Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 18 June 20 >

June 19

Storting

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename, in the last case to Category:Vice Presidents of the Storting following the citation given below. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per head article Storting.
This proposal reverses a renaming of the first three categories listed here, which took place CFD 2011 March 4 and CfD 2011 March 12. It also renames two newer categories.
The 2011 renamings happened without much participation, on the principle that category names should follow article names ... which is quite reasonable, since that's a speedy criterion: WP:C2D.
However, in May 2014 the head article was moved from Parliament of Norway→ Storting, after a requested move discussion at Talk:Storting#Requested_move. The head article has been stable at "Storting" in the two years since that move, so I think it's time to apply the C2D principle again and realign the category titled with the article title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:42, 19 June 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:Esperanza Returns

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category contains a mixture of user pages, user talk pages etc related to Esperanza (which was shut down in early 2007). A more meaningful category (e.g. "Wikipedians who wish to see Esperanza return") might work but I think it would be better for any such category to be created from scratch (if considered necessary) rather than as a rename of this one. DexDor (talk) 22:26, 19 June 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:Christian apocalyptic novels

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: merge/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, multiple category layers contain just one child category and one article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom. Parent category Category:Apocalyptic novels only contains 41 novels and seems rather underpopulated. No need to subcategorize here. Dimadick ( talk) 21:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all based upon our article Christian novel, "A Christian novel is any novel that expounds and illustrates a Christian world view in its plot, its characters, or both..." Isn't that basically true of the vast majority of Western literature? The whole Christian world view is embodied in the vast majority of Western laws, culture, and literature: Most novels dealing with good vs bad, redemption, or those considering death being an end (rather than a rebirth), or has Christian characters (any reverend, abbot, priest, or nun will do) meets Wikipedia's scholarly definition. As such, being a "Christian novel", which I think is poorly worded as novels don't have religions, is not defining. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment On what are you basing your definition of "Christian"? "Good vs bad" frankly sounds like standard Manichaeism: "Manichaeism taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness." The religion is gone but the association with the "good versus evil" concept remains. Per the same article: "The terms "Manichaean" and "Manichaeism" are sometimes used figuratively as a synonym of the more general term "dualist" with respect to a philosophy or outlook. They are often used to suggest that the world view in question simplistically reduces the world to a struggle between good and evil." I have never heard "good versus evil" associated with Christianity and I have been reading books on its history since I was a teenager. Redemption is not particularly Christian either. The relevant article mostly concerns the concept of redemption in Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism, with the brief section on Christianity barely covering Origen's definition. Death being an end refers to universal human experience and the concept of Eternal oblivion appears in the writings of Plato, Epicurus, Cicero, and Lucretius. According to Epicurus, "Accustom yourself to believing that death is nothing to us, for good and evil imply the capacity for sensation, and death is the privation of all sentience". Christianity instead devotes itself to the concept of an afterlife, which seems to be the exact opposite of death being a meaningful end. As for Christian characters making a work Christian, almost all works of the Nunsploitation genre and Convent pornography involve the sexual escapades of nuns. Are you suggesting that they are typical examples of Christian fiction? Even the novel The 120 Days of Sodom by Marquis de Sade has among its protagonists a Bishop, who happens to like anal sex, gets turned on by murdering others, and looks down on vaginal sex. Based on your definition, this is a Christian novel despite being written by a notorious libertine who politically was in the "far left" of the National Constituent Assembly. I think you have a much too broad definition of Christianity and its influence in human culture. Dimadick ( talk) 12:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
      • A "Christian world view" encompasses good, evil, redemption; and Wikipedia's definition of Christian novel, not mine if you bothered to read, was quoted above, but I repeat it here since you didn't bother to read it the first time and somehow think it's mine: "A Christian novel is any novel that expounds and illustrates a Christian world view in its plot, its characters, or both..." If a bishop as a character doesn't expound a Christian world view, you'd need to find a reliable source for that. Dante's Inferno has lots of naughty clergymen in its cast of characters - being a sinner doesn't negate the fact that a bishop, by virtue of his position, has some semblance of a Christian world view (as opposed to Buddhist, Jewish, or etc. one). Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Possible keep There are a small number of works that seek to interpret the events prophesied in Revelation, Daniel and other Biblical books in fictional form. Such novels concern the Apocolypse in its strict sense, and might deserve a category, but such matter as does not conform to that narrow definition should be purged. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:37, 25 June 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:Dance music by subgenre

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: First, its always good to avoid "by ..." when appropriate. Second, it should be in line with other entries in Category:Musical_subgenres_by_genre. CN1 ( talk) 18:45, 19 June 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:Kurdish secession by country

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: keep. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Kurdish nationalism. Charles Essie ( talk) 18:29, 19 June 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:Republican Party of Russia – People's Freedom Party

