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:delete as non-defining and too subjective (how much % of the population needs to be of Turkic ethnicity in order to characterize a state as Turkic?).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - certainly
Pan-Turkism is a thing, but as the nominator says this is hard to measure and probably not defining anyway.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 17:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as encyclopedically helpful. These are defined on the basis of their official language being a member of the
Turkic family.
Brandmeistertalk 13:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Lean towards keep -- Turkic identity has been a weak force, due to some of the countries concerned having been subsumed into Imperial Russia and then USSR in a period when the Ottoman Empire became weak, but that does not mean it is not significant, or at least may become so.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:59, 15 April 2018 (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:Viking Age in Scotland
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:merge or reverse merge, it is unclear how to distinguish between the two categories. I have tagged both categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose Neither Marcocapelle, nor Peterkingiron seem to have read main article
Scandinavian Scotland, which covers the entire period from the 8th to the 15th century.
Orkney and
Shetland were controlled by
Norway until 1472, while the
Viking Age had ended in the 11th century.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I did read it, but I can 't see how it helps the Scottish tree to have a break in the 11th century while Scandinavian rule lasted much longer here. Any break, whether in 1000 or in 1100, would be entirely arbitrary.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment See main article
Viking Age, which states with sources that it began in 789 (the first known Viking raid) and ends with the death of
Harald Hardrada in 1066. While Norse people, Normans, and various offshoots continued to play a role in European politics,
Vikings did not survive the 11th century. "The assimilation of the nascent Scandinavian kingdoms into the cultural mainstream of European Christendom altered the aspirations of Scandinavian rulers and of Scandinavians able to travel overseas, and changed their relations with their neighbours. One of the primary sources of profit for the Vikings had been slave-taking. The medieval Church held that Christians should not own fellow Christians as slaves, so
chattel slavery diminished as a practice throughout northern Europe. This took much of the economic incentive out of raiding, though sporadic slaving activity continued into the 11th century. Scandinavian predation in Christian lands around the North and Irish Seas diminished markedly.".
Dimadick (
talk) 16:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I can imagine that a distinction could be made between occasional Viking raids on the one hand (e.g. for getting slaves) and Norse permanent occupation and colonisation of territories on the other hand. However for Scotland specifically this distinction does not make too much sense, since parts of Schotland were subject to occupation and colonisation all the time.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:01, 20 March 2018 (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:Nothing
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: What exactly is supposed to be in this category? I have no idea how I would decide which should be included and what shouldn't be. Either we need some sort of guideline on what exactly this category means, or we need to bring out the deletehammer.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 13:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment See main article
Nothing. It is an important topic in philosophy.
Dimadick (
talk) 13:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Not sure if deletion is the best solution. However the category does require a lot of purging, since most of the current content is not about the concept "nothing".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep but purge until there's... erm... only nothing left. (per Marcocapelle)
Grutness...wha? 00:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
So make sure there's nothing left by keeping nothing :-) A typical wiki solution for a wiki problem!
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 13:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Question to purgers - How would anyone know what to purge or what to keep? This is why I ask what's supposed to be here. I would suggest putting a short inclusion guideline at the top of the category page, similar to
Category:Nonexistent people. However, I have no idea what that inclusion guideline should say.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 04:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't see why we would need special instructions here, besides I doubt if instructions are being read anyway. The articles in the category should be about the concept "nothing", period. The article
Abhava belongs here, for example, but
Black doesn't.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
We need special instructions because I am perfectly willing to clean up the category myself, but I have no idea how to do it.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 23:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
That's not at all sufficient, because I have no idea what would define an article as nothing.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 12:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't see the problem, we do not need to define what "nothing" is, that's what the article is for. We just have to establish whether the article is about "nothing".
Empty set is a set that contains nothing (see section Philosophical issues) and
Ex nihilo is (creation) out of nothing so these are obviously articles about "nothing". While
false accusation and
humorless are not about "nothing", they are just about something that is lacking a particular property, so these articles should be removed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Also, would a rename by helpful?
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 04:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Only by making it more clear that the category refers to the state of nothingness (as a philosophical construct), not (necessarily) to the absence of anything (as, well, nothing). General IzationTalk 18:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of most of the included entries — the lack of something (e.g. "unemployment" as the lack of a job, "homelessness" as the lack of a home, "nudity" as the lack of clothing, etc.) is not inherently the same thing as nothingness, especially given that those are all things that can become unlacked as circumstances change — but I have yet to see anybody propose a clear and objective inclusion criterion that could be applied to sort out what would belong here from what wouldn't.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
While I started out without a clear view on this category, based on how things have gone, I'm now explicitly delete, unless someone proposes a clear inclusion criteria.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 23:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
You are the nominator, you started this deletion discussion to begin with.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete A category without any real defining purpose. Alternately, what do free food and nudity have in common? nothing. Aha!
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 23:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Arbitrary and subjective.
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's hard to see how "nothing" is a defining feature, in anything but a subjective manner, of anything in the category besides
nothing.
Deli nk (
talk) 22:44, 13 April 2018 (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:Descendants of John Ames (born 1647)
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: Categories have similar function.
Jax 0677 (
talk) 21:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose All persons listed in
Category:Butler–Ames family are not descendants of John Ames (1647), nor are all persons listed in
Category:Descendants of John Ames (born 1647) members of the Butler-Ames family. While there is some overlap, it is not total. Merging would introduce a major, factual error into the encyclopedia. (The Butler-Ames family is a cadet branch of the larger Ames family and is related to
Benjamin Butler through either blood or marriage. Meanwhile,
Nathaniel Ames,
Herman Ames,
Marcus Ames,
Joseph Sweetman Ames, etc., are from a senior branch of the Ames family that split almost 200 years before Butler's birth and bear absolutely zero relationship to him through blood, marriage, residential proximity, or maybe even awareness of his existence. Additionally, members categorized in
Category:Butler–Ames family include persons who married into that family and are, therefore, unambiguously not "Descendants of John Ames (born 1647)".)
Chetsford (
talk) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Note: Just to disclose, I edited Chetsford's comment above as it contained an html <small> tag that was unclosed and consequently bleeding into the "lists of fictional lifeforms" discussion after this one on the daylog. As I was not able to determine or guess where Chetsford intended to close the small tag, I removed it rather than adding a close tag — if you want it back, Chetsford, please remember to close it properly so it doesn't mess up the rest of the page. Thanks.
Bearcat (
talk) 05:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Bearcat - sorry for my sloppy editing and thank you very much for correcting it!
Chetsford (
talk) 16:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We have deleted similar categories for royal descendants long ago. I think there was one for descendants of George III of England, but that descent was deemed NN.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per previous discussions e.g.
George I and
those listed here. People should be categorized by what they are notable for, not for who their relatives are/were. The article text should (where relevant) cover relationships more precisely than categories can. DexDor(talk) 22:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment@
DexDor and
Peterkingiron: please note that we routinely categorize families. A "descendants of" category name is a bad idea because it is based on a random starting point in the family tree (in that respect I agree with the delete votes) but no arguments are given against the alternative rename.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus is clearly against merging these categories, but should the nominated category be deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. The fact that people may happen to be direct descendants of one person in a family tree, and not of another one, is not in and of itself a
WP:DEFINING characteristic above and beyond the fact that there's a common ancestor higher up the tree. My great-grandfather had more than one child, so some of my relatives are descended from my grandfather's brothers and sisters instead of from my grandfather, but that doesn't make us unrelated, and if we were in an encyclopedia it wouldn't make the descendants of my grandfather our own standalone notability node separately from the descendants of my grandfather's brother or sister — if it did, then every person in a family tree would always constitute their own new defining notability node, and the category would be nothing more than a telescoping recursion of subcategories for each individual person.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong delete -- We have frequently deleted such categories for people must more significant than John Ames. We similarly do not allow categories for all people sharing a surname, who may well have a common medieval ancestor.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (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:Barons de Brus
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is unsourced and dubious. Although the Bruces were of Norman-French origin, the details are disputed, and it is unlikely that they held a French title several generations after settling in Scotland. An alternative would be to rename it to "Lords of Annandale", a title they did hold.
PatGallacher (
talk) 17:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename (do not delete). The succession box is headed
House of Bruce, which someone has inaccurately renamed to
Clan Bruce. The Bruces were a noble lowland family, not a highland clan. Possibly
Category:Bruce lords of Annandale. I too am dubious about the idea that they remained French nobles after settling in Scotland, but that is an issue of parenting the category, not of its existence.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
We could be dealing with several issues at once here. I am not aware that there was ever a Barony of Bruce in the Scottish nobility or feudal structure, at the very least this idea is completely unsourced. A category "Bruce Lords of Annandale" is not necessarily illegitimate, but we do not normally create sub-cats of holders of a title from a specific family. "House of Bruce" v. "Clan Bruce" is a legitimate debate, but a separate issue.
PatGallacher (
talk) 18:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment This will require a change in scope. Per the article
Lord of Annandale, the various holders of the title came from 6 different families: Brus, Comyn, Randolph, Dunbar, Douglas, and Stewart. The last holder of the title was
John Stewart, Duke of Albany (d. 1536).
Dimadick (
talk) 16:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Unsourced original research; so if it isn't moved to Lords of Annandale and expanded in scope to match, delete.
DrKay (
talk) 20:44, 10 April 2018 (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:Strigeidida
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:Community-based 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.
Nominator's rationale: Substantial overlap. Hard to see any meaningful distinction. I'm agnostic about which should be kept.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
that sounds fine. --
Sm8900 (
talk) 17:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sorry, but "Community" is NOT necessarily synonomous or equivalent to "neighborhood," at all. saying that they are is often a Western-based, or middle-class based assumption for this usage.
Note: I am okay with the proposal above to rename, if others want that.--
Sm8900 (
talk) 17:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename per Marcocapelle. In my admittedly skewed experience, neighbourhood associations perform the opposite function of community organizations: they are typically populated by nonresident business owners whose sole interest is in ensuring that no community initiative hampers the ability of automobile drivers to drive right up to the doors of their businesses.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:18, 10 April 2018 (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:People associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
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: The only people known to be associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections are the dozen or so Russian individuals and groups that have been indicted by the justice department for allegedly interfering in the election. Anything else is pure speculation at this point. And per
WP:OCASSOC and
WP:RECENTISM.
Coldcreation (
talk) 17:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
keep category is properly populated; no reason at all to delete
Hmains (
talk) 03:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Nominator has unique definitions of "association" and "speculation" that are not shared by the rest of the English-speaking community. If individual memberships are controversial, they have talk pages. —
swpbTgo beyond 14:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
My definitions are mainstream. Thanks.
Coldcreation (
talk) 14:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Even if your definitions are mainstream that is not a valid reason for deletion of the whole category, but rather just removing such people with talkpage discussion. However reasons like
WP:RECENTISM and
WP:OCASSOC are valid. --
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk) 19:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep but recommend that the an explanation of what is meant by "associated with" be added to the page to avoid future conflict.Hawkeye7(discuss) 00:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The point of
WP:OCASSOC is the fact that "associated with" can mean anything, an explanation will not help because it will remain unavoidably vague.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
There are still plenty of "People associated with" categories, and providing a definition does not seem to be an insurmountable problem.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose as
Category:Russians associated with interference in the 2016 United States elections hasn't been considered. However, this clearly isn't defining for
Nigel Farage (especially from a UK perspective) so unless these categories can be tightened they should be deleted. In general people should be categorised for being an American politician, Russian diplomat or whatever - involvement in any particular event/controversy does not need categorization (article text/links is sufficent). DexDor(talk) 19:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The implication is that interfering in United States elections is perceived as treasonous, anti-American. Crime or not, associating someone (who may not be guilty) is borderline slanderous. By association, it is suggests the person has committed (or is accused of) a crime, without having been convicted of one.
WP:BLPCRIME states it similarly.
Coldcreation (
talk) 03:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:BLPCRIME is about people being accused of a crime without being convicted of one. Un-American is not criminal.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Treason is a crime. Arguably, being associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections could be considered treasonous. Congress passed laws creating related offenses that punish conduct that undermines the government or the national security, such as
sedition.
Coldcreation (
talk) 10:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
A person 'associated' with interfering in U.S. elections could also be charged with carrying out a massive fraud against the American government and conspiring to obstruct enforcement of federal laws. So
WP:BLPCRIME does apply here.
Coldcreation (
talk) 13:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't think that treason applies here, as Russia is not an enemy country. But you have a good point. Given that people have been convicted of tax avoidance, money laundering, perjury etc, it does seem that a reader might infer that membership of the category means that someone is a rogue. Accordingly, I have struck my !vote
Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:15, 18 April 2018 (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:Barlas
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.
Doubtful -- We cannot delete it without orphaning the sub-cat, a ruling dynasty. I agree it is small, but occasionally small cats do need to be kept.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The Timurid monarchs subcat has plenty of parent categories, there is no orphaning taking place. The fact that
Timur was from the
Barlas tribe can better be described (and is described) in article space.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:04, 24 March 2018 (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:Massacres by ethnic group
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.
Comment how are these really distinguishable from things like
Category:Anti-Armenian pogroms and the various genocide and similar categories? Is that distinction meaningful (I suppose you could have a pogrom that didn't result in a massacre, or a failed genocide that contained no deaths, in theory but they seem very closely related and ought, IMHO, to be grouped together somehow).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Good question, maybe
Category:Pogroms ought to be merged as well. But let's first get the current nomination done.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Support Clearly the same topic that should be treated at a grouped location.
SFB 02:51, 18 April 2018 (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:Irregular units and formations
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: Very substantial overlap. Calling organisations "irregular" is not a very helpful definition. Militia seems to mean much the same - ie not fully integrated into the official armed forces, but working with them.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Are mercenaries really irregular? What is the definition of irregular to begin with, in this context?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Per
Irregular military every military of a country that is not part of its regular armed forces. So yes, mercenaries are irregular under that definition.
Brandmeistertalk 13:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose Cannot be merged since guerrilla units are by definition irregular, yet often would never be considered militias.
Kges1901 (
talk) 00:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose irregular forces and militias are not the same thing. Militia may in fact be regular and often part-time, but not irregular. The largely conscript home service Army in Australia during WWII was known as the Militia, but it was in no way irregular.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me) 01:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per Peacemaker67, they are not the same thing.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose Militias are formal organised groups acting in support of or organised by a state (might not be a recognised state), irregular groups will have a head but without the intention to form a state. Of course this is broadbrush and I'm sure you can find exceptions
Lyndaship (
talk) 07:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose per BrownHairedGirl, Kges1901, and Peacemaker67 — "irregular unit" and "militia" are by no means synonymical, so a merge would make categorisation less intuitive. —
Sasuke Sarutobi (
talk) 08:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
There is nothing intuitive about categorisation in this area. It is really difficult. The way the various terms are used varies enormously from place to place and time to time.The way the terms are used in the articles about individual units is very frequently not consistent with those used in the articles describing the terms. The article
irregular military admits that official paramilitary forces do not fit the term irregular and that Paramilitary is a non-regular Armed Force with a claim to official status and that "Intense debates can build up over which of these terms to use when referring to a specific group". I think
Category:Irregular military is the best top level category, but
Category:Irregular units and formations is sparsely populated and not terribly helpful.
Category:Militias would work better as a subcategory of
Category:Irregular military.
Rathfelder (
talk) 08:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
It may not be intuitive, but lack of intuitiveness does not in any way justify a plain daft nomination such as this. @
Rathfelder:, I hope you will withdraw the nom and stop wasting editors' time with this. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 15:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
My proposal would put these articles in the
Category:Irregular military. I cant see that a subcategory of Irregular units and formations adds anything to that.
Rathfelder (
talk) 17:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Rathfelder: I assume that your latest comment refers to your new proposal, not to the nomination. If so, there may be some merit in that ... but I think it's unlikely to be adequately scrutinised, coming well down the page after editors flocked to oppose the daft nomination.
It would probably be more productive to wait until this CfD closes, and then discuss the concepts at
WP:MILHIST. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 09:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Your post gives no hint at your nomination here to place all irregular units and formations under militias. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 01:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- They are not necessarily the same thing. Some militias were part-time soldiers in the service of a state. This applies to 18th century England, where they were (I think) infantry, in contrast with yeomanry who were cavalry. Perhaps some one will tell me I am completely wrong.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:07, 15 April 2018 (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:Al Nasr SC players
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: The club's name on Wikipedia is "Al Nasr SC (Egypt)", so the category should be named the same
Ben5218 (
talk) 12:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
Hhhhhkohhhhh (
talk) 10:07, 11 April 2018 (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:Occupational diseases
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose occupational diseases is a broader term that is more commonly used. Merging should occur in the opposite direction, or by making "-injuries" a subcategory of "-diseases" --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 11:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. There are already subcats like
Category:Overuse injuries. The distinction between injuries and disease in this area is not clear cut.
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:33, 12 April 2018 (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:Organizations based in Antarctica
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:no consensus. Editors may of course use editorial discretion to recategorise any pages which are inappropriately categorised. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 16:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Most of them are not based in Antarctica at all.
Rathfelder (
talk) 16:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The category has been decently populated since last week so the rename is probably no longer needed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Apart from the museums they are not based in Antarctica. They are concerned with Antarctica.
Rathfelder (
talk) 13:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep and purge,
Category:Antarctic agencies does not contain organizations based in Antarctica, as noted, so it needs to be purged. If kept, it will remain a small category but better small than creating an unnecessary deviation from the Organizations based in ___ format.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:16, 14 April 2018 (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:Santo Daime
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:delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, there are currently just two articles that link to each other directly.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose, it's a Notable religious movement, so has room for expansion for articles on practitioners, any Notable events they hold, any worship centers, etc. It's small at the moment but has a useful role in the category tree for religions.
Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (
talk) 06:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
What is a "significant" redlink? Are you planning to write this article?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
No obligation on me to do so, but it's a redlink that in context makes total viable sense for a Notability-meeting article. As in it's not just something mentioned in passing that wouldn't meet Notability. So the cat has three articles and potential for more, and the cat itself is the name of a specific religion, so I don't see that it's condemned to eternally be a small cat.
Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (
talk) 09:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - this is the standard way of collecting the sub-articles of the article
Santo Daime.
Oculi (
talk) 09:18, 11 April 2018 (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:Non-commercial use only images
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: Unnecessary category layer that conflates files tagged for speedy deletion with legitimately used non-free files.
{{3x|p}}ery (
talk) 16:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep and convert this into a maintenance/hidden category to be populated by {{Non-free with NC}}.
Nyttend (
talk) 22:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:00, 10 April 2018 (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.
Template:Southern-California-geo-stub
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:48, 10 April 2018 (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.
Nominator's rationale:delete as non-defining and too subjective (how much % of the population needs to be of Turkic ethnicity in order to characterize a state as Turkic?).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - certainly
Pan-Turkism is a thing, but as the nominator says this is hard to measure and probably not defining anyway.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 17:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as encyclopedically helpful. These are defined on the basis of their official language being a member of the
Turkic family.
Brandmeistertalk 13:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Lean towards keep -- Turkic identity has been a weak force, due to some of the countries concerned having been subsumed into Imperial Russia and then USSR in a period when the Ottoman Empire became weak, but that does not mean it is not significant, or at least may become so.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:59, 15 April 2018 (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:Viking Age in Scotland
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:merge or reverse merge, it is unclear how to distinguish between the two categories. I have tagged both categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose Neither Marcocapelle, nor Peterkingiron seem to have read main article
Scandinavian Scotland, which covers the entire period from the 8th to the 15th century.
Orkney and
Shetland were controlled by
Norway until 1472, while the
Viking Age had ended in the 11th century.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I did read it, but I can 't see how it helps the Scottish tree to have a break in the 11th century while Scandinavian rule lasted much longer here. Any break, whether in 1000 or in 1100, would be entirely arbitrary.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment See main article
Viking Age, which states with sources that it began in 789 (the first known Viking raid) and ends with the death of
Harald Hardrada in 1066. While Norse people, Normans, and various offshoots continued to play a role in European politics,
Vikings did not survive the 11th century. "The assimilation of the nascent Scandinavian kingdoms into the cultural mainstream of European Christendom altered the aspirations of Scandinavian rulers and of Scandinavians able to travel overseas, and changed their relations with their neighbours. One of the primary sources of profit for the Vikings had been slave-taking. The medieval Church held that Christians should not own fellow Christians as slaves, so
chattel slavery diminished as a practice throughout northern Europe. This took much of the economic incentive out of raiding, though sporadic slaving activity continued into the 11th century. Scandinavian predation in Christian lands around the North and Irish Seas diminished markedly.".
Dimadick (
talk) 16:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I can imagine that a distinction could be made between occasional Viking raids on the one hand (e.g. for getting slaves) and Norse permanent occupation and colonisation of territories on the other hand. However for Scotland specifically this distinction does not make too much sense, since parts of Schotland were subject to occupation and colonisation all the time.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:01, 20 March 2018 (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:Nothing
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: What exactly is supposed to be in this category? I have no idea how I would decide which should be included and what shouldn't be. Either we need some sort of guideline on what exactly this category means, or we need to bring out the deletehammer.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 13:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment See main article
Nothing. It is an important topic in philosophy.
Dimadick (
talk) 13:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Not sure if deletion is the best solution. However the category does require a lot of purging, since most of the current content is not about the concept "nothing".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep but purge until there's... erm... only nothing left. (per Marcocapelle)
Grutness...wha? 00:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
So make sure there's nothing left by keeping nothing :-) A typical wiki solution for a wiki problem!
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 13:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Question to purgers - How would anyone know what to purge or what to keep? This is why I ask what's supposed to be here. I would suggest putting a short inclusion guideline at the top of the category page, similar to
Category:Nonexistent people. However, I have no idea what that inclusion guideline should say.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 04:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't see why we would need special instructions here, besides I doubt if instructions are being read anyway. The articles in the category should be about the concept "nothing", period. The article
Abhava belongs here, for example, but
Black doesn't.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
We need special instructions because I am perfectly willing to clean up the category myself, but I have no idea how to do it.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 23:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
That's not at all sufficient, because I have no idea what would define an article as nothing.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 12:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't see the problem, we do not need to define what "nothing" is, that's what the article is for. We just have to establish whether the article is about "nothing".
Empty set is a set that contains nothing (see section Philosophical issues) and
Ex nihilo is (creation) out of nothing so these are obviously articles about "nothing". While
false accusation and
humorless are not about "nothing", they are just about something that is lacking a particular property, so these articles should be removed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Also, would a rename by helpful?
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 04:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Only by making it more clear that the category refers to the state of nothingness (as a philosophical construct), not (necessarily) to the absence of anything (as, well, nothing). General IzationTalk 18:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of most of the included entries — the lack of something (e.g. "unemployment" as the lack of a job, "homelessness" as the lack of a home, "nudity" as the lack of clothing, etc.) is not inherently the same thing as nothingness, especially given that those are all things that can become unlacked as circumstances change — but I have yet to see anybody propose a clear and objective inclusion criterion that could be applied to sort out what would belong here from what wouldn't.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
While I started out without a clear view on this category, based on how things have gone, I'm now explicitly delete, unless someone proposes a clear inclusion criteria.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 23:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
You are the nominator, you started this deletion discussion to begin with.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete A category without any real defining purpose. Alternately, what do free food and nudity have in common? nothing. Aha!
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 23:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Arbitrary and subjective.
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's hard to see how "nothing" is a defining feature, in anything but a subjective manner, of anything in the category besides
nothing.
Deli nk (
talk) 22:44, 13 April 2018 (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:Descendants of John Ames (born 1647)
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: Categories have similar function.
Jax 0677 (
talk) 21:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose All persons listed in
Category:Butler–Ames family are not descendants of John Ames (1647), nor are all persons listed in
Category:Descendants of John Ames (born 1647) members of the Butler-Ames family. While there is some overlap, it is not total. Merging would introduce a major, factual error into the encyclopedia. (The Butler-Ames family is a cadet branch of the larger Ames family and is related to
Benjamin Butler through either blood or marriage. Meanwhile,
Nathaniel Ames,
Herman Ames,
Marcus Ames,
Joseph Sweetman Ames, etc., are from a senior branch of the Ames family that split almost 200 years before Butler's birth and bear absolutely zero relationship to him through blood, marriage, residential proximity, or maybe even awareness of his existence. Additionally, members categorized in
Category:Butler–Ames family include persons who married into that family and are, therefore, unambiguously not "Descendants of John Ames (born 1647)".)
Chetsford (
talk) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Note: Just to disclose, I edited Chetsford's comment above as it contained an html <small> tag that was unclosed and consequently bleeding into the "lists of fictional lifeforms" discussion after this one on the daylog. As I was not able to determine or guess where Chetsford intended to close the small tag, I removed it rather than adding a close tag — if you want it back, Chetsford, please remember to close it properly so it doesn't mess up the rest of the page. Thanks.
Bearcat (
talk) 05:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Bearcat - sorry for my sloppy editing and thank you very much for correcting it!
Chetsford (
talk) 16:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We have deleted similar categories for royal descendants long ago. I think there was one for descendants of George III of England, but that descent was deemed NN.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per previous discussions e.g.
George I and
those listed here. People should be categorized by what they are notable for, not for who their relatives are/were. The article text should (where relevant) cover relationships more precisely than categories can. DexDor(talk) 22:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment@
DexDor and
Peterkingiron: please note that we routinely categorize families. A "descendants of" category name is a bad idea because it is based on a random starting point in the family tree (in that respect I agree with the delete votes) but no arguments are given against the alternative rename.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus is clearly against merging these categories, but should the nominated category be deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. The fact that people may happen to be direct descendants of one person in a family tree, and not of another one, is not in and of itself a
WP:DEFINING characteristic above and beyond the fact that there's a common ancestor higher up the tree. My great-grandfather had more than one child, so some of my relatives are descended from my grandfather's brothers and sisters instead of from my grandfather, but that doesn't make us unrelated, and if we were in an encyclopedia it wouldn't make the descendants of my grandfather our own standalone notability node separately from the descendants of my grandfather's brother or sister — if it did, then every person in a family tree would always constitute their own new defining notability node, and the category would be nothing more than a telescoping recursion of subcategories for each individual person.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong delete -- We have frequently deleted such categories for people must more significant than John Ames. We similarly do not allow categories for all people sharing a surname, who may well have a common medieval ancestor.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (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:Barons de Brus
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is unsourced and dubious. Although the Bruces were of Norman-French origin, the details are disputed, and it is unlikely that they held a French title several generations after settling in Scotland. An alternative would be to rename it to "Lords of Annandale", a title they did hold.
PatGallacher (
talk) 17:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename (do not delete). The succession box is headed
House of Bruce, which someone has inaccurately renamed to
Clan Bruce. The Bruces were a noble lowland family, not a highland clan. Possibly
Category:Bruce lords of Annandale. I too am dubious about the idea that they remained French nobles after settling in Scotland, but that is an issue of parenting the category, not of its existence.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
We could be dealing with several issues at once here. I am not aware that there was ever a Barony of Bruce in the Scottish nobility or feudal structure, at the very least this idea is completely unsourced. A category "Bruce Lords of Annandale" is not necessarily illegitimate, but we do not normally create sub-cats of holders of a title from a specific family. "House of Bruce" v. "Clan Bruce" is a legitimate debate, but a separate issue.
PatGallacher (
talk) 18:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment This will require a change in scope. Per the article
Lord of Annandale, the various holders of the title came from 6 different families: Brus, Comyn, Randolph, Dunbar, Douglas, and Stewart. The last holder of the title was
John Stewart, Duke of Albany (d. 1536).
Dimadick (
talk) 16:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Unsourced original research; so if it isn't moved to Lords of Annandale and expanded in scope to match, delete.
DrKay (
talk) 20:44, 10 April 2018 (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:Strigeidida
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:Community-based 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.
Nominator's rationale: Substantial overlap. Hard to see any meaningful distinction. I'm agnostic about which should be kept.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
that sounds fine. --
Sm8900 (
talk) 17:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sorry, but "Community" is NOT necessarily synonomous or equivalent to "neighborhood," at all. saying that they are is often a Western-based, or middle-class based assumption for this usage.
Note: I am okay with the proposal above to rename, if others want that.--
Sm8900 (
talk) 17:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename per Marcocapelle. In my admittedly skewed experience, neighbourhood associations perform the opposite function of community organizations: they are typically populated by nonresident business owners whose sole interest is in ensuring that no community initiative hampers the ability of automobile drivers to drive right up to the doors of their businesses.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:18, 10 April 2018 (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:People associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
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: The only people known to be associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections are the dozen or so Russian individuals and groups that have been indicted by the justice department for allegedly interfering in the election. Anything else is pure speculation at this point. And per
WP:OCASSOC and
WP:RECENTISM.
Coldcreation (
talk) 17:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
keep category is properly populated; no reason at all to delete
Hmains (
talk) 03:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Nominator has unique definitions of "association" and "speculation" that are not shared by the rest of the English-speaking community. If individual memberships are controversial, they have talk pages. —
swpbTgo beyond 14:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
My definitions are mainstream. Thanks.
Coldcreation (
talk) 14:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Even if your definitions are mainstream that is not a valid reason for deletion of the whole category, but rather just removing such people with talkpage discussion. However reasons like
WP:RECENTISM and
WP:OCASSOC are valid. --
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk) 19:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep but recommend that the an explanation of what is meant by "associated with" be added to the page to avoid future conflict.Hawkeye7(discuss) 00:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The point of
WP:OCASSOC is the fact that "associated with" can mean anything, an explanation will not help because it will remain unavoidably vague.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
There are still plenty of "People associated with" categories, and providing a definition does not seem to be an insurmountable problem.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose as
Category:Russians associated with interference in the 2016 United States elections hasn't been considered. However, this clearly isn't defining for
Nigel Farage (especially from a UK perspective) so unless these categories can be tightened they should be deleted. In general people should be categorised for being an American politician, Russian diplomat or whatever - involvement in any particular event/controversy does not need categorization (article text/links is sufficent). DexDor(talk) 19:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The implication is that interfering in United States elections is perceived as treasonous, anti-American. Crime or not, associating someone (who may not be guilty) is borderline slanderous. By association, it is suggests the person has committed (or is accused of) a crime, without having been convicted of one.
WP:BLPCRIME states it similarly.
Coldcreation (
talk) 03:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:BLPCRIME is about people being accused of a crime without being convicted of one. Un-American is not criminal.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Treason is a crime. Arguably, being associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections could be considered treasonous. Congress passed laws creating related offenses that punish conduct that undermines the government or the national security, such as
sedition.
Coldcreation (
talk) 10:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
A person 'associated' with interfering in U.S. elections could also be charged with carrying out a massive fraud against the American government and conspiring to obstruct enforcement of federal laws. So
WP:BLPCRIME does apply here.
Coldcreation (
talk) 13:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't think that treason applies here, as Russia is not an enemy country. But you have a good point. Given that people have been convicted of tax avoidance, money laundering, perjury etc, it does seem that a reader might infer that membership of the category means that someone is a rogue. Accordingly, I have struck my !vote
Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:15, 18 April 2018 (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:Barlas
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.
Doubtful -- We cannot delete it without orphaning the sub-cat, a ruling dynasty. I agree it is small, but occasionally small cats do need to be kept.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The Timurid monarchs subcat has plenty of parent categories, there is no orphaning taking place. The fact that
Timur was from the
Barlas tribe can better be described (and is described) in article space.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:04, 24 March 2018 (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:Massacres by ethnic group
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.
Comment how are these really distinguishable from things like
Category:Anti-Armenian pogroms and the various genocide and similar categories? Is that distinction meaningful (I suppose you could have a pogrom that didn't result in a massacre, or a failed genocide that contained no deaths, in theory but they seem very closely related and ought, IMHO, to be grouped together somehow).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Good question, maybe
Category:Pogroms ought to be merged as well. But let's first get the current nomination done.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Support Clearly the same topic that should be treated at a grouped location.
SFB 02:51, 18 April 2018 (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:Irregular units and formations
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: Very substantial overlap. Calling organisations "irregular" is not a very helpful definition. Militia seems to mean much the same - ie not fully integrated into the official armed forces, but working with them.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Are mercenaries really irregular? What is the definition of irregular to begin with, in this context?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Per
Irregular military every military of a country that is not part of its regular armed forces. So yes, mercenaries are irregular under that definition.
Brandmeistertalk 13:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose Cannot be merged since guerrilla units are by definition irregular, yet often would never be considered militias.
Kges1901 (
talk) 00:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose irregular forces and militias are not the same thing. Militia may in fact be regular and often part-time, but not irregular. The largely conscript home service Army in Australia during WWII was known as the Militia, but it was in no way irregular.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me) 01:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per Peacemaker67, they are not the same thing.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose Militias are formal organised groups acting in support of or organised by a state (might not be a recognised state), irregular groups will have a head but without the intention to form a state. Of course this is broadbrush and I'm sure you can find exceptions
Lyndaship (
talk) 07:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose per BrownHairedGirl, Kges1901, and Peacemaker67 — "irregular unit" and "militia" are by no means synonymical, so a merge would make categorisation less intuitive. —
Sasuke Sarutobi (
talk) 08:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
There is nothing intuitive about categorisation in this area. It is really difficult. The way the various terms are used varies enormously from place to place and time to time.The way the terms are used in the articles about individual units is very frequently not consistent with those used in the articles describing the terms. The article
irregular military admits that official paramilitary forces do not fit the term irregular and that Paramilitary is a non-regular Armed Force with a claim to official status and that "Intense debates can build up over which of these terms to use when referring to a specific group". I think
Category:Irregular military is the best top level category, but
Category:Irregular units and formations is sparsely populated and not terribly helpful.
Category:Militias would work better as a subcategory of
Category:Irregular military.
Rathfelder (
talk) 08:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
It may not be intuitive, but lack of intuitiveness does not in any way justify a plain daft nomination such as this. @
Rathfelder:, I hope you will withdraw the nom and stop wasting editors' time with this. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 15:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)reply
My proposal would put these articles in the
Category:Irregular military. I cant see that a subcategory of Irregular units and formations adds anything to that.
Rathfelder (
talk) 17:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Rathfelder: I assume that your latest comment refers to your new proposal, not to the nomination. If so, there may be some merit in that ... but I think it's unlikely to be adequately scrutinised, coming well down the page after editors flocked to oppose the daft nomination.
It would probably be more productive to wait until this CfD closes, and then discuss the concepts at
WP:MILHIST. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 09:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Your post gives no hint at your nomination here to place all irregular units and formations under militias. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 01:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- They are not necessarily the same thing. Some militias were part-time soldiers in the service of a state. This applies to 18th century England, where they were (I think) infantry, in contrast with yeomanry who were cavalry. Perhaps some one will tell me I am completely wrong.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:07, 15 April 2018 (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:Al Nasr SC players
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: The club's name on Wikipedia is "Al Nasr SC (Egypt)", so the category should be named the same
Ben5218 (
talk) 12:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
Hhhhhkohhhhh (
talk) 10:07, 11 April 2018 (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:Occupational diseases
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose occupational diseases is a broader term that is more commonly used. Merging should occur in the opposite direction, or by making "-injuries" a subcategory of "-diseases" --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 11:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. There are already subcats like
Category:Overuse injuries. The distinction between injuries and disease in this area is not clear cut.
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:33, 12 April 2018 (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:Organizations based in Antarctica
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:no consensus. Editors may of course use editorial discretion to recategorise any pages which are inappropriately categorised. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 16:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Most of them are not based in Antarctica at all.
Rathfelder (
talk) 16:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The category has been decently populated since last week so the rename is probably no longer needed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Apart from the museums they are not based in Antarctica. They are concerned with Antarctica.
Rathfelder (
talk) 13:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep and purge,
Category:Antarctic agencies does not contain organizations based in Antarctica, as noted, so it needs to be purged. If kept, it will remain a small category but better small than creating an unnecessary deviation from the Organizations based in ___ format.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:16, 14 April 2018 (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:Santo Daime
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:delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, there are currently just two articles that link to each other directly.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose, it's a Notable religious movement, so has room for expansion for articles on practitioners, any Notable events they hold, any worship centers, etc. It's small at the moment but has a useful role in the category tree for religions.
Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (
talk) 06:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
What is a "significant" redlink? Are you planning to write this article?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
No obligation on me to do so, but it's a redlink that in context makes total viable sense for a Notability-meeting article. As in it's not just something mentioned in passing that wouldn't meet Notability. So the cat has three articles and potential for more, and the cat itself is the name of a specific religion, so I don't see that it's condemned to eternally be a small cat.
Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (
talk) 09:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - this is the standard way of collecting the sub-articles of the article
Santo Daime.
Oculi (
talk) 09:18, 11 April 2018 (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:Non-commercial use only images
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: Unnecessary category layer that conflates files tagged for speedy deletion with legitimately used non-free files.
{{3x|p}}ery (
talk) 16:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep and convert this into a maintenance/hidden category to be populated by {{Non-free with NC}}.
Nyttend (
talk) 22:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:00, 10 April 2018 (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.
Template:Southern-California-geo-stub
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:48, 10 April 2018 (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.