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.
SupportRename to
Category:Ombudsmen (Ireland). Demonym raises the possibility of (A) Irish people holding the office of Ombudsman in countries other than Ireland and (B) that non Irish nationals are ineligible to hold the office of Ombudsman in Ireland. Both are false.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
21:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Convention is to have a category for Ireland with 2 subcats, one for the Republic and one for Northern Ireland (as is the case here).
Oculi (
talk)
01:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Fair point; vote updated. Right now we have 1 article for all of Ireland, one for Northern Ireland and one for anyone anywhere in the world of Irish ancestry who holds this title.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
11:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Ombudsman (Ireland) is not for the whole of Ireland, it's for the Republic only. The category inclusion reads: "Holders of the post of Ombudsman in the Republic of Ireland". And all its entries satisfy the criterion.
Oculi (
talk)
22:34, 20 July 2016 (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:Television series by Warner Bros. Television
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:administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:42, 19 July 2016 (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:Television series by Turner Broadcasting System
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:administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:42, 19 July 2016 (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:Television series by HBO Independent Productions
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:administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:42, 19 July 2016 (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:Television series by HBO Downtown Productions
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:administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:42, 19 July 2016 (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:Men with beards
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 same category exists in Commons. I do not say that if it exists there, it should exist here. But it would be easy for readers who would want to know which men wore what type of beards, if such a category is maintained. -
Veera.sj (
talk)
17:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
You know, I really didn't want to be reminded of the episode from around the first of the year wherein a certain admin told me I'm confused about categorization on the encyclopedia and provided a link to some categorization page on Commons so that I could figure it out.
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 13:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Non-encyclopedic information of a trivial sort. Shortness or length of hair is an ephemeral/changeable part of the female/male/human condition...WP doesn't have a Category for Short-haired actresses, or Blonde actors, or men with black hair, or women with shaved heads, etc. A beard or mustache or the length or the color of hair can be changed at a moment's notice, thereby rendering the categorization moot.
Shearonink (
talk)
17:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. I considered closing this as a speedy delete (
WP:G4: recreation of material deleted at a discussion). But the previous discussion was ten years ago, so I suggest letting this run full course, just to establish whether there has been any change in consensus. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Trivial and
non-defining. And since a beard is a thing that can be grown or shaved off at will, nearly every man in all of human existence has been both a "man with a beard" and a clean-shaven "man without a beard" at different points in his life, meaning this approaches total unmaintainability.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:53, 23 July 2016 (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:Chris Christie appointees
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: I haven't found any other category of officials-by-political-appointer. Even the
Category:United States Supreme Court justices, whose appointments are heavily scrutinised for political leaning, are not categorised by appointer. Unless there is a consensus for wider process of categorising officials by who appoints them, then this looks rather like a
WP:POINTy commentary on the controversies surrounding New Jersey governor
Chris Christie.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
KEEP The administration of any elected official is often comprised of that that official's appointees who shape the policy of that administration. Their mention, while important, would perhaps make the target too long. The category enables readers to view how a particular politician create's an administration. The lack of of similar categories recognises the lack, but doesn't explain why the the category shouldn't exist. That US Supreme Court justices would be only one of the many appointees that official (US president in that case) is not really relevant here. The nominator's opinion as to why the category was created is in inappropriate conjecture.
Djflem (
talk)
14:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
The relevant principle here is
WP:DEFINING, and officials are defined more by the job they did than by who appointed them. The justification above makes a case that the appointments defined the appointer; but this a category of appointees. A category doesn't belong on article if it defines someone else.
The category system cannot encompass every attribute and nuance of a person's career, and some things are much better described in prose. That could be prose in the biographical article, or prose in a standalone list, or both. Why not make a
List of appointments by Chris Christie? The list could offer a lot more detail and context than the category, and it would be much more informative to readers. The whole area of political patronage is under-documented on en.wp, and lists like this could help fill at least some of that gap. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete – some of the articles don't even mention Christie, a classic indicator that the characteristic is not all that important, ie not defining.
Oculi (
talk)
22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Untrue: of 40 articles cited in category, all but one mention being named or appointed by Christie to the position, and that has more to do with an oversight in article itself. In other words, it is defining.
