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 this was already done with a nomination made on Feb. 4, 2011 and followed up on on Feb. 12, 2011. As far as I can tell this category was recreated in direct contravention of precedent. It seems to be a case of overcategorization by trivial intersection of unrelated traits.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment the only person who has suggested this is at all a value judgement is Hmains. The argument is that this intersect is a non-notable one. It has nothing to do with a value judgement on the people involved, and I really wish people would avoid such calling on red herring arguments.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:57, 19 October 2012 (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.
American actors of Peruvian descent
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 this is a triple intersect, which is discoraged. While there is interest in actors being Hispanic or Latino Americans, there is no evidence that there is any focus on specifically being of Peruvian descent.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge. At present there are three subcats to 'Hispanic and Latino American actors'. One for Mexico, one for Puerto Rico and one for Peru. Peru has 3 vs 54 and 28.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
05:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment how is calling for ending a category that differentiates people by ethnic background "The idea that immigrants and their descendants are something less than American"? Anyway I specifically acknoledge that having a category for Latino and Hpsianic American actors is probably justified, I am only questioning there being specific justification for Peruvian ancestry, and to have this category we need evidence that being an American actor of Peruvian ancestry is more than a trivial intersect of occupation and ancestry. The category needs to be proactively justified, not justified by accusing those who suggest deleting it of having some sort of ethnic animus against American people of Peruvian descent.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment The relevant quote on this issue is "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as
Category:LGBT writers or
Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created."
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
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:Aircraft manufactured by the United States
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. There appears to be a possible consensus for renaming all similar categories, but there is less support for renaming just one of them. So I am closing this as "no consensus" without prejudice to an immediate group nomination of all such categories. If it really is the intent to rename all the by-country subcats of
Category:Aircraft by country, then they should all be discussed together.--
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Do countries make airplanes? If this is successful, there may be more like named categories to be dealt with.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
do not rename There is no indication anywhere that the country name here implies that the government is doing the manufacturing. The country is more than just government. Same with all its sibling categories. Also, looking at the template here, the population of these categories may be something else, namely: 'Aircraft by nationality of original manufacturer'.
Hmains (
talk)
20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)reply
'By' clearly implies that the government is the manufacturer. If this is intended to be for companies in a country, then the proposed form makes this fact clear and unambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't agree that US means US Government. If US government were meant, then government would be explict. And in any case, it does not address this problem. If the contents were using the template title Aircraft by nationality of original manufacturer as the method of inclusion, then this should be made explicit. There is a difference beween a model first manufactured in the US and a model first manufactured elsewhere and subsequently manufactured by or in the US. This entire country category tree seems to be based on 'first manufactured', not manufactured 'at some time'. Also, the parent category is
Category:Aircraft by country, and its 59 subcats are all in the 'by foo' format.
Hmains (
talk)
03:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Aircraft grouped by country is clear. There is no implication that they are made by the country, just in that country. This part of the tree is anything but.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Can you explain why you are opposing a test case? Your objection seems to be that the other categories will be ignored, but that is not the case. I just wanted to access support or lack there of before nominating the rest. Would it be fair to say you support as long as the rest are also done?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
comment 'in' I can accept without the presumption that 'by' meant or implied that the government made them, but 'first manufactured in' would be better and probably more correct.
Hmains (
talk)
03:03, 26 October 2012 (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:Protestant victims of Nazism and Category:Catholic people executed by Nazi Germany
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.
I am not sure which wording is "better" or more popular (hopefully we'll find out), but I strongly believe they should be consistent, i.e. either both are "... victims of Nazism" or both are "... people executed by Nazi Germany". I see no reason for discrepant category titling in this case.
Quis separabit?23:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
comment Question to interested editors: I cannot find a similar category for Jewish people killed by the Nazis. Is there one?
Hmains (
talk)
20:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge both to
Category:People killed by Nazi Germany. In a random sampling of about 30% of the articles in each category (and the non-random checking of the one with "pastor" as part of the title) I found none that stated that it was specifically the person's being Catholic or Protestant that led to their deaths. Most of them were resistance fighters or political rivals. Many make no mention outside of their categories that the subjects were of any particular religion at all. The relevant policy is I believe
Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality which states in part "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic." Since the articles do not support the idea that these two cross-sections of religion and "killed by Nazi Germany" are relevant the categories should be merged to the parent. If the categories are kept then they should be renamed to "Catholics/Protestants killed by Nazi Germany" to match the parent. But again, they shouldn't be kept.
