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:upmerge to parent categories, this category merely contains two subcategories and nothing else, this is unhelpful for easy navigation.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:39, 10 May 2017 (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:Deaf electronic musicians
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:Removed Monuments and Memorials of the Confederate States of America
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.
KeepDelete -- changed my vote
Herostratus (
talk)
02:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC) of kept rename to
Defunct Confederate States of America monuments and memorials, rather than just "removed". Or possibly "former". (I think "defunct" is used a lot in our category names; whether "defunct" or "former" or "removed" or some other word best matches how our categories are named, maybe the closer will know and she can choose. I just think "removed" is slightly narrower than "defunct" -- what if wasn't removed but just fell apart in place or was painted over or whatever? As to nominator's point, there are surely more than one such monument that no longer exists?reply
They are? My assumption that the category would cover all Confederate monuments and memorials which existed but now don't exist as memorials and monuments. Pieces of them may exist or they may be boxed up in storage (apparently this is the deal with the Liberty Monument) or whatever. We don't want to overcategorize into separate categories for those which were destroyed, those which have just fallen over, those which have been covered up, those in storage, and so forth. "Former" covers all that. "Former" covers a lot of things.
Willie Mays is a "former" baseball player. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist on some level. It doesn't even mean he couldn't play in a baseball game if he wanted to. It just means he's not functioning as a baseball player in the sense that its commonly understood.
Herostratus (
talk)
11:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
So I have. Although we do have "defunct" categories for businesses etc. However, there's an even better argument for deletion: the category contained
Liberty Monument (New Orleans). But that's not a Confederate monument after all. There is another, the Jeff Davis monument in New Orleans. But then that's the only one (that I know of), so then we'd have a one-article category. Not worthwhile. Change my vote to Delete, Harris.
Herostratus (
talk)
02:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Although now I see that there might be two: There's the one in New Orleans to Jefferson Davis, and one in North Carolina to Lee, that they are planning to remove. But just planning, at this point. So no prejudice against re-creating the category when and if this goes thru.
Herostratus (
talk)
17:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is unnecessary. The monuments are usually moved to another location, and their articles can simply explain that.
Zigzig20s (
talk)
18:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment A second member of this category was just added. Would someone please delete [
[1]] which I created in error while setting up this category. Thank you.
deisenbe (
talk)
11:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment User
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/75.66.124.118 removed the Liberty Monument from the category giving as rationale that it did not deal with the Confederate States of America. Technically this is true, but it's missing the point, IMHO. Its removal and the removal of the Jefferson Davis memorial (and the others mentioned in the news article quoted above, when and if they happen), belong in the same category, whatever it is called. Note that according to the WP article, it was deliberately removed on
Confederate Memorial Day. I restored it and deleted that user's placing it in
/info/en/?search=Category:Relocated_buildings_and_structures_in_Louisiana. Its present location is an unknown warehouse. I don't think "Relocated" is the right word.
deisenbe (
talk)
11:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Take it to the articles talk page as I recommended. You've been on here long enough to know they rules. Also I would suggest you read
WP:NOTNEWS the article is not really that important to the encyclopedia. --
Fruitloop11 (
talk)
18:09, 11 May 2017 (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:Celtic people
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: NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH
Category:Celts which has appropriate scope.
This category is problematic as it comes from a nationalist standpoint: there is no category on "Germanic people" or "Latin people" for the reasons I shall elaborate. For example, this category has as a sub-category "English people". Whatever genetic research says, the sheer fact is that nobody in England calls themselves a Celt, so to have every single English person of any heritage who ever existed within the category of "Celtic people" is absurd. Wales, Scotland and Ireland are historically places where Celts dominated, but that does not equal that every single person in the whole of their history is "Celtic". This is like saying all Mexicans are Aztecs. There may well be people in those countries who were born there, identify with those countries, but don't call themselves "Celts" because they've never considered it. By the same metric,
Category:Brythonic Celts and
Category:Gaels shouldn't contain any people or categories of people apart from in a historic sense.
Anarcho-authoritarian (
talk)
22:47, 2 April 2017 (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:Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union
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: To match article
Brexit. I am putting this forward as a procedural nomination, since this was nominated for speedy renaming but opposed there. –
FayenaticLondon09:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
We use
WP:COMMONNAMEs - and if a)the prospect of the withdrawal of a country becomes significant enough to become a "thing" and b)XXexit is the
WP:COMMONNAME for that process, then yes. I've certainly seen
WP:RS in the mainstream press talking about Grexit, Frexit, Swexit and yes, Czexit.