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 rename per C2D. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: C2D per People's Freedom Party. Charles Essie ( talk) 18:18, 19 June 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:Women only space

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 rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: C2B (making the name plural) and C2D (adding hyphen, per Women-only space). Trivialist ( talk) 16:33, 19 June 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:Arab nationalists

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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per compromise reached in earlier merge discussion. Charles Essie ( talk) 16:08, 19 June 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:Singing and Category:Vocal music

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: do as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category:Vocal music should be subcategory to Category:Singing, as you would have Category:Guitar music as a subcategory to Category:Guitar. Several subcategories, which lie in both, could be deleted in Category:Singing. CN1
  • Agree with CN1, it doesn't need to be discussed in advance, and if there would be any discussion about it afterwards this is not the right platform for having such a discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:37, 20 June 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:Inventions of the Third Reich

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:German inventions of the Nazi period. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This may fall under speedy per C2D, since per Nazi Germany#Name the Third Reich redirects to Nazi Germany, but just in case I'm giving this a normal discussion. There is also no parent Category:Third Reich. Brandmeister talk 14:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Also the "of" is ambiguous here. Does it mean inventions caused to exist by the Nazi regime, or does it mean any invention made in Germany while the Nazis were in power? Is the telephone an "Invention of the United States"? BMK ( talk) 22:20, 19 June 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:Child education organizations

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: keep. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The vast majority of organisations in Category:Educational organizations are concerned with the education of children. It's very unclear why those in this sub-category are differentiated. If we want a sub-category "Adult education organisations" would be a more useful split. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:12, 19 June 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:Recipients of the 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal

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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
The 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal was given out to 42,000 people in 1992 to celebrate the anniversary of Canada. According to the article, nominations were submitted through "lieutenant governors and territorial commissioners, senators, members of parliament, provincial governments, the Public Service Commission of Canada, the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and various federal government departments, as well as organizations throughout the country" so it's no surprise so many were given out for so many different reasons. Canada does have other commemorative medals but none of those have a Wikipedia recipients category. None of these people had anything to do with establishing Canada so the medal doesn't seem defining and these people have very little in common with each other. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified 4meter4 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • As always, the category system does not exist as a venue for creating lists on every bit of trivia it would be remotely possible to create a list for — we categorize people on WP:DEFINING characteristics, not every single award they were ever given. This indeed is not all that significant an honour — it would not, for instance, be enough to get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself if it was the most substantive notability claim that could be made. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This seems to have eben too widely awarded to make a useful category: see OCAWARD. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:46, 25 June 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:Jubilee 150 Walkway

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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT WP:TOPTEN, WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:OCASSOC
The Jubilee 150 Walkway is a Walk of Fame from 1986 celebrating 150 years of South Australia history and it looks like this. About 150 famous people have plaques in the sidewalk and this category groups those biography articles together. (There are also a few other loosely associated articles.) The problem is that the names of these people are there because they were already notable; adding them to the walkway didn't make them notable. The individual articles are already categorized under the Category:People from South Australia tree and these recipients are already listed here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Pdfpdf as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject South Australia. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
There's lots of "stuff" associated with J150W - mainly articles and photos, but other stuff as well. This category provides a receptacle for the names of all related pages. Why is this a problem? I would very much appreciate you explaining the problem, and/or expanding on the above explanations.
You say: The problem is that the names of these people are there because they were already notable; adding them to the walkway didn't make them notable. - I don't understand what is the issue you're raising here.
You say: The individual articles are already categorized under the Category:People from South Australia tree. I don't understand your point. There are a very large number of people in that category, all but 150 of whom are NOT related to J150W.
Sorry to be a pain, but it's difficult to agree or disagree with you when I don't understand what your point is / points are.
Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply Sure, I can elaborate. 1.) Generally I think we should avoid loose association "receptacle" categories. "People on this walk of fame", "buildings near this walk of fame", "companies founded by people on this walk of fame" and "monuments with lists of names in Adelaide that predate this walk of fame" are four different groups; I don't think we should categorize by any of these things but, if we do, they shouldn't lump them into one free-for-all per WP:OCASSOC. 2.) Some awards like the Nobel Prize are defining to biography articles because the award itself makes the person more famous. Most local halls of fame, like this one, just reflect a person's fame and should not be a category per WP:OCAWARD. 3.) If a person is interested in finding these biography articles, the existing framework of people from South Australia is the best way to find them because it breaks them down by politicians, sportspeople, scientists, etc. in a way that logically groups them and aids navigation. This category lumps a bunch of people together based on a list that have little in common besides being from SA so it doesn't aid navigtaion. -- Hopefully, this expansion of my thoughts is helpful in at lease conveying my concerns even if we still disagree over this category! RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:58, 19 June 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_19&oldid=1074816782"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 18 June 20 >