Buck Winston (
talk)
21:01, 22 October 2012 (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.
Beer brands
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. Was tried as a speedy under C2C to match the majority in
Category:Beer brands. The speedy was opposed with the argument that Country related should use country name. So either we rename these to match the others or we rename the others to match these. Another option offered in the oppose was a rename to
Category:Beer brands from foo.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
rename per nom to match the sibling categories. There is no reason to change the pattern, only to conform to it and to popular English forms.
Hmains (
talk)
04:21, 19 October 2012 (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.
American actors of Austrian descent
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.
Well, they were both upmerged as a result of a discussion initiatied on Feb. 4, 2011, but for some reason the German category was recreated. I did not realize that had been done because it was not placed as a subcat of
Category:American actors by ethnic or national origin. Personally I am unconvinced we should have any American actors by x descent cats, but each descent category has its own unique issues, so I am not convinced a mass nomination is a good idea.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment the unique issue is that there are some ethnic groups that are historically more distinct. Also at times the issue will get merged with race and thus easy identification. There will be long discussions of possible type-casting by ethnicity if I bring up say
Category:American actors of Japanese descent so I am going to go at this peace by peace.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment On Feb. 4, 2011 there was a CfD that agreed to get rid of all American actors by descent categories that involved European nationalities. Thus there is a general precedent against the Austrian nationality. There has never been an agreement to massively wipe out non-European nationalities in this type of category. That is the key reason why this cateory is inherently different than the Japanese one.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:50, 22 October 2012 (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 from Sikar
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:Songs written by Priyanka Chopra
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.WP:SMALLCAT specifically says, "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in
Category:Songs by artist. There is a reasonable argument that this should be amended, but until it is, it should apply here. --
82.71.187.33 (
talk)
09:06, 19 October 2012 (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:Priyanka Chopra songs
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:Lists relating to the Philippine presidency
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename - If the contents change (such as if the lists are merged), this can obviously be revisited at CfD. - jc3720:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Consolidate all articles into one list and delete category There's no good reason to have all these separate lists when thecould simply be combined into one sortable table.
Mangoe (
talk)
18:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge per Mangoe. Pretty sure WP:BOLD applies here. If the rules stop us from improving the wikipedia, we should just do what should be done when it comes to the attention of other editors.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
06:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Question. Do you mean merge the article, or merge the category?
I am not objecting to merging the articles; in fact I think that it may be a good idea, if the resulting table can be created without too many columns. There is nothing to stop nay editor from being
WP:BOLD and merging the lists ... but unless and until that is done, deleting the category will simply leave a bunch of article uncategorised. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:42, 20 October 2012 (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:Adriatic Sea basin
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.
Support -- The precise venue for a trial is determined by the court service, and could mean that a trial of a crime that happened in Wales took place in England or vice versa. There is a single legal jurisdiction covering both countries, so that the target is much better.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Comment:The category appears to be of trials in a particular location (England) at any time, and a possible
Category:Trials in Wales would apply to all periods not just “pre-invasion” Wales. So I favour keeping the
Category:Trials in England, to apply to all trials in England whatever the period.
Likewise
Category:Trials in Scotland applies to those held under laws of the present Scottish Parliament, laws passed by Westminster for Scotland, and laws of the Kingdom of Scotland. And trials held now in Scotland under any United Kingdom laws which apply in Scotland. The
Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial was before a Scottish court but it was sitting in the Netherlands, so it is classed as a trial in the Netherlands. Some of the charges were of violating Scottish law, but the
Aviation Security Act 1982 is United Kingdom law.
Keep since there is no clear time limit, this category could include trials held in 1060, and mixing together England and Wales at that time makes no sense.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - if you followed the nominator's argument to its logical conclusion, then
Category:Courts in England,
Category:English laws, and indeed the entire English and Welsh law category trees would disappear. Just because England is part of a jurisdiction called England & Wales does not mean that England does not exist and can be erased from the encyclopaedia. --
Mais oui! (
talk)
05:27, 29 October 2012 (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:Megacoasters
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.
