from where they want to be. Given the article named
Corvette is about the ship, not having the category have the same name seems extremely peculiar. --
Rick Block (
talk)
03:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Categories require maintenance, since ambiguous names are maintenance issues, the dab link is only navigation not upkeep, so patrolling this to keep Corvette car stuff out of it is required.
76.66.198.171 (
talk)
05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Renaming this category does nothing whatsoever to help address this issue (if it is an issue). If it's renamed now and
category:Corvettes is left non-existent, this doesn't prevent someone at some point in the future from adding an article to it. Patrolling it to keep car stuff out is no more work than patrolling it to keep it empty. Actually, keeping it empty is probably more work since any car or ship stuff added in the future would have to be recategorized, whereas now only car stuff is misplaced. --
Rick Block (
talk)
15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Corvettes as a ship type have been around since the 1670s. The Chevrolet Corvette has only been around since 1953. Established useage is therefore in favour of the ship type.
Mjroots (
talk)
11:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose to rename. Main article for the ship is at
Corvette (with strong consensus to stay there as Maralia pointed out above), so it makes little sense for the category to be at a different name. As for the anon's contention that this will require a lot of maintenance: First of all, what category doesn't from time to time? Second, there are only 22 articles and no subcategories for the car's category, with a potential of a new article once, perhaps, every couple of years when a new model come out. In contrast there are 6 subcategories for
Category:Corvettes, with a further 30 sub-subcategories one level down, and even more subcategories farther down. The article tally probably numbers in the hundreds within all of these subcategories, with over a hundred more potential articles for
Flower-class corvettes alone (see all of the
redlinks in {{Flower class corvette}}), just to pick a single example. The categories are already named appropriately. —
Bellhalla (
talk)
11:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Corvette (the ship) is the primary link. I, personally, doubt in other English speaking nations that the car is that well known over the ship. The article also states that the car is named after the ship.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
12:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I personally doubt most people know that corvette is a kind of ship, I think that most people only know of battleship, aircraft carrier and submarine as the only types of warship. Any other classifcation is pushing it. Since car magazines have high circulation rates in English speaking counties, and they frequently review Ferraris, Lambourghinis, Maseratis and Corvettes, and teen boys are frequently car fans, that yes, the American car is likely to be very well known.
76.66.198.171 (
talk)
05:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Where do "teen boys" come into it? I'm a little uncomfortable with privileging a piece of US-specific terminology over a generic technical term...
Shimgray |
talk |
22:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply
You'd have to be a ship enthusiast to know that corvettes as a type of ship even exist, or a Navy brat. Pass by the newsie, and you can read any one of two dozen car magazines and see Corvettes every other month. Or have one pass you on the street. The local car show would have Corvettes, you'd need to live near an accessible harbour to go to a Navy tattoo to see a ship.
76.66.198.171 (
talk)
07:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per
WP:NCCAT#General naming conventions; specifically, Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories. The category names are held to much higher standards than article names, where redirects and the such are able to keep things relatively clearer.
Neier (
talk)
12:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)reply
If we do rename it (which I'm not sold is a good idea), can it please be something marginally less ugly than the proposed name? "Corvettes (ships)" would at least agree grammatically...
Shimgray |
talk |
22:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment on google results. As someone completely indifferent to both the ship and the car, I did a google search for "corvette" to see which was more commonly used. The
first page of results are all for automobile references and after a cursory look I couldn't find a single ship reference in the first 10 pages of results! I'm a little surprised that the article name hasn't been disambiguated, and is probably is being held there by some fairly strong WP interest group. It's the emergence of the "Corvette (ship) Cabal"! :) Please don't be upset—I jest, I jest ...