Djflem (
talk)
12:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, there is
this, which suggests that an editor added a category to a page when it did not even mention the attribute. Oh yes, here it is:
2. There is also
this where presumably a source could not be found. We could have a host of categories along these lines based on interesting factoids possibly in articles: 'appointed by Theresa May', 'sacked by Theresa May', 'insulted by Boris Johnson', 'betrayed by Michael Gove'. 'called a liar by Donald J Trump'. It's mildly interesting but not defining.
Oculi (
talk)
16:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Is there a problem with making corrections to articles? To address the cherry picking: That
Elizabeth Connelly was not part of the Christie administration (so there wouldn't be a source to be found) and
James Weinstein was head of
New Jersey Transit appointed by Christie and a citation (preferred by Wikipedia) was added. Any comments on the remaining 35+ articles which all cite the defining fact ?
@
RadioKAOS: I didn't "ignore"
Category:United States federal judges by appointing president; I was not aware of it, having checked only the USC categories, which I thought would be the most likely to be so categorised. Thanks for pointing out my oversight. However, I still think that lists are a much better way of handling such appointments, and that e.g.
List of federal judges appointed by Bill Clinton is way more informative than a category. There is a further problem that the US system allows Presidents and governors to make a lot of appointments, and while they are personally involved in the more senior posts, there are far too many offices for them to examine all appointments; the lower down the scale, the more likely that the appointer just takes the advice of others. So a targetted category of "fooers appointed" by X is more focused on significant relationships than an indiscriminate "appointees of X". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Ambassadorships, judgeships, and cabinet level positions are significant appointments which merit articles on Wikipedia. Lower-level positions likely do not have articles on the encyclopedia.
Djflem (
talk)
05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment If one views
Template:Infobox officeholder one sees the name of the appointer/nominator is often present. Wikipedia's inclusion acknowledges the significance of the relationship and indicates its importance/merit for mention
Djflem (
talk)
05:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
If a person is mainly known for a position for which he or she is appointed, the apppointee is part of what makes that role defining.
Djflem (
talk)
05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
See the example cited above of
Matthew Boxer. He is a technocrat, appointed by a Democrat and reappointed by a Repub. His defining characteristic is that he is a non-partisan technocrat, not that one of his terms of office was under a particular governor. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
In other words someone who has nothing to do with
WP:POINTy commentary on the controversies surrounding New Jersey governor
Chris Christie as earlier mentioned since he has nothing to do with them. He's but 1 example of 40 articles who happens to be a technocrat and not a judge or member of the administration's cabinet or governor's office or head of a major state agency? As one knows, one cherry-picked example is not a reason to disqualify an entirel cat. Non-inclusion would, on the other hand, not do justice to Wikipedia's completeness or correctness.
Djflem (
talk)
20:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete presumably a "Christie cabinet" or "Christie administration" template, but in many cases (don't know about NJ) a governor appoints literally hundreds of people to various roles from executive, to staff, to judges, regents, tax collectors, etc. that may not be part of his or her administration.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Not sure of the point…because of the uncertainty of the quantity it shouldn't be a category? There are plenty of cats with hundreds of entries, of which this isn't one.
Djflem (
talk)
04:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment
Political appointments are a matter of interest to Wikipedia, including categories, as seen in selection of examples:
Delete categorizing people by what governor or president appointed them will just create a mess. This is especially true because many Supreme Court and other US justices got appointed earlier to other positions, some chief justices were previously associate justice, some had served in lower court appointments. This would just create a huge mess.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:29, 25 July 2016 (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:Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra geography stubs
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: Limited size of permanent category. Stub category not needed at this time. Delete category and upmerge template.
Dawynn (
talk)
10:30, 19 July 2016 (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:Udaipur geography stubs
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: Total of 12 articles in the permanent category. No need for a stub category at this time. Delete category and upmerge template.
Dawynn (
talk)
10:05, 19 July 2016 (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:Skagway, Alaska geography stubs
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: Less than 20 articles in the permanent category. No need for a stub category. Delete category and upmerge template.
Dawynn (
talk)
10:02, 19 July 2016 (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:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Supreme Genghis Khan
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:People who were rejected for the Medal of Honor
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: We generally avoid categorizing people by things that they are not or things that they did not achieve. Do we really want to categorize people for not having been given an award?