Le Deluge (
talk)
13:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Renaming would also give a bit more clarity on the scope. Currently the category also contains articles about the 1975 referendum which seems something totally unrelated and they should be removed.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Brexit (for good or ill) is clearly the very widely used and widely recognised term for the exit process/decision.
Sionk (
talk)
17:14, 29 May 2017 (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:Dog songs
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 don't know what a "dog song" is but I assume the category is intended for songs about dogs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me16:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. These 'Songs about' are repositories for original research and listing by title. For instance, one entry, has nothing in the text about the subject, so it is listed merely because of the title,
Me and You and a Dog Named Boo, and the title does actually suggest it's not about a dog either. So, at this point, it seems to fair to suggest the correct category name should be 'Songs which mention a dog somewhere in the title and or lyrics' How very defining! I doubt there is another project on WP that would permit such vacuous categories. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
09:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Rathfelder: Trouble is that a category is for "defined" attributes of the members, roughly speaking, something that is mentioned in the lead of the article. Nowhere in the text if there confirmation that the song is about a dog, Allmusic says the song is about "freedom" and "long walk." Most of these categories, as
Carlossuarez46 says, are really pointless categories and adding "Me & You..." in any lyric based category is about as pointless as it gets.--
Richhoncho (
talk)
11:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete suffers the usual failings of "X about Y" categories: how much about the subject must it be and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much? Moreover, this is not a notable genre:
songs about dogs other than as a list could probably not be written.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The arguments and precedents for deletion are worth further attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon07:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete apart from precedenct, which alone suffices to delete this, the "about" category suffers the usual problems of the about categories: how much about the topic must it be, and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much about it.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:17, 10 May 2017 (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:History of Al-Andalus by period
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:Pearson and Darling buildings
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:Asian monarchs
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.
Strong oppose - the attempts at interchangeability and odd titled categories relative to a wide range of different sort of rulers in Asia across cultures should not be narrowed down to such a generic and loose term
JarrahTree13:19, 10 May 2017 (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:Asian kings
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.
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:upmerge to parent categories, this category merely contains two subcategories and nothing else, this is unhelpful for easy navigation.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:39, 10 May 2017 (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:Deaf electronic musicians
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:Removed Monuments and Memorials of the Confederate States of America
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.
KeepDelete -- changed my vote
Herostratus (
talk)
02:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC) of kept rename to
Defunct Confederate States of America monuments and memorials, rather than just "removed". Or possibly "former". (I think "defunct" is used a lot in our category names; whether "defunct" or "former" or "removed" or some other word best matches how our categories are named, maybe the closer will know and she can choose. I just think "removed" is slightly narrower than "defunct" -- what if wasn't removed but just fell apart in place or was painted over or whatever? As to nominator's point, there are surely more than one such monument that no longer exists?reply
They are? My assumption that the category would cover all Confederate monuments and memorials which existed but now don't exist as memorials and monuments. Pieces of them may exist or they may be boxed up in storage (apparently this is the deal with the Liberty Monument) or whatever. We don't want to overcategorize into separate categories for those which were destroyed, those which have just fallen over, those which have been covered up, those in storage, and so forth. "Former" covers all that. "Former" covers a lot of things.
Willie Mays is a "former" baseball player. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist on some level. It doesn't even mean he couldn't play in a baseball game if he wanted to. It just means he's not functioning as a baseball player in the sense that its commonly understood.
Herostratus (
talk)
11:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
So I have. Although we do have "defunct" categories for businesses etc. However, there's an even better argument for deletion: the category contained
Liberty Monument (New Orleans). But that's not a Confederate monument after all. There is another, the Jeff Davis monument in New Orleans. But then that's the only one (that I know of), so then we'd have a one-article category. Not worthwhile. Change my vote to Delete, Harris.
Herostratus (
talk)
02:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Although now I see that there might be two: There's the one in New Orleans to Jefferson Davis, and one in North Carolina to Lee, that they are planning to remove. But just planning, at this point. So no prejudice against re-creating the category when and if this goes thru.
Herostratus (
talk)
17:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is unnecessary. The monuments are usually moved to another location, and their articles can simply explain that.
Zigzig20s (
talk)
18:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment A second member of this category was just added. Would someone please delete [
[1]] which I created in error while setting up this category. Thank you.
deisenbe (
talk)
11:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment User
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/75.66.124.118 removed the Liberty Monument from the category giving as rationale that it did not deal with the Confederate States of America. Technically this is true, but it's missing the point, IMHO. Its removal and the removal of the Jefferson Davis memorial (and the others mentioned in the news article quoted above, when and if they happen), belong in the same category, whatever it is called. Note that according to the WP article, it was deliberately removed on
Confederate Memorial Day. I restored it and deleted that user's placing it in
/info/en/?search=Category:Relocated_buildings_and_structures_in_Louisiana. Its present location is an unknown warehouse. I don't think "Relocated" is the right word.
deisenbe (
talk)
11:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Take it to the articles talk page as I recommended. You've been on here long enough to know they rules. Also I would suggest you read
WP:NOTNEWS the article is not really that important to the encyclopedia. --
Fruitloop11 (
talk)
18:09, 11 May 2017 (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:Celtic people
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: NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH
Category:Celts which has appropriate scope.
This category is problematic as it comes from a nationalist standpoint: there is no category on "Germanic people" or "Latin people" for the reasons I shall elaborate. For example, this category has as a sub-category "English people". Whatever genetic research says, the sheer fact is that nobody in England calls themselves a Celt, so to have every single English person of any heritage who ever existed within the category of "Celtic people" is absurd. Wales, Scotland and Ireland are historically places where Celts dominated, but that does not equal that every single person in the whole of their history is "Celtic". This is like saying all Mexicans are Aztecs. There may well be people in those countries who were born there, identify with those countries, but don't call themselves "Celts" because they've never considered it. By the same metric,
Category:Brythonic Celts and
Category:Gaels shouldn't contain any people or categories of people apart from in a historic sense.
Anarcho-authoritarian (
talk)
22:47, 2 April 2017 (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:Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union
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: To match article
Brexit. I am putting this forward as a procedural nomination, since this was nominated for speedy renaming but opposed there. –
FayenaticLondon09:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
We use
WP:COMMONNAMEs - and if a)the prospect of the withdrawal of a country becomes significant enough to become a "thing" and b)XXexit is the
WP:COMMONNAME for that process, then yes. I've certainly seen
WP:RS in the mainstream press talking about Grexit, Frexit, Swexit and yes, Czexit.
Le Deluge (
talk)
13:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Renaming would also give a bit more clarity on the scope. Currently the category also contains articles about the 1975 referendum which seems something totally unrelated and they should be removed.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Brexit (for good or ill) is clearly the very widely used and widely recognised term for the exit process/decision.
Sionk (
talk)
17:14, 29 May 2017 (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:Dog songs
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 don't know what a "dog song" is but I assume the category is intended for songs about dogs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me16:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. These 'Songs about' are repositories for original research and listing by title. For instance, one entry, has nothing in the text about the subject, so it is listed merely because of the title,
Me and You and a Dog Named Boo, and the title does actually suggest it's not about a dog either. So, at this point, it seems to fair to suggest the correct category name should be 'Songs which mention a dog somewhere in the title and or lyrics' How very defining! I doubt there is another project on WP that would permit such vacuous categories. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
09:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Rathfelder: Trouble is that a category is for "defined" attributes of the members, roughly speaking, something that is mentioned in the lead of the article. Nowhere in the text if there confirmation that the song is about a dog, Allmusic says the song is about "freedom" and "long walk." Most of these categories, as
Carlossuarez46 says, are really pointless categories and adding "Me & You..." in any lyric based category is about as pointless as it gets.--
Richhoncho (
talk)
11:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete suffers the usual failings of "X about Y" categories: how much about the subject must it be and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much? Moreover, this is not a notable genre:
songs about dogs other than as a list could probably not be written.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The arguments and precedents for deletion are worth further attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon07:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete apart from precedenct, which alone suffices to delete this, the "about" category suffers the usual problems of the about categories: how much about the topic must it be, and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much about it.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:17, 10 May 2017 (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:History of Al-Andalus by period
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:Pearson and Darling buildings
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:Asian monarchs
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.
Strong oppose - the attempts at interchangeability and odd titled categories relative to a wide range of different sort of rulers in Asia across cultures should not be narrowed down to such a generic and loose term
JarrahTree13:19, 10 May 2017 (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:Asian kings
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.