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:Nazis killed in the Beer Hall Putsch
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. Best served by a list since annotation can be added and all notable deaths can be listed regardless of whether the person has an article. The fact that the articles in the category are stubs is not relevant in CfD's. We should inspect the articles in the category for notability. They seem short and of suggest low notability (at least for the ones that I briefly checked). --
Alan Liefting (
talk) -
04:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. The stubs are not a relevant grounds for deletion or conversion. And it is not discussable that these people were Nazis. They were all Nazi Party members. It is a documented, historical fact. I don't know what would make you think otherwise. The Beer Hall Putsch involved Nazi Party members against opposing forces. Grouping this all under "Beer Hall Putsch" would be the equivalent of grouping both Democrats and Republicans under "U.S. politics". It is critical and easily definable to keep the opposing parties separated, as they currently are into three subcategories. These are very clear subcategories, and each article in each subcategory clearly falls into only one of the three subcategories.
Hoops gza (
talk)
11:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)reply
In addition, these people are all notable. They were considered martyrs by the Nazi party and influenced the Nazi movement and Hitler's worldview and agenda in the aftermath. They have influenced world history.
Hoops gza (
talk)
11:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Their biographies, are in most cases not notable, except for their death at the "Beer Hall Putsch". It is enough to have the names listed in the
Beer Hall Putsch article, with links to those who have a notable biography beyond the putsch, that is only one as far as I can see :
Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter
No, it is not sufficient to group them in with "Beer Hall Putsch". Doing so likens them to the very people they were opposing. It would be like grouping Axis and Allied military personnel together in the same category under a "World War II soldiers" or something of the like. It makes no sense. And their notability is not relevant to having a category for them, at least so is my understanding of category policies.
Hoops gza (
talk)
01:54, 1 July 2011 (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:Nazi mysticism
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. the category contains both 1: mysticism and occultism in/during the NS era and 2: the retrospective mysticism 'of' the era itself ("Nazi martyrs"). A more specific name is needed
E-Kartoffel (
talk)
20:27, 29 June 2011 (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:Waste legislation in Asia / Pacific
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. Legislation is enacted within political boundaries but this category ascribes geographical boundaries. It would not even be an acceptable category name if there were numerous subcategories since, given WP convention, it would be separated out into Asia and Oceania. As it currently stands the category only has one article and two redirects. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) -
20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Author's rationale: This category is only going to get bigger as more Asian and Oceanian countries decide they need their own
RoHS type directives, as China and Turkey already have. There are three other similar/related categories (See
Category:Waste_legislation). To make the standards needed to operate in a region of the world easy to find,
Asia-Pacific is a standard reference among US based corporations.
Bassplr19 (
talk)
11:38, 30 June 2011 (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:LGBT-themed musical groups
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.
It was a
CFD discussion that renamed the category from
Category:LGBT musical groups to this in the first place. In theory, the inclusion criterion would be that it's band with one or more LGBT members who at least sometimes address LGBT topics directly in their lyrics (as opposed to bands which happen to have one or more LGBT members but aren't defined by that fact lyrically or musically.) Some version of this category does need to exist as long as
Category:LGBT-related music does; however, I do agree that this isn't the right name for it. Rename if someone can figure out a better name for it — but keep (with provision for future renaming) otherwise, because we do need a category for this (just not necessarily named this way.)
Bearcat (
talk)
04:43, 5 July 2011 (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:American city councillors
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. Even the main article
councillor recognizes that this is not the normal name for this position in the US. The word councillor is not valid in American English spelling in my spell check programs. Since we have renamed
California we need to change the parent to reflect the common usage in the US. I will note that Boston was renamed in the opposite direction, but moving that back can be discussed after we rename the rest of the US tree to reflect common usage.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Support, as city council member is the common term in most states. On a side note, I was the user who proposed the renaming of both
California and
Boston. While this may seem counter-intuitive for an American city, Boston actually does use councillor as the main term for its members, so if the rest of the US tree is moved to city council members, Boston should be left alone at city councillors.