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I found one on the 2nd and 4th google results pages - the modern French Navy ships and the WWII ships, about half the other results were car dealers not providers of encyclopedic information.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
a) different google searches provide different results. b} If you are looking for corvettes on wikipedia, you are not looking to find a car dealer or car club.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
The basic search for just the word demonstrates that by far the prevailing usage among "the commoners" or non-specialists (if we can assume that the internet provides a rough representation of such) is for the car, not the ship. Just something to consider when deciding whether we need to disambiguate. I think disambiguating both references to the car and the ship would be appropriate.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:02, 26 January 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:Posthumously born people
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. I read through this several times. One of the main concerns about people categories is that they be defining for the individual. I see nothing in the keep arguments that this characteristic is in fact defining. The closest may come in the case of royalty, but even there it is a nice point of interest but nothing that really shows why it is defining. The other keep arguments like well populated, verifiable, the death is a major event for the child or it is legitimate; don't get to the heart of it being defining. If there is really a need to group people by this, it can return as a list that explains why this is defining for that individual. Another point is that this category is somewhat of an arbitrary point of time. Why is this more defining then the case of a mother dieing in child birth? Why is this more defining if one or both parents die in 1 month, or 4 months or a year?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seemingly oxymoronic category is for people who were born after one of their parents died: see
posthumous birth. Most of these (though not all) will be instances where a person is born after their biological father dies (there are also post-maternal-death births, but they are more rare). A rather arbitrary way to categorize people for starters, but it's also non-defining for the people in the same way most of the "timing-of-birth" or "parent–child relationship" categories are. This is not to say that having a parent die before being born would not affect a person, and that is not my claim. It's just that this is not a situation that is in any defining way different from people whose father deserted the mother prior to birth; or from people whose father died after their birth but before they formed any memories of him; or from people whose parent died in their childhood; etc.; etc. The different permutations are endless once we start down this path.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why you tar this with the epithet "seemingly oxymoronic". You've already shown that you know it's not oxymoronic, so why persist with that irrelevant observation? It adds nothing to your argument. Notable people whose father deserted their mother, or divorced their mother, prior to birth, or where one parent left in their early years, or where the child was abandoned, adopted out etc, would be very numerous indeed; and there's nothing particularly noteworthy about such cases. Posthumously born people are considerably fewer in number; they take on special significance in the case of royalty, where the child in utero at the time of the father's death may well be born a monarch. Naturally, as the creator of the category, I'm strongly biased towards keeping it, but I'll just state for the record that I vote to keep it. --
JackofOz (
talk)
05:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Q: "I'm not sure why you tar this with the epithet 'seemingly oxymoronic.'" A: Because on its face (looking at the name only) it can have an oxymoronic meaning. It's not an "epithet", it's just an observation (not an irrelevant one) that suggests that even if kept, the name of the category should probably somehow be clarified. But yes, this point will be irrelevant for someone who agrees with deletion, but that might not be everybody.
Good Ol’factory(talk)07:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC).reply
If this category is to be kept, it needs to be renamed. It is, as Good Olfactory, says oxymoronic and open to more than one interpretation. My first thought was "Posthumously born? When you're born after your own death, you're still-born, not posthumously born." To use an analogy, a posthumous laureate receives an award after his own death, not after the death of the award or of another person. A
posthumous world champion wins the world title after his own death, not after the death of someone else or something else.
Aecis·(away)talk09:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Except that the meaning of this term is spelled out at the start of
Posthumous birth: A posthumous birth is the birth of a child after the death of a parent.[1] A person born in these circumstances is called a posthumous child or a posthumously born person. I had thought it was a reasonably well-known term in any case; but apparently not so. It would be odd to have an article named in such a way, and a category using some different terminology. --
JackofOz (
talk)
12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - the only subset of this that could possibly have any definingness would be
Category:People born after the death of their mother, which I would whole-heartedly support as a defining characteristic. We have determined through a number of CFDs that the circumstances surrounding the events of ones birth are in most if not all cases non-defining, most recently a slew of "adoptive parents" categories along with "born in prison".
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
keep It is clear from the article that this is a distinction of interest, one that has had consequences both for the individuals involved and history. It is not up to CfD to second guess what article editors have placed in their articles. It is up to categories to reflect what has been documented in articles to help interested readers to navigate to the articles.