June 19

Storting

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename, in the last case to Category:Vice Presidents of the Storting following the citation given below. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per head article Storting.
This proposal reverses a renaming of the first three categories listed here, which took place CFD 2011 March 4 and CfD 2011 March 12. It also renames two newer categories.
The 2011 renamings happened without much participation, on the principle that category names should follow article names ... which is quite reasonable, since that's a speedy criterion: WP:C2D.
However, in May 2014 the head article was moved from Parliament of Norway→ Storting, after a requested move discussion at Talk:Storting#Requested_move. The head article has been stable at "Storting" in the two years since that move, so I think it's time to apply the C2D principle again and realign the category titled with the article title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:42, 19 June 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:Esperanza Returns

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category contains a mixture of user pages, user talk pages etc related to Esperanza (which was shut down in early 2007). A more meaningful category (e.g. "Wikipedians who wish to see Esperanza return") might work but I think it would be better for any such category to be created from scratch (if considered necessary) rather than as a rename of this one. DexDor (talk) 22:26, 19 June 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:Christian apocalyptic novels

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: merge/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, multiple category layers contain just one child category and one article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom. Parent category Category:Apocalyptic novels only contains 41 novels and seems rather underpopulated. No need to subcategorize here. Dimadick ( talk) 21:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all based upon our article Christian novel, "A Christian novel is any novel that expounds and illustrates a Christian world view in its plot, its characters, or both..." Isn't that basically true of the vast majority of Western literature? The whole Christian world view is embodied in the vast majority of Western laws, culture, and literature: Most novels dealing with good vs bad, redemption, or those considering death being an end (rather than a rebirth), or has Christian characters (any reverend, abbot, priest, or nun will do) meets Wikipedia's scholarly definition. As such, being a "Christian novel", which I think is poorly worded as novels don't have religions, is not defining. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment On what are you basing your definition of "Christian"? "Good vs bad" frankly sounds like standard Manichaeism: "Manichaeism taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness." The religion is gone but the association with the "good versus evil" concept remains. Per the same article: "The terms "Manichaean" and "Manichaeism" are sometimes used figuratively as a synonym of the more general term "dualist" with respect to a philosophy or outlook. They are often used to suggest that the world view in question simplistically reduces the world to a struggle between good and evil." I have never heard "good versus evil" associated with Christianity and I have been reading books on its history since I was a teenager. Redemption is not particularly Christian either. The relevant article mostly concerns the concept of redemption in Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism, with the brief section on Christianity barely covering Origen's definition. Death being an end refers to universal human experience and the concept of Eternal oblivion appears in the writings of Plato, Epicurus, Cicero, and Lucretius. According to Epicurus, "Accustom yourself to believing that death is nothing to us, for good and evil imply the capacity for sensation, and death is the privation of all sentience". Christianity instead devotes itself to the concept of an afterlife, which seems to be the exact opposite of death being a meaningful end. As for Christian characters making a work Christian, almost all works of the Nunsploitation genre and Convent pornography involve the sexual escapades of nuns. Are you suggesting that they are typical examples of Christian fiction? Even the novel The 120 Days of Sodom by Marquis de Sade has among its protagonists a Bishop, who happens to like anal sex, gets turned on by murdering others, and looks down on vaginal sex. Based on your definition, this is a Christian novel despite being written by a notorious libertine who politically was in the "far left" of the National Constituent Assembly. I think you have a much too broad definition of Christianity and its influence in human culture. Dimadick ( talk) 12:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
      • A "Christian world view" encompasses good, evil, redemption; and Wikipedia's definition of Christian novel, not mine if you bothered to read, was quoted above, but I repeat it here since you didn't bother to read it the first time and somehow think it's mine: "A Christian novel is any novel that expounds and illustrates a Christian world view in its plot, its characters, or both..." If a bishop as a character doesn't expound a Christian world view, you'd need to find a reliable source for that. Dante's Inferno has lots of naughty clergymen in its cast of characters - being a sinner doesn't negate the fact that a bishop, by virtue of his position, has some semblance of a Christian world view (as opposed to Buddhist, Jewish, or etc. one). Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Possible keep There are a small number of works that seek to interpret the events prophesied in Revelation, Daniel and other Biblical books in fictional form. Such novels concern the Apocolypse in its strict sense, and might deserve a category, but such matter as does not conform to that narrow definition should be purged. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:37, 25 June 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:Dance music by subgenre

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: First, its always good to avoid "by ..." when appropriate. Second, it should be in line with other entries in Category:Musical_subgenres_by_genre. CN1 ( talk) 18:45, 19 June 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:Kurdish secession by country

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: keep. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Kurdish nationalism. Charles Essie ( talk) 18:29, 19 June 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:Republican Party of Russia – People's Freedom Party