OCNative (
talk)
12:57, 1 July 2011 (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:DC Comics 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Having both of them as sub-categories under
Category:Comic book covers is redundant. The "DC comic book" category is more in line with the naming of the other sub-categories, and is more populated. In addition:
As with the category below, the intent was to move to the title tithe the full company name (DC Comics) and drop "comic book" as it does not fit all cases. The same holds for the imprints - not everything published under the "Vertigo" or "Wildstorm" imprint is a comic book per se. The merge for those 3 should be flipped. Other wise I agree with the change. -
J Greb (
talk)
18:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Again, I can see the advantage of having the full name of DC Comics in the name of the category. As long as all of the files (and sub-categories) are together under one category, I would be fine with
Category:DC Comics covers,
Category:Vertigo imprint covers and
Category:Wildstorm imprint covers being the dominant categories. However, the rest of the specific sub-categories should start with the format "Category:Covers from titles related to", because most of the sub-categories that are not duplicates are named this way.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
19:44, 29 June 2011 (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:Marvel Comics 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Having both of them as sub-categories under
Category:Comic book covers is redundant. The "Marvel comic book" category is more in line with the naming of the other sub-categories, and is more populated.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
17:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)reply
2 points...
The nom should not have denuded one category while/before making the nom.
The intent was to move to the title tithe the full company name and drop "comic book" as it does not fit all cases.
Per J Greb, I can see the advantage of having the full name of Marvel Comics in the name of the category. My intention in editing the files in
Category:Marvel Comics covers, was to consolidate all those files in one category, and
Category:Marvel comic book covers looked like it was more comprehensive. As long as all of the files (and sub-categories) are together under one category, I would be fine with the merge being flipped.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
19:36, 29 June 2011 (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:Enterprise ships (Star Trek)
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:Foods making health related claims
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.
P.S. I suppose a sheep bleating before the slaughter could be making a claim related to its own health, but not verifiable of course.
GcSwRhIc (
talk)
22:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Hold on and think this through... as in Europe this was a major issue which brought about EU legislation, requiring 'healthful' foods to undergo medically-valid testing. The category should include a wide range of foods containing
statins, and other cholesterol-reducing spreads, etc.
Ephebi (
talk)
10:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment A more accepted name for this kind of food product is
functional food. But, note that the only article currently in the category --
pomegranate juice -- refers to a food product that the FDA has ruled does not have the demonstrated health benefits that were claimed in marketing the product. Generally I think most of these marketing claims are unverifiable and bordering on
quackery, much like other forms of
food faddism.
64.93.125.3 (
talk)
00:15, 6 July 2011 (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 2011 Egyptian Revolution
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:Egyptian Revolution of 2011
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.
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:Nazis killed in the Beer Hall Putsch
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. Best served by a list since annotation can be added and all notable deaths can be listed regardless of whether the person has an article. The fact that the articles in the category are stubs is not relevant in CfD's. We should inspect the articles in the category for notability. They seem short and of suggest low notability (at least for the ones that I briefly checked). --
Alan Liefting (
talk) -
04:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. The stubs are not a relevant grounds for deletion or conversion. And it is not discussable that these people were Nazis. They were all Nazi Party members. It is a documented, historical fact. I don't know what would make you think otherwise. The Beer Hall Putsch involved Nazi Party members against opposing forces. Grouping this all under "Beer Hall Putsch" would be the equivalent of grouping both Democrats and Republicans under "U.S. politics". It is critical and easily definable to keep the opposing parties separated, as they currently are into three subcategories. These are very clear subcategories, and each article in each subcategory clearly falls into only one of the three subcategories.
Hoops gza (
talk)
11:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)reply
In addition, these people are all notable. They were considered martyrs by the Nazi party and influenced the Nazi movement and Hitler's worldview and agenda in the aftermath. They have influenced world history.
Hoops gza (
talk)
11:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Their biographies, are in most cases not notable, except for their death at the "Beer Hall Putsch". It is enough to have the names listed in the
Beer Hall Putsch article, with links to those who have a notable biography beyond the putsch, that is only one as far as I can see :
Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter
No, it is not sufficient to group them in with "Beer Hall Putsch". Doing so likens them to the very people they were opposing. It would be like grouping Axis and Allied military personnel together in the same category under a "World War II soldiers" or something of the like. It makes no sense. And their notability is not relevant to having a category for them, at least so is my understanding of category policies.
Hoops gza (
talk)
01:54, 1 July 2011 (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:Nazi mysticism
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. the category contains both 1: mysticism and occultism in/during the NS era and 2: the retrospective mysticism 'of' the era itself ("Nazi martyrs"). A more specific name is needed
E-Kartoffel (
talk)
20:27, 29 June 2011 (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:Waste legislation in Asia / Pacific
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. Legislation is enacted within political boundaries but this category ascribes geographical boundaries. It would not even be an acceptable category name if there were numerous subcategories since, given WP convention, it would be separated out into Asia and Oceania. As it currently stands the category only has one article and two redirects. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) -
20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Author's rationale: This category is only going to get bigger as more Asian and Oceanian countries decide they need their own
RoHS type directives, as China and Turkey already have. There are three other similar/related categories (See
Category:Waste_legislation). To make the standards needed to operate in a region of the world easy to find,
Asia-Pacific is a standard reference among US based corporations.