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
DElete -- We have three articles. Two do not mention the citation. The third was rejected because he had taken off against orders. Most medals have a vetting process. Those who are dropped during the scrutiny process do not need a special category. Possibly listify.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:05, 23 July 2016 (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:CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia
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:CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Normally we would use "Oceania" in the place of "the Pacific". Here it is unnecessary, though, even if we wanted to combine the two continents for this category. All of the contents relate to CIA activities in Asia.
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:47, 19 July 2016 (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:Years in Sikkim
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 -- Small annual categories with one article that one reaches on clicking down a twig of several successive otherwise empty categories are a hindrance to navigation.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:09, 23 July 2016 (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:Years in Odisha
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: India is huge, so if properly covered, we should easily have sufficient articles on every state in every year. Fact is though that only a handful of these categories contain more than a single list article on that year's
Ollywood films. Until there's an average of at least three articles per year, these
WP:NARROWCATs impede navigation more than they help. We should rather categorize by decade, a scheme that works well for other Indian states, see as an example 1990s in Jammu and Kashmir, 2000s in Jammu and Kashmir and 2010s in Jammu and Kashmir, and may be further generalized for all Indian states. --
PanchoS (
talk)
06:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge all into
Category:Lists of Ollywood films by year (which apparently exists already). All the cases that I looked at had nothing else in them. If there is any other content in any of the categories, that can be placed directly in an Odisha category and also the appropriate year in India category. I agree with the point about "Orissa". We should use the contemporary Indian-English spelling, not the later Hindi-ised one to apply normal WP rules.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:17, 23 July 2016 (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:Books about LGBT
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 category name is not descriptive enough to be useful, nor does it imply non-fiction.
Category:LGBT non-fiction books is already populated. If there are articles that need a new category, then one can create a more specific category to accommodate those articles. At the moment, such articles are not in evidence. —
Ringbang (
talk)
02:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; the phraseology makes it an attempt at "books about" which suffers the problems of (a) how much about the subject must it be, and (b) what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much. One could add
Leviticus to this category, based on the amount of ink spilled on a few verses therein "about" this subject. Not useful.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
22:22, 21 July 2016 (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.
SupportRename to
Category:Ombudsmen (Ireland). Demonym raises the possibility of (A) Irish people holding the office of Ombudsman in countries other than Ireland and (B) that non Irish nationals are ineligible to hold the office of Ombudsman in Ireland. Both are false.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
21:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Convention is to have a category for Ireland with 2 subcats, one for the Republic and one for Northern Ireland (as is the case here).
Oculi (
talk)
01:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Fair point; vote updated. Right now we have 1 article for all of Ireland, one for Northern Ireland and one for anyone anywhere in the world of Irish ancestry who holds this title.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
11:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Ombudsman (Ireland) is not for the whole of Ireland, it's for the Republic only. The category inclusion reads: "Holders of the post of Ombudsman in the Republic of Ireland". And all its entries satisfy the criterion.
Oculi (
talk)
22:34, 20 July 2016 (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:Television series by Warner Bros. Television
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:administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:42, 19 July 2016 (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:Television series by Turner Broadcasting System
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:administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:42, 19 July 2016 (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:Television series by HBO Independent Productions
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:administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:42, 19 July 2016 (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:Television series by HBO Downtown Productions
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:administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:42, 19 July 2016 (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:Men with beards
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 same category exists in Commons. I do not say that if it exists there, it should exist here. But it would be easy for readers who would want to know which men wore what type of beards, if such a category is maintained. -
Veera.sj (
talk)
17:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
You know, I really didn't want to be reminded of the episode from around the first of the year wherein a certain admin told me I'm confused about categorization on the encyclopedia and provided a link to some categorization page on Commons so that I could figure it out.
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 13:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Non-encyclopedic information of a trivial sort. Shortness or length of hair is an ephemeral/changeable part of the female/male/human condition...WP doesn't have a Category for Short-haired actresses, or Blonde actors, or men with black hair, or women with shaved heads, etc. A beard or mustache or the length or the color of hair can be changed at a moment's notice, thereby rendering the categorization moot.