Hmains (
talk)
04:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep The death of a parent is a major event; the death of a parent before the child is born is a strong defining characteristic for that child. There is a clear, properly-sourced parent article at
Posthumous birth and no valid excuse has been offered for deletion other than the fact that the nominator has decided that he just doesn't like this category. For all the usual nonsensical arguments about the dreaded slippery slope of other categories that will be created if the existence of this one is tolerated, the proffered alternatives of
Category:People Born With Four Grandparents Alive at Birth,
Category:People Born With Three Grandparents Alive at Birth are not only utterly moronic but are not accompanied by a parent article. Any of these dreaded permutations can be addressed once they are created and presented to us for deletion without necessitating deletion of this one. The purpose of categories is to allow similar articles to be grouped together by defining characteristics, and no evidence other than the usual obfuscations has been offered to justify deletion.
Alansohn (
talk)
05:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I gave quite a valid reason in my "delete" opinion, that it falls under the "Non-defining or trivial characteristic" criteria of
WP:OCAT. Yes, my examples were moronic; they had to be, to compare to the moronic nature of the cat we're discussing.
Tarc (
talk)
14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Bit of a strawman argument there, I think. This has nothing to do with parent articles or sourcing, it simply has to do with the trivial characteristic of a father dying before one is born. There is simply no notability regarding what relatives were alive or deceased when one is born.
Tarc (
talk)
14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a legitimate category for those whose father died between their conception and birth. It may occasionally apply to those born by caesarian operation after the mother's death (presumably including Julius Caesar). That the father died before theri birth is a notable characteristic, since they had the disadvantage of being brought up by only one parent. Posthumous sons are very commonly named after theri father. Possibly
Category:Posthumous children might be a better name.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment on proposed rename (nominator). The proposed rename to
Category:Posthumous children highlights the real problem with the category. We don't categorize people as "children" unless they are notable and defined by things that occurred when they were children. (This is because everyone was once a child.) Most of those included in this particular category, however, are defined by things that occurred when they are adults. The fact that they were a posthumous child is interesting and definitely worthy of mention in their articles. But I find the suggestion that
Muhammad,
Pope Clement VII,
Bill Clinton,
Red Skelton, and
Isaac Newton are all defined by being "posthumous children" quite silly, really. (If we want a category for royalty in the situation, where it can have a significant impact on succession issues, then let's make such a category for royalty, but let's not try to pretend this is defining for non-royals.)
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. We usually don't
categorize people unless it serves some encyclopedic purpose. For instance, someone's religion or ethnicity is not typically included in a category unless it has some bearing on that person's significance. From this aspect, unless there is some measure of such significance of posthumous birth in the life of the individual, categorization as a "posthumous birth" seems to be quite a
trivial categorization. What next,
Category:Illegitimate children (already deleted)?
Category:Caesarean sections?
Category:Bald people? Sure, being bald is "significant" in a personal sense, but it is not generally regarded as an encyclopedic category: see
Wikipedia:Overcategorization.
siℓℓy rabbit (
talk)
03:55, 23 January 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:People of the Federated States of Micronesia
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. Of the member states of the UN, this is the last top-level nationality category that is not in the format "Fooian people" or "Foo people". I suggest we change it for consistency. (Without prejudice, of course, to a potential future effort to globally change all of the nationality categories to "People from Foo".) The subcategories use "Federated States of Micronesia foo". Note that
Category:Micronesian people is not used for the nationality as it applies to people beyond this country as well. See recent and similar
CFD for São Tomé and Príncipe people.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:34, 21 January 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:Metal bands in El Salvador
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:16 July births
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.
Comment I would argue that the day someone is born on is more defining than the year! But in this case, delete, it's a bad idea to start cat'ing people by the day they were born. I'm sure there's a precedent for this in a previous CFD. Lugnuts (
talk)
07:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We used to link birth and death dates, but have stopped doing so, and all dates are being progressively delinked. Birthday and death anniversary categories should not be retained.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:53, 22 January 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:University Ucinf
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.