Bassplr19 (
talk)
11:38, 30 June 2011 (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:LGBT-themed musical groups
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.
It was a
CFD discussion that renamed the category from
Category:LGBT musical groups to this in the first place. In theory, the inclusion criterion would be that it's band with one or more LGBT members who at least sometimes address LGBT topics directly in their lyrics (as opposed to bands which happen to have one or more LGBT members but aren't defined by that fact lyrically or musically.) Some version of this category does need to exist as long as
Category:LGBT-related music does; however, I do agree that this isn't the right name for it. Rename if someone can figure out a better name for it — but keep (with provision for future renaming) otherwise, because we do need a category for this (just not necessarily named this way.)
Bearcat (
talk)
04:43, 5 July 2011 (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:American city councillors
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. Even the main article
councillor recognizes that this is not the normal name for this position in the US. The word councillor is not valid in American English spelling in my spell check programs. Since we have renamed
California we need to change the parent to reflect the common usage in the US. I will note that Boston was renamed in the opposite direction, but moving that back can be discussed after we rename the rest of the US tree to reflect common usage.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Support, as city council member is the common term in most states. On a side note, I was the user who proposed the renaming of both
California and
Boston. While this may seem counter-intuitive for an American city, Boston actually does use councillor as the main term for its members, so if the rest of the US tree is moved to city council members, Boston should be left alone at city councillors.
OCNative (
talk)
12:57, 1 July 2011 (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:DC Comics 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Having both of them as sub-categories under
Category:Comic book covers is redundant. The "DC comic book" category is more in line with the naming of the other sub-categories, and is more populated. In addition:
As with the category below, the intent was to move to the title tithe the full company name (DC Comics) and drop "comic book" as it does not fit all cases. The same holds for the imprints - not everything published under the "Vertigo" or "Wildstorm" imprint is a comic book per se. The merge for those 3 should be flipped. Other wise I agree with the change. -
J Greb (
talk)
18:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Again, I can see the advantage of having the full name of DC Comics in the name of the category. As long as all of the files (and sub-categories) are together under one category, I would be fine with
Category:DC Comics covers,
Category:Vertigo imprint covers and
Category:Wildstorm imprint covers being the dominant categories. However, the rest of the specific sub-categories should start with the format "Category:Covers from titles related to", because most of the sub-categories that are not duplicates are named this way.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
19:44, 29 June 2011 (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:Marvel Comics 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Having both of them as sub-categories under
Category:Comic book covers is redundant. The "Marvel comic book" category is more in line with the naming of the other sub-categories, and is more populated.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
17:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)reply
2 points...
The nom should not have denuded one category while/before making the nom.
The intent was to move to the title tithe the full company name and drop "comic book" as it does not fit all cases.
Per J Greb, I can see the advantage of having the full name of Marvel Comics in the name of the category. My intention in editing the files in
Category:Marvel Comics covers, was to consolidate all those files in one category, and
Category:Marvel comic book covers looked like it was more comprehensive. As long as all of the files (and sub-categories) are together under one category, I would be fine with the merge being flipped.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
19:36, 29 June 2011 (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:Enterprise ships (Star Trek)
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:Foods making health related claims
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.
P.S. I suppose a sheep bleating before the slaughter could be making a claim related to its own health, but not verifiable of course.
GcSwRhIc (
talk)
22:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Hold on and think this through... as in Europe this was a major issue which brought about EU legislation, requiring 'healthful' foods to undergo medically-valid testing. The category should include a wide range of foods containing
statins, and other cholesterol-reducing spreads, etc.
Ephebi (
talk)
10:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment A more accepted name for this kind of food product is
functional food. But, note that the only article currently in the category --
pomegranate juice -- refers to a food product that the FDA has ruled does not have the demonstrated health benefits that were claimed in marketing the product. Generally I think most of these marketing claims are unverifiable and bordering on
quackery, much like other forms of
food faddism.
64.93.125.3 (
talk)
00:15, 6 July 2011 (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 2011 Egyptian Revolution
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:Egyptian Revolution of 2011
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.