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.
This is an anti-nomination. There's a whole heap of problems arising because some people want to recategorise English slave traders as British, when they weren't. English people got involved in the slave trade long before
John Dee started dreaming up the
British Empire, let alone when
James VI came down to rule England.
Leutha (
talk)
22:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Your response to this nomination is absolutely absurd. It has nothing to do with slave trade, but consolidating small towns that have a 'People from' category which shouldn't. I've been making these nominations for sixth months. Get a clue before writing something like you did above.
...William15:22, 29 July 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.
MLB All-Stars
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.
Merge -- If this is one team, playing successively in different leagues, then there should only be one category, depending on their present league. The precedent for this is alumni categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is not "one team, plaung successively in different leagues". A player represents their league, and only their league, in an All-Star Game. The argument that these should be merged because there is less distinction "these days" is
WP:RECENTISM. This isn't like the
Pro Bowl, the leagues teams being different in the All-Star Game is actually a significant deal. -
The BushrangerOne ping only09:22, 5 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:Cendant 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: Cendant no longer exists. Most, if not all of these, are already categorized in Cendant's successor, Wyndham Brands. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)17:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep. Categories are do not represent the "current" situation—they are timeless. Any brands that were once brands of Cendant should be in this category.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. We do have categories that reflect the current situation; both alumni and sports teams use the "most recent name" and are renamed when the institution or team changes its name. In this case, if Cendant had been bought out by another company, there might be a case, but it was split up; Wyndham (which all but one of the category's contents now belong to, I believe) is a successor - basically, renamed - and as they are already categorised in
Category:Wyndham brands, this category has become redundant; in this case, the list at
Cendant (which, admittedly, needs to be expanded for completeness) is sufficient. -
The BushrangerOne ping only09:26, 5 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:Mammals parasites
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:Multinational 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.
Nominator's rationale: Trivial categorization. Musical groups from a specific locality could form a
scene or sub-genre of music but these groups are only related by virtue of having members from other places. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯09:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete having members from multiple nations is not defining. Also, exactly how does a group become multi-national. Are we ready to put a choir here if it is based in one country and has at least one member that is a citizen of another country? If not, than this must mean we have some defined percentage of members who are from a different nation, what is that percentage, how did we define it, and how is it anything other than arbitrary?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:21, 2 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:Iowa Chops
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.
Oppose the renaming of Category:Iowa Chops players because its standard to put players in the category for the team as it was called at the time they played for it. Players who played for the Iowa Chops did not play for the Iowa Stars. It would be a mistake to list them as such. While it is the same franchise in the sports world there is a notable difference in team names. OpposeCategory:Iowa Stars (AHL) players because category wise it needs disambiguation from the CHL team. The main category I have no problem with renaming. -
DJSasso (
talk)
12:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom.
Iowa Chops redirects to Iowa Stars, which says that Wikipedia has decided they are the same. We categorize by team, not by team name. If the team gets renamed we move all people to the new team name. Otherwise people who played 5 years for a team, that renamed twice while they were there, would be in 3 categorizes for it. That is not a good way to do things.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:23, 2 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:Noetics
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.
Upmerge and delete as too small. Name problem fixed by moving the main article to Noetics, as that's what it is called in the article. "Noetic theory" has not been in the article since at least November 2012. —
Arthur Rubin(talk)08:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - I am largely indifferent to the fate of this category. Noetics is nonsense, and it is best handled by people who take it seriously. It exists solely to house articles away from the philosophy category, which actually is very a useful purpose. I would think that Arthur would appreciate that sort of thing.
Greg Bard (
talk)
16:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
It's still a pretty small category. Also, as this may have more eyes than the appropriate talk page,
Noetics,
Noetic theory, and some of the other redirects, had completely different Wikidata language entries. I don't know how to merge the Wikidata entries titled "Noetics" and "Noetic theory". —
Arthur Rubin(talk)16:31, 28 July 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:Professional soccer teams in Pennsylvania
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:Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award recipients
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Spanish–American War weapons
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: Mass-produced items shouldn't be categorized by their usage as it's not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic (in effect, an example of
WP:OC#PERF). An example of a previous CFD for similar categories is
this.
DexDor (
talk)
01:52, 28 July 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:Military equipment of the British Empire
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 category categorizes weapons (e.g.
FN FAL) etc by one of their users. We don't normally categorize mass-produced items by users as it's not
WP:DEFINING of the subject; instead we categorize such articles by country-of-origin (e.g. in
Category:Weapons of the United Kingdom and its subcats). Note also that this category currently only contains a fraction of the articles that would satisfy its inclusion criteria (e.g. WP has articles about hundreds of military vehicle types used by the Empire countries) - the unusual use of "especially" in the text sort of acknowledges this. An example of a previous "weapons-by-user" CFD is
this.
DexDor (
talk)
01:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Almost all weapons will be "weapons of United Kingdom". Some of the old Commonwealth countries may possibly have made their own weapons during WWI & WWII. If so, they should be categorized by those countries. However in practice, almost all weapons will have been made in UK.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:01, 4 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.
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.
This is an anti-nomination. There's a whole heap of problems arising because some people want to recategorise English slave traders as British, when they weren't. English people got involved in the slave trade long before
John Dee started dreaming up the
British Empire, let alone when
James VI came down to rule England.
Leutha (
talk)
22:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Your response to this nomination is absolutely absurd. It has nothing to do with slave trade, but consolidating small towns that have a 'People from' category which shouldn't. I've been making these nominations for sixth months. Get a clue before writing something like you did above.
...William15:22, 29 July 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.
MLB All-Stars
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.
Merge -- If this is one team, playing successively in different leagues, then there should only be one category, depending on their present league. The precedent for this is alumni categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is not "one team, plaung successively in different leagues". A player represents their league, and only their league, in an All-Star Game. The argument that these should be merged because there is less distinction "these days" is
WP:RECENTISM. This isn't like the
Pro Bowl, the leagues teams being different in the All-Star Game is actually a significant deal. -
The BushrangerOne ping only09:22, 5 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:Cendant 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: Cendant no longer exists. Most, if not all of these, are already categorized in Cendant's successor, Wyndham Brands. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)17:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep. Categories are do not represent the "current" situation—they are timeless. Any brands that were once brands of Cendant should be in this category.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. We do have categories that reflect the current situation; both alumni and sports teams use the "most recent name" and are renamed when the institution or team changes its name. In this case, if Cendant had been bought out by another company, there might be a case, but it was split up; Wyndham (which all but one of the category's contents now belong to, I believe) is a successor - basically, renamed - and as they are already categorised in
Category:Wyndham brands, this category has become redundant; in this case, the list at
Cendant (which, admittedly, needs to be expanded for completeness) is sufficient. -
The BushrangerOne ping only09:26, 5 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:Mammals parasites
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:Multinational 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.
Nominator's rationale: Trivial categorization. Musical groups from a specific locality could form a
scene or sub-genre of music but these groups are only related by virtue of having members from other places. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯09:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete having members from multiple nations is not defining. Also, exactly how does a group become multi-national. Are we ready to put a choir here if it is based in one country and has at least one member that is a citizen of another country? If not, than this must mean we have some defined percentage of members who are from a different nation, what is that percentage, how did we define it, and how is it anything other than arbitrary?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:21, 2 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:Iowa Chops
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.
Oppose the renaming of Category:Iowa Chops players because its standard to put players in the category for the team as it was called at the time they played for it. Players who played for the Iowa Chops did not play for the Iowa Stars. It would be a mistake to list them as such. While it is the same franchise in the sports world there is a notable difference in team names. OpposeCategory:Iowa Stars (AHL) players because category wise it needs disambiguation from the CHL team. The main category I have no problem with renaming. -
DJSasso (
talk)
12:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom.
Iowa Chops redirects to Iowa Stars, which says that Wikipedia has decided they are the same. We categorize by team, not by team name. If the team gets renamed we move all people to the new team name. Otherwise people who played 5 years for a team, that renamed twice while they were there, would be in 3 categorizes for it. That is not a good way to do things.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:23, 2 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:Noetics
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.
Upmerge and delete as too small. Name problem fixed by moving the main article to Noetics, as that's what it is called in the article. "Noetic theory" has not been in the article since at least November 2012. —
Arthur Rubin(talk)08:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - I am largely indifferent to the fate of this category. Noetics is nonsense, and it is best handled by people who take it seriously. It exists solely to house articles away from the philosophy category, which actually is very a useful purpose. I would think that Arthur would appreciate that sort of thing.
Greg Bard (
talk)
16:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
It's still a pretty small category. Also, as this may have more eyes than the appropriate talk page,
Noetics,
Noetic theory, and some of the other redirects, had completely different Wikidata language entries. I don't know how to merge the Wikidata entries titled "Noetics" and "Noetic theory". —
Arthur Rubin(talk)16:31, 28 July 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:Professional soccer teams in Pennsylvania
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:Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award recipients
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Spanish–American War weapons
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: Mass-produced items shouldn't be categorized by their usage as it's not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic (in effect, an example of
WP:OC#PERF). An example of a previous CFD for similar categories is
this.
DexDor (
talk)
01:52, 28 July 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:Military equipment of the British Empire
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 category categorizes weapons (e.g.
FN FAL) etc by one of their users. We don't normally categorize mass-produced items by users as it's not
WP:DEFINING of the subject; instead we categorize such articles by country-of-origin (e.g. in
Category:Weapons of the United Kingdom and its subcats). Note also that this category currently only contains a fraction of the articles that would satisfy its inclusion criteria (e.g. WP has articles about hundreds of military vehicle types used by the Empire countries) - the unusual use of "especially" in the text sort of acknowledges this. An example of a previous "weapons-by-user" CFD is
this.
DexDor (
talk)
01:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Almost all weapons will be "weapons of United Kingdom". Some of the old Commonwealth countries may possibly have made their own weapons during WWI & WWII. If so, they should be categorized by those countries. However in practice, almost all weapons will have been made in UK.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:01, 4 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.