Shearonink (
talk)
17:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. I considered closing this as a speedy delete (
WP:G4: recreation of material deleted at a discussion). But the previous discussion was ten years ago, so I suggest letting this run full course, just to establish whether there has been any change in consensus. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Trivial and
non-defining. And since a beard is a thing that can be grown or shaved off at will, nearly every man in all of human existence has been both a "man with a beard" and a clean-shaven "man without a beard" at different points in his life, meaning this approaches total unmaintainability.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:53, 23 July 2016 (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:Chris Christie appointees
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: I haven't found any other category of officials-by-political-appointer. Even the
Category:United States Supreme Court justices, whose appointments are heavily scrutinised for political leaning, are not categorised by appointer. Unless there is a consensus for wider process of categorising officials by who appoints them, then this looks rather like a
WP:POINTy commentary on the controversies surrounding New Jersey governor
Chris Christie.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
KEEP The administration of any elected official is often comprised of that that official's appointees who shape the policy of that administration. Their mention, while important, would perhaps make the target too long. The category enables readers to view how a particular politician create's an administration. The lack of of similar categories recognises the lack, but doesn't explain why the the category shouldn't exist. That US Supreme Court justices would be only one of the many appointees that official (US president in that case) is not really relevant here. The nominator's opinion as to why the category was created is in inappropriate conjecture.
Djflem (
talk)
14:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
The relevant principle here is
WP:DEFINING, and officials are defined more by the job they did than by who appointed them. The justification above makes a case that the appointments defined the appointer; but this a category of appointees. A category doesn't belong on article if it defines someone else.
The category system cannot encompass every attribute and nuance of a person's career, and some things are much better described in prose. That could be prose in the biographical article, or prose in a standalone list, or both. Why not make a
List of appointments by Chris Christie? The list could offer a lot more detail and context than the category, and it would be much more informative to readers. The whole area of political patronage is under-documented on en.wp, and lists like this could help fill at least some of that gap. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete – some of the articles don't even mention Christie, a classic indicator that the characteristic is not all that important, ie not defining.
Oculi (
talk)
22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Untrue: of 40 articles cited in category, all but one mention being named or appointed by Christie to the position, and that has more to do with an oversight in article itself. In other words, it is defining.
Djflem (
talk)
12:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, there is
this, which suggests that an editor added a category to a page when it did not even mention the attribute. Oh yes, here it is:
2. There is also
this where presumably a source could not be found. We could have a host of categories along these lines based on interesting factoids possibly in articles: 'appointed by Theresa May', 'sacked by Theresa May', 'insulted by Boris Johnson', 'betrayed by Michael Gove'. 'called a liar by Donald J Trump'. It's mildly interesting but not defining.
Oculi (
talk)
16:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Is there a problem with making corrections to articles? To address the cherry picking: That
Elizabeth Connelly was not part of the Christie administration (so there wouldn't be a source to be found) and
James Weinstein was head of
New Jersey Transit appointed by Christie and a citation (preferred by Wikipedia) was added. Any comments on the remaining 35+ articles which all cite the defining fact ?
@
RadioKAOS: I didn't "ignore"
Category:United States federal judges by appointing president; I was not aware of it, having checked only the USC categories, which I thought would be the most likely to be so categorised. Thanks for pointing out my oversight. However, I still think that lists are a much better way of handling such appointments, and that e.g.
List of federal judges appointed by Bill Clinton is way more informative than a category. There is a further problem that the US system allows Presidents and governors to make a lot of appointments, and while they are personally involved in the more senior posts, there are far too many offices for them to examine all appointments; the lower down the scale, the more likely that the appointer just takes the advice of others. So a targetted category of "fooers appointed" by X is more focused on significant relationships than an indiscriminate "appointees of X". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Ambassadorships, judgeships, and cabinet level positions are significant appointments which merit articles on Wikipedia. Lower-level positions likely do not have articles on the encyclopedia.
Djflem (
talk)
05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment If one views
Template:Infobox officeholder one sees the name of the appointer/nominator is often present. Wikipedia's inclusion acknowledges the significance of the relationship and indicates its importance/merit for mention
Djflem (
talk)
05:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
If a person is mainly known for a position for which he or she is appointed, the apppointee is part of what makes that role defining.
Djflem (
talk)
05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
See the example cited above of
Matthew Boxer. He is a technocrat, appointed by a Democrat and reappointed by a Repub. His defining characteristic is that he is a non-partisan technocrat, not that one of his terms of office was under a particular governor. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
In other words someone who has nothing to do with
WP:POINTy commentary on the controversies surrounding New Jersey governor
Chris Christie as earlier mentioned since he has nothing to do with them. He's but 1 example of 40 articles who happens to be a technocrat and not a judge or member of the administration's cabinet or governor's office or head of a major state agency? As one knows, one cherry-picked example is not a reason to disqualify an entirel cat. Non-inclusion would, on the other hand, not do justice to Wikipedia's completeness or correctness.
Djflem (
talk)
20:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete presumably a "Christie cabinet" or "Christie administration" template, but in many cases (don't know about NJ) a governor appoints literally hundreds of people to various roles from executive, to staff, to judges, regents, tax collectors, etc. that may not be part of his or her administration.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Not sure of the point…because of the uncertainty of the quantity it shouldn't be a category? There are plenty of cats with hundreds of entries, of which this isn't one.
Djflem (
talk)
04:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment
Political appointments are a matter of interest to Wikipedia, including categories, as seen in selection of examples:
Delete categorizing people by what governor or president appointed them will just create a mess. This is especially true because many Supreme Court and other US justices got appointed earlier to other positions, some chief justices were previously associate justice, some had served in lower court appointments. This would just create a huge mess.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:29, 25 July 2016 (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:Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra geography stubs
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: Limited size of permanent category. Stub category not needed at this time. Delete category and upmerge template.
Dawynn (
talk)
10:30, 19 July 2016 (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:Udaipur geography stubs
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: Total of 12 articles in the permanent category. No need for a stub category at this time. Delete category and upmerge template.
Dawynn (
talk)
10:05, 19 July 2016 (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:Skagway, Alaska geography stubs
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: Less than 20 articles in the permanent category. No need for a stub category. Delete category and upmerge template.
Dawynn (
talk)
10:02, 19 July 2016 (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:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Supreme Genghis Khan
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:People who were rejected for the Medal of Honor
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: We generally avoid categorizing people by things that they are not or things that they did not achieve. Do we really want to categorize people for not having been given an award?
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
DElete -- We have three articles. Two do not mention the citation. The third was rejected because he had taken off against orders. Most medals have a vetting process. Those who are dropped during the scrutiny process do not need a special category. Possibly listify.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:05, 23 July 2016 (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:CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia
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:CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Normally we would use "Oceania" in the place of "the Pacific". Here it is unnecessary, though, even if we wanted to combine the two continents for this category. All of the contents relate to CIA activities in Asia.
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:47, 19 July 2016 (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:Years in Sikkim
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 -- Small annual categories with one article that one reaches on clicking down a twig of several successive otherwise empty categories are a hindrance to navigation.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:09, 23 July 2016 (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:Years in Odisha
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: India is huge, so if properly covered, we should easily have sufficient articles on every state in every year. Fact is though that only a handful of these categories contain more than a single list article on that year's
Ollywood films. Until there's an average of at least three articles per year, these
WP:NARROWCATs impede navigation more than they help. We should rather categorize by decade, a scheme that works well for other Indian states, see as an example 1990s in Jammu and Kashmir, 2000s in Jammu and Kashmir and 2010s in Jammu and Kashmir, and may be further generalized for all Indian states. --
PanchoS (
talk)
06:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge all into
Category:Lists of Ollywood films by year (which apparently exists already). All the cases that I looked at had nothing else in them. If there is any other content in any of the categories, that can be placed directly in an Odisha category and also the appropriate year in India category. I agree with the point about "Orissa". We should use the contemporary Indian-English spelling, not the later Hindi-ised one to apply normal WP rules.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:17, 23 July 2016 (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:Books about LGBT
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 category name is not descriptive enough to be useful, nor does it imply non-fiction.
Category:LGBT non-fiction books is already populated. If there are articles that need a new category, then one can create a more specific category to accommodate those articles. At the moment, such articles are not in evidence. —
Ringbang (
talk)
02:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; the phraseology makes it an attempt at "books about" which suffers the problems of (a) how much about the subject must it be, and (b) what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much. One could add
Leviticus to this category, based on the amount of ink spilled on a few verses therein "about" this subject. Not useful.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
22:22, 21 July 2016 (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.