The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete The list is much better, especially since it allows to include people who married a child of their cousin. This is not a defining trait, in some cultures it is actually the opposite that is defining, that is to say the default is to marry your cousin.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The list also includes a few people who married their double-first cousins. It includes a lot more people even among those who married first cousins than are in the category. It also allows for people to be organized in meaningful ways.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-defining. As noted, this is certainly a "taboo" in our culture, which is the only possible reason for the category even existing in the first place — but it historically wasn't a taboo in many others (and sometimes still isn't today), and thus represents an improper imposition of a particular set of cultural values onto people who were under no obligation to share those same values. And, in fact, I'm sure that we've dealt with this exact thing before under a different name — so speedy it as a G4 if someone can track down the prior version for confirmation.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Actually considering the book Rose in Bloom by
Louisa May Alcott, the fact that I have American some number of cousins some-times removed who in the 19th-century did marry their first counsins, and other issues, I am not sure even marrying your first counsin was taboo in 19th-century America. Discoraged maybe, but clearly not forbidden.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:24, 4 September 2013 (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:Superstitions of Alaska
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: Category with only one item. And I kind of doubt some honky from Cleveland would like the gold cross around his neck referred to as "white people superstition" so maybe we shouldn't label the beliefs of
Alaska Natives that way either...
Beeblebrox (
talk)
17:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per the suggestion of BrownHairedGirl. Also note that parent category
Category:Superstitions of the United States seems to be nearly empty and has POV issues. There is a subcategory "about Superstitions of Hawaii", which only includes the moth
Ascalapha odorata which happens to have a role in the folklore of several countries. "Conspiracy theories in the United States" is listed as a subcategory, but unless they all involve supernatural elements that is a miscategorization. The only articles currently covered in the category proper are the ones on
fortune cookie and
witch window, which have mild associations with folklore.
Dimadick (
talk)
10:07, 1 September 2013 (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:Settlers of Catan
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 name of the game - and of the key article, is
The Settlers of Catan. This is, theoretically, a speedy, but I'm bringing it to full discussion because I realise the game is usually referred to simply as "Settlers of Catan", and therefore it might make more sense to rename the key article (this would be my preference). Whichever is preferred, the category and article should at least have the same name.
Grutness...wha?12:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:THE: "The definite or indefinite article is sometimes included in the official title of literary works as well as other kinds of fiction and non-fiction publications and works such as newspapers, films and visual artworks. In this case, the article should be included in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia page as well." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jerry Pepsi (
talk •
contribs)
17:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)reply
WP:COMMONNAME is a policy;
WP:THE is a guideline. As such, it would be in line with Wikipedia practice to remove the "The".
WP:THE also calls the use of the definite article into question in another way, given that the title is based on the German title, Die Siedler von Catan (it would be unusual practice in German not to use a definite article). In this case, the section of that guideline on titles of works and publications suggests The rule of thumb regarding these translated titles of works is this: if there is the least bit of ambiguity whether the article is always used in a translation of the title, it is preferred not to start the Wikipedia page name with an article. It seems that even the makers of the game are a little confused - there are two official sites: www.catan.com, which uses the article, and www.playcatan.com, which doesn't. One further point - if the decision is to add "The" to the category name, a soft redirect will be needed from the unarticled form.
Grutness...wha?00:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Reanme to match articles. If someone wants to rename the article they should do that first, and then apply it to categories. CfD usually has much lower participation than rename requests on particular articles, and the later tends to get participation by people who are more versed in the particular issues. Anyway the decision on whether or not to use "the" is not compelling either way, so we should go for consistency for now.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:17, 14 September 2013 (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 14th-century Zurich
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: Unnecessary category fork. Do we want to start categorizing people articles by region and period of time?
...William12:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Support 2, 4, 1 respectively, plus double upmerge per below. Plus many people (like all of us) live and "florish" in 2 centuries.
Johnbod (
talk)
12:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I appreciate this, "people by century and [independent] city-state" isn't going to work out very well. But "people from Zurich" will just end up mixing random people living in Zurich today with historical figures, what is the point of that? So perhaps there is a compromise solution as in "people of the Republic of Zurich" or "people of pre-Napoleonic Zurich" or similar, just to separate the historical Republic / independent city in the HRE from the modern Swiss city. Not sure this would work though, you decide. --
dab(𒁳)08:42, 31 August 2013 (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:Superweapons
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.
Urgent Inquiry - Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I would have sworn this category had more than 2 articles in it the last time I looked (several weeks ago). Has it been emptied in conjunction with this CFD? If so, the all of the articles that were removed out of process should be put back immediately to allow for proper consideration of the issues involved. Thank you.
Cgingold (
talk)
11:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment it indeed seems to have been emptied. Certainly all the bombs that were in a subcategory have been removed. And at that time, there were several other articles in this category (as per the nominator's article, which isn't in this category anymore) --
70.24.244.158 (
talk)
05:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Apart from the Superbombs category (referred to in the nomination) I'm not aware of anything having been recently removed from this category.
DexDor (
talk)
18:49, 5 September 2013 (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.
Delete The list is much better, especially since it allows to include people who married a child of their cousin. This is not a defining trait, in some cultures it is actually the opposite that is defining, that is to say the default is to marry your cousin.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The list also includes a few people who married their double-first cousins. It includes a lot more people even among those who married first cousins than are in the category. It also allows for people to be organized in meaningful ways.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-defining. As noted, this is certainly a "taboo" in our culture, which is the only possible reason for the category even existing in the first place — but it historically wasn't a taboo in many others (and sometimes still isn't today), and thus represents an improper imposition of a particular set of cultural values onto people who were under no obligation to share those same values. And, in fact, I'm sure that we've dealt with this exact thing before under a different name — so speedy it as a G4 if someone can track down the prior version for confirmation.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Actually considering the book Rose in Bloom by
Louisa May Alcott, the fact that I have American some number of cousins some-times removed who in the 19th-century did marry their first counsins, and other issues, I am not sure even marrying your first counsin was taboo in 19th-century America. Discoraged maybe, but clearly not forbidden.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:24, 4 September 2013 (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:Superstitions of Alaska
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: Category with only one item. And I kind of doubt some honky from Cleveland would like the gold cross around his neck referred to as "white people superstition" so maybe we shouldn't label the beliefs of
Alaska Natives that way either...
Beeblebrox (
talk)
17:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per the suggestion of BrownHairedGirl. Also note that parent category
Category:Superstitions of the United States seems to be nearly empty and has POV issues. There is a subcategory "about Superstitions of Hawaii", which only includes the moth
Ascalapha odorata which happens to have a role in the folklore of several countries. "Conspiracy theories in the United States" is listed as a subcategory, but unless they all involve supernatural elements that is a miscategorization. The only articles currently covered in the category proper are the ones on
fortune cookie and
witch window, which have mild associations with folklore.
Dimadick (
talk)
10:07, 1 September 2013 (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:Settlers of Catan
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 name of the game - and of the key article, is
The Settlers of Catan. This is, theoretically, a speedy, but I'm bringing it to full discussion because I realise the game is usually referred to simply as "Settlers of Catan", and therefore it might make more sense to rename the key article (this would be my preference). Whichever is preferred, the category and article should at least have the same name.
Grutness...wha?12:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:THE: "The definite or indefinite article is sometimes included in the official title of literary works as well as other kinds of fiction and non-fiction publications and works such as newspapers, films and visual artworks. In this case, the article should be included in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia page as well." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jerry Pepsi (
talk •
contribs)
17:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)reply
WP:COMMONNAME is a policy;
WP:THE is a guideline. As such, it would be in line with Wikipedia practice to remove the "The".
WP:THE also calls the use of the definite article into question in another way, given that the title is based on the German title, Die Siedler von Catan (it would be unusual practice in German not to use a definite article). In this case, the section of that guideline on titles of works and publications suggests The rule of thumb regarding these translated titles of works is this: if there is the least bit of ambiguity whether the article is always used in a translation of the title, it is preferred not to start the Wikipedia page name with an article. It seems that even the makers of the game are a little confused - there are two official sites: www.catan.com, which uses the article, and www.playcatan.com, which doesn't. One further point - if the decision is to add "The" to the category name, a soft redirect will be needed from the unarticled form.
Grutness...wha?00:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Reanme to match articles. If someone wants to rename the article they should do that first, and then apply it to categories. CfD usually has much lower participation than rename requests on particular articles, and the later tends to get participation by people who are more versed in the particular issues. Anyway the decision on whether or not to use "the" is not compelling either way, so we should go for consistency for now.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:17, 14 September 2013 (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 14th-century Zurich
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: Unnecessary category fork. Do we want to start categorizing people articles by region and period of time?
...William12:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Support 2, 4, 1 respectively, plus double upmerge per below. Plus many people (like all of us) live and "florish" in 2 centuries.
Johnbod (
talk)
12:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I appreciate this, "people by century and [independent] city-state" isn't going to work out very well. But "people from Zurich" will just end up mixing random people living in Zurich today with historical figures, what is the point of that? So perhaps there is a compromise solution as in "people of the Republic of Zurich" or "people of pre-Napoleonic Zurich" or similar, just to separate the historical Republic / independent city in the HRE from the modern Swiss city. Not sure this would work though, you decide. --
dab(𒁳)08:42, 31 August 2013 (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:Superweapons
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.
Urgent Inquiry - Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I would have sworn this category had more than 2 articles in it the last time I looked (several weeks ago). Has it been emptied in conjunction with this CFD? If so, the all of the articles that were removed out of process should be put back immediately to allow for proper consideration of the issues involved. Thank you.
Cgingold (
talk)
11:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment it indeed seems to have been emptied. Certainly all the bombs that were in a subcategory have been removed. And at that time, there were several other articles in this category (as per the nominator's article, which isn't in this category anymore) --
70.24.244.158 (
talk)
05:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Apart from the Superbombs category (referred to in the nomination) I'm not aware of anything having been recently removed from this category.
DexDor (
talk)
18:49, 5 September 2013 (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.