Nominator's rationale this was already done with a nomination made on Feb. 4, 2011 and followed up on on Feb. 12, 2011. As far as I can tell this category was recreated in direct contravention of precedent. It seems to be a case of overcategorization by trivial intersection of unrelated traits.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment the only person who has suggested this is at all a value judgement is Hmains. The argument is that this intersect is a non-notable one. It has nothing to do with a value judgement on the people involved, and I really wish people would avoid such calling on red herring arguments.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:57, 19 October 2012 (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.
American actors of Peruvian descent
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 this is a triple intersect, which is discoraged. While there is interest in actors being Hispanic or Latino Americans, there is no evidence that there is any focus on specifically being of Peruvian descent.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge. At present there are three subcats to 'Hispanic and Latino American actors'. One for Mexico, one for Puerto Rico and one for Peru. Peru has 3 vs 54 and 28.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
05:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment how is calling for ending a category that differentiates people by ethnic background "The idea that immigrants and their descendants are something less than American"? Anyway I specifically acknoledge that having a category for Latino and Hpsianic American actors is probably justified, I am only questioning there being specific justification for Peruvian ancestry, and to have this category we need evidence that being an American actor of Peruvian ancestry is more than a trivial intersect of occupation and ancestry. The category needs to be proactively justified, not justified by accusing those who suggest deleting it of having some sort of ethnic animus against American people of Peruvian descent.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment The relevant quote on this issue is "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as
Category:LGBT writers or
Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created."
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
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:Aircraft manufactured by the United States
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. There appears to be a possible consensus for renaming all similar categories, but there is less support for renaming just one of them. So I am closing this as "no consensus" without prejudice to an immediate group nomination of all such categories. If it really is the intent to rename all the by-country subcats of
Category:Aircraft by country, then they should all be discussed together.--
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Do countries make airplanes? If this is successful, there may be more like named categories to be dealt with.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
do not rename There is no indication anywhere that the country name here implies that the government is doing the manufacturing. The country is more than just government. Same with all its sibling categories. Also, looking at the template here, the population of these categories may be something else, namely: 'Aircraft by nationality of original manufacturer'.
Hmains (
talk)
20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)reply
'By' clearly implies that the government is the manufacturer. If this is intended to be for companies in a country, then the proposed form makes this fact clear and unambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't agree that US means US Government. If US government were meant, then government would be explict. And in any case, it does not address this problem. If the contents were using the template title Aircraft by nationality of original manufacturer as the method of inclusion, then this should be made explicit. There is a difference beween a model first manufactured in the US and a model first manufactured elsewhere and subsequently manufactured by or in the US. This entire country category tree seems to be based on 'first manufactured', not manufactured 'at some time'. Also, the parent category is
Category:Aircraft by country, and its 59 subcats are all in the 'by foo' format.
Hmains (
talk)
03:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Aircraft grouped by country is clear. There is no implication that they are made by the country, just in that country. This part of the tree is anything but.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Can you explain why you are opposing a test case? Your objection seems to be that the other categories will be ignored, but that is not the case. I just wanted to access support or lack there of before nominating the rest. Would it be fair to say you support as long as the rest are also done?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
comment 'in' I can accept without the presumption that 'by' meant or implied that the government made them, but 'first manufactured in' would be better and probably more correct.
Hmains (
talk)
03:03, 26 October 2012 (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:Protestant victims of Nazism and Category:Catholic people executed by Nazi Germany
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.
I am not sure which wording is "better" or more popular (hopefully we'll find out), but I strongly believe they should be consistent, i.e. either both are "... victims of Nazism" or both are "... people executed by Nazi Germany". I see no reason for discrepant category titling in this case.
Quis separabit?23:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
comment Question to interested editors: I cannot find a similar category for Jewish people killed by the Nazis. Is there one?
Hmains (
talk)
20:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge both to
Category:People killed by Nazi Germany. In a random sampling of about 30% of the articles in each category (and the non-random checking of the one with "pastor" as part of the title) I found none that stated that it was specifically the person's being Catholic or Protestant that led to their deaths. Most of them were resistance fighters or political rivals. Many make no mention outside of their categories that the subjects were of any particular religion at all. The relevant policy is I believe
Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality which states in part "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic." Since the articles do not support the idea that these two cross-sections of religion and "killed by Nazi Germany" are relevant the categories should be merged to the parent. If the categories are kept then they should be renamed to "Catholics/Protestants killed by Nazi Germany" to match the parent. But again, they shouldn't be kept.