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 rename per C2D. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: C2D per People's Freedom Party. Charles Essie ( talk) 18:18, 19 June 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:Women only space

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 rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: C2B (making the name plural) and C2D (adding hyphen, per Women-only space). Trivialist ( talk) 16:33, 19 June 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:Arab nationalists

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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per compromise reached in earlier merge discussion. Charles Essie ( talk) 16:08, 19 June 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:Singing and Category:Vocal music

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: do as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category:Vocal music should be subcategory to Category:Singing, as you would have Category:Guitar music as a subcategory to Category:Guitar. Several subcategories, which lie in both, could be deleted in Category:Singing. CN1
  • Agree with CN1, it doesn't need to be discussed in advance, and if there would be any discussion about it afterwards this is not the right platform for having such a discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:37, 20 June 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:Inventions of the Third Reich

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:German inventions of the Nazi period. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This may fall under speedy per C2D, since per Nazi Germany#Name the Third Reich redirects to Nazi Germany, but just in case I'm giving this a normal discussion. There is also no parent Category:Third Reich. Brandmeister talk 14:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Also the "of" is ambiguous here. Does it mean inventions caused to exist by the Nazi regime, or does it mean any invention made in Germany while the Nazis were in power? Is the telephone an "Invention of the United States"? BMK ( talk) 22:20, 19 June 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:Child education organizations

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: keep. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The vast majority of organisations in Category:Educational organizations are concerned with the education of children. It's very unclear why those in this sub-category are differentiated. If we want a sub-category "Adult education organisations" would be a more useful split. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:12, 19 June 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:Recipients of the 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal

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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
The 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal was given out to 42,000 people in 1992 to celebrate the anniversary of Canada. According to the article, nominations were submitted through "lieutenant governors and territorial commissioners, senators, members of parliament, provincial governments, the Public Service Commission of Canada, the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and various federal government departments, as well as organizations throughout the country" so it's no surprise so many were given out for so many different reasons. Canada does have other commemorative medals but none of those have a Wikipedia recipients category. None of these people had anything to do with establishing Canada so the medal doesn't seem defining and these people have very little in common with each other. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified 4meter4 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • As always, the category system does not exist as a venue for creating lists on every bit of trivia it would be remotely possible to create a list for — we categorize people on WP:DEFINING characteristics, not every single award they were ever given. This indeed is not all that significant an honour — it would not, for instance, be enough to get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself if it was the most substantive notability claim that could be made. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This seems to have eben too widely awarded to make a useful category: see OCAWARD. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:46, 25 June 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:Jubilee 150 Walkway

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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT WP:TOPTEN, WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:OCASSOC
The Jubilee 150 Walkway is a Walk of Fame from 1986 celebrating 150 years of South Australia history and it looks like this. About 150 famous people have plaques in the sidewalk and this category groups those biography articles together. (There are also a few other loosely associated articles.) The problem is that the names of these people are there because they were already notable; adding them to the walkway didn't make them notable. The individual articles are already categorized under the Category:People from South Australia tree and these recipients are already listed here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Pdfpdf as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject South Australia. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
There's lots of "stuff" associated with J150W - mainly articles and photos, but other stuff as well. This category provides a receptacle for the names of all related pages. Why is this a problem? I would very much appreciate you explaining the problem, and/or expanding on the above explanations.
You say: The problem is that the names of these people are there because they were already notable; adding them to the walkway didn't make them notable. - I don't understand what is the issue you're raising here.
You say: The individual articles are already categorized under the Category:People from South Australia tree. I don't understand your point. There are a very large number of people in that category, all but 150 of whom are NOT related to J150W.
Sorry to be a pain, but it's difficult to agree or disagree with you when I don't understand what your point is / points are.
Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply Sure, I can elaborate. 1.) Generally I think we should avoid loose association "receptacle" categories. "People on this walk of fame", "buildings near this walk of fame", "companies founded by people on this walk of fame" and "monuments with lists of names in Adelaide that predate this walk of fame" are four different groups; I don't think we should categorize by any of these things but, if we do, they shouldn't lump them into one free-for-all per WP:OCASSOC. 2.) Some awards like the Nobel Prize are defining to biography articles because the award itself makes the person more famous. Most local halls of fame, like this one, just reflect a person's fame and should not be a category per WP:OCAWARD. 3.) If a person is interested in finding these biography articles, the existing framework of people from South Australia is the best way to find them because it breaks them down by politicians, sportspeople, scientists, etc. in a way that logically groups them and aids navigation. This category lumps a bunch of people together based on a list that have little in common besides being from SA so it doesn't aid navigtaion. -- Hopefully, this expansion of my thoughts is helpful in at lease conveying my concerns even if we still disagree over this category! RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:58, 19 June 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_19&oldid=1074816782"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE