December 2
Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color
- 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: Speedy delete as a category populated by a retargeted template (
CSD G8).
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
13:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color
- Nominator's rationale: Entries in this category were generated by {{ Taxobox/core}}. It no longer does so. Detected invalid colours are now divided between Category:Taxoboxes with no color (a very few entries here may not be errors) and Category:Taxoboxes with the error color to enable better error-checking and correction. Hence this category can be deleted. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, seems uncontroversial. VegaDark ( talk) 22:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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 social liberals and Category:American classical liberals
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ xplicit 01:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:OPINIONCAT, and unclear scope. Also per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 19#Category:American liberals, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 21#Category:American conservatives (both of which were deleted on vagueness grounds). The "social liberal" category is also poorly populated in any case (14 entries). The "classical liberal" category suffers from being a grab-bag of widely disparate people, many of whom wouldn't even be best categorized under this label. For example, Abigail Adams, Barry Goldwater, Calvin Coolidge, and Nathaniel Hawthorne, who are not meaningfully similar, are grouped together in this category. Perhaps a more narrow category ( American classical liberal theorists) might work, but not this catch-all. Neutrality talk 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- DElete -- WE have repeatedly deleted such categories in the past as dependent on the editors POV. Furthermore, a person's attitudes may be liberal in one area and conservative in another. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Procedural oppose. I oppose these being deleted without a broader nomination of Category:Social liberals and its several (by-nationality and by-continent) subcategories and Category:Classical liberals and its several (by-nationality and by-continent) subcategories. There is little sense discussing the American-nationality categories of a scheme in isolation. I would probably have no objection to the broader categories being deleted, but only if they are nominated and discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, this should probably be discussed separately by country. While in the US there is no social liberal party, there may be in some other countries. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that it needs to be discussed separately. If there is a party that is social liberal, they can be categorized in the politicians by party category scheme, as is usual practice. This does not fit into that scheme—it's more of a people by political orientation. I see no good reason to single out the American ones and only discuss them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- You're right. Then a batch nomination is more appropriate indeed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Or at minimum, an undertaking to nominate the others soon afterwards? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- I would nominate the rest to follow afterward. (I.e., this could be the "test nomination"). Neutrality talk 04:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then I agree to strike my opposition. The underlying rationale sounds reasonable to me and I support deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, as long as this is followed up with nominations of the non-American categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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 progressives
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
- Propose renaming Category:American progressives to Category:People of the Progressive Era or as an alternative, deleting and upmerging relevant articles to Category:Progressive Era in the United States.
- Nominator's rationale: Unclear scope. The problem is that the category includes both contemporary American liberals and figures of the Progressive Era (1890s-1920s). The former runs into problems with WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:OPINIONCAT; this is the reason why both Category:American liberals and Category:American conservatives were deleted long ago ( Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 19#Category:American liberals, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 21#Category:American conservatives).
- For the people of the Progressive Era, I would support a rename to Category:People of the Progressive Era (reflecting other similar categories; e.g., Category:People of the Victorian era and Category:People of the American Revolution. Or we could delete the category altogether and upmerge the relevant biographies to the broader Category:Progressive Era in the United States cat. Neutrality talk 02:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NONDEF, "Progressive Era" is not a defining characteristic of people in this category who lived during the Progressive Era, it's mostly not even mentioned in the articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete non-defining. anyone alive during the "Progressive Era" is better served by centuries and decades of births and deaths. Anyone who is called a "Progressive" needs to be more narrowly categorized, and what was progressive in the 1880s, 1910s, or 2016 are quite different. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reason as liberals (above). If progressive era is meaningful to American historians, I have no objection to the proposed creation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note that Category:Progressive Era in the United States already exists. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment While I would not oppose a specific category for people of the Progressive Era, I am somewhat uncertain of its exact scope. The article covers 3 American Presidents and their administrations: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. This covers the years 1901 to 1921. However the article traces the origins of the Progressive movement to reform campaigns of the 1890s and figures such as Hazen S. Pingree (d. [[1901). As to the end of the era, there is some uncertainty. Progressives were out of the White House in the 1920s, but still active in politics. The movement supposedly faded away in the 1930s, as aging Progressives voiced their opposition to Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, and failed to preserve their beloved Prohibition (which was repealed in 1933). However, some of the constitutional changes passed by Progressives seem to have had lasting effects. The 16th Amendment is still in effect, the 17th Amendment still in effect, the 18th Amendment was repealed in 1933, and the 19th Amendment is still in effect. Some of the eugenics laws passed by Progressives were also in effect decades later. Efforts to end to end the eugenics projects started in the 1960s, and apparently succeeded in the 1970s. North Carolina, the state with the most aggressive eugenics project, only ended it in 1977. Peterkingiron, which years do you suggest for the beginning and ending of the Progressive Era? Dimadick ( talk) 23:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
December 2
Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color
- 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: Speedy delete as a category populated by a retargeted template (
CSD G8).
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
13:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color
- Nominator's rationale: Entries in this category were generated by {{ Taxobox/core}}. It no longer does so. Detected invalid colours are now divided between Category:Taxoboxes with no color (a very few entries here may not be errors) and Category:Taxoboxes with the error color to enable better error-checking and correction. Hence this category can be deleted. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, seems uncontroversial. VegaDark ( talk) 22:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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 social liberals and Category:American classical liberals
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ xplicit 01:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:OPINIONCAT, and unclear scope. Also per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 19#Category:American liberals, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 21#Category:American conservatives (both of which were deleted on vagueness grounds). The "social liberal" category is also poorly populated in any case (14 entries). The "classical liberal" category suffers from being a grab-bag of widely disparate people, many of whom wouldn't even be best categorized under this label. For example, Abigail Adams, Barry Goldwater, Calvin Coolidge, and Nathaniel Hawthorne, who are not meaningfully similar, are grouped together in this category. Perhaps a more narrow category ( American classical liberal theorists) might work, but not this catch-all. Neutrality talk 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- DElete -- WE have repeatedly deleted such categories in the past as dependent on the editors POV. Furthermore, a person's attitudes may be liberal in one area and conservative in another. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Procedural oppose. I oppose these being deleted without a broader nomination of Category:Social liberals and its several (by-nationality and by-continent) subcategories and Category:Classical liberals and its several (by-nationality and by-continent) subcategories. There is little sense discussing the American-nationality categories of a scheme in isolation. I would probably have no objection to the broader categories being deleted, but only if they are nominated and discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, this should probably be discussed separately by country. While in the US there is no social liberal party, there may be in some other countries. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that it needs to be discussed separately. If there is a party that is social liberal, they can be categorized in the politicians by party category scheme, as is usual practice. This does not fit into that scheme—it's more of a people by political orientation. I see no good reason to single out the American ones and only discuss them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- You're right. Then a batch nomination is more appropriate indeed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Or at minimum, an undertaking to nominate the others soon afterwards? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- I would nominate the rest to follow afterward. (I.e., this could be the "test nomination"). Neutrality talk 04:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then I agree to strike my opposition. The underlying rationale sounds reasonable to me and I support deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, as long as this is followed up with nominations of the non-American categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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 progressives
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
- Propose renaming Category:American progressives to Category:People of the Progressive Era or as an alternative, deleting and upmerging relevant articles to Category:Progressive Era in the United States.
- Nominator's rationale: Unclear scope. The problem is that the category includes both contemporary American liberals and figures of the Progressive Era (1890s-1920s). The former runs into problems with WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:OPINIONCAT; this is the reason why both Category:American liberals and Category:American conservatives were deleted long ago ( Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 19#Category:American liberals, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 21#Category:American conservatives).
- For the people of the Progressive Era, I would support a rename to Category:People of the Progressive Era (reflecting other similar categories; e.g., Category:People of the Victorian era and Category:People of the American Revolution. Or we could delete the category altogether and upmerge the relevant biographies to the broader Category:Progressive Era in the United States cat. Neutrality talk 02:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NONDEF, "Progressive Era" is not a defining characteristic of people in this category who lived during the Progressive Era, it's mostly not even mentioned in the articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete non-defining. anyone alive during the "Progressive Era" is better served by centuries and decades of births and deaths. Anyone who is called a "Progressive" needs to be more narrowly categorized, and what was progressive in the 1880s, 1910s, or 2016 are quite different. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reason as liberals (above). If progressive era is meaningful to American historians, I have no objection to the proposed creation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note that Category:Progressive Era in the United States already exists. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment While I would not oppose a specific category for people of the Progressive Era, I am somewhat uncertain of its exact scope. The article covers 3 American Presidents and their administrations: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. This covers the years 1901 to 1921. However the article traces the origins of the Progressive movement to reform campaigns of the 1890s and figures such as Hazen S. Pingree (d. [[1901). As to the end of the era, there is some uncertainty. Progressives were out of the White House in the 1920s, but still active in politics. The movement supposedly faded away in the 1930s, as aging Progressives voiced their opposition to Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, and failed to preserve their beloved Prohibition (which was repealed in 1933). However, some of the constitutional changes passed by Progressives seem to have had lasting effects. The 16th Amendment is still in effect, the 17th Amendment still in effect, the 18th Amendment was repealed in 1933, and the 19th Amendment is still in effect. Some of the eugenics laws passed by Progressives were also in effect decades later. Efforts to end to end the eugenics projects started in the 1960s, and apparently succeeded in the 1970s. North Carolina, the state with the most aggressive eugenics project, only ended it in 1977. Peterkingiron, which years do you suggest for the beginning and ending of the Progressive Era? Dimadick ( talk) 23:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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.