Buck Winston (
talk)
21:01, 22 October 2012 (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.
Beer brands
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. Was tried as a speedy under C2C to match the majority in
Category:Beer brands. The speedy was opposed with the argument that Country related should use country name. So either we rename these to match the others or we rename the others to match these. Another option offered in the oppose was a rename to
Category:Beer brands from foo.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
rename per nom to match the sibling categories. There is no reason to change the pattern, only to conform to it and to popular English forms.
Hmains (
talk)
04:21, 19 October 2012 (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.
American actors of Austrian descent
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.
Well, they were both upmerged as a result of a discussion initiatied on Feb. 4, 2011, but for some reason the German category was recreated. I did not realize that had been done because it was not placed as a subcat of
Category:American actors by ethnic or national origin. Personally I am unconvinced we should have any American actors by x descent cats, but each descent category has its own unique issues, so I am not convinced a mass nomination is a good idea.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment the unique issue is that there are some ethnic groups that are historically more distinct. Also at times the issue will get merged with race and thus easy identification. There will be long discussions of possible type-casting by ethnicity if I bring up say
Category:American actors of Japanese descent so I am going to go at this peace by peace.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment On Feb. 4, 2011 there was a CfD that agreed to get rid of all American actors by descent categories that involved European nationalities. Thus there is a general precedent against the Austrian nationality. There has never been an agreement to massively wipe out non-European nationalities in this type of category. That is the key reason why this cateory is inherently different than the Japanese one.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:50, 22 October 2012 (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 from Sikar
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:Songs written by Priyanka Chopra
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.WP:SMALLCAT specifically says, "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in
Category:Songs by artist. There is a reasonable argument that this should be amended, but until it is, it should apply here. --
82.71.187.33 (
talk)
09:06, 19 October 2012 (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:Priyanka Chopra songs
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:Lists relating to the Philippine presidency
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename - If the contents change (such as if the lists are merged), this can obviously be revisited at CfD. - jc3720:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Consolidate all articles into one list and delete category There's no good reason to have all these separate lists when thecould simply be combined into one sortable table.
Mangoe (
talk)
18:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge per Mangoe. Pretty sure WP:BOLD applies here. If the rules stop us from improving the wikipedia, we should just do what should be done when it comes to the attention of other editors.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
06:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Question. Do you mean merge the article, or merge the category?
I am not objecting to merging the articles; in fact I think that it may be a good idea, if the resulting table can be created without too many columns. There is nothing to stop nay editor from being
WP:BOLD and merging the lists ... but unless and until that is done, deleting the category will simply leave a bunch of article uncategorised. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:42, 20 October 2012 (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:Adriatic Sea basin
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.
Support -- The precise venue for a trial is determined by the court service, and could mean that a trial of a crime that happened in Wales took place in England or vice versa. There is a single legal jurisdiction covering both countries, so that the target is much better.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Comment:The category appears to be of trials in a particular location (England) at any time, and a possible
Category:Trials in Wales would apply to all periods not just “pre-invasion” Wales. So I favour keeping the
Category:Trials in England, to apply to all trials in England whatever the period.
Likewise
Category:Trials in Scotland applies to those held under laws of the present Scottish Parliament, laws passed by Westminster for Scotland, and laws of the Kingdom of Scotland. And trials held now in Scotland under any United Kingdom laws which apply in Scotland. The
Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial was before a Scottish court but it was sitting in the Netherlands, so it is classed as a trial in the Netherlands. Some of the charges were of violating Scottish law, but the
Aviation Security Act 1982 is United Kingdom law.
Keep since there is no clear time limit, this category could include trials held in 1060, and mixing together England and Wales at that time makes no sense.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - if you followed the nominator's argument to its logical conclusion, then
Category:Courts in England,
Category:English laws, and indeed the entire English and Welsh law category trees would disappear. Just because England is part of a jurisdiction called England & Wales does not mean that England does not exist and can be erased from the encyclopaedia. --
Mais oui! (
talk)
05:27, 29 October 2012 (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:Megacoasters
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.