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: According to Google, it's a slightly more common term, and more transparent, not needing a definition for a general audience.
Catrìona (
talk) 22:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic: I chose the name because it is the general common name and is not ambiguous in how it's used. There's no ambiguity because someone from a "Celtic" background would be much more likely to describe themselves as "Scottish", grew up in an Irish speaking community, of Breton descent etc. In that sense there is no real pan-Celtic identity. Celtic scholars are not necessarily from a "Celtic" background, and include folklorists, historians, art historians, literature studies etc. as well as linguists per se. That said it does look like "Celtic studies scholars" would be consistent with other categories, although I've never heard that phrase used because it would be considered redundant. For these reasons I also support "Celtic studies scholars".
Catrìona (
talk) 13:32, 7 September 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:Polish resistance fighters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support for consistency reasons. It should match other categories on members of resistance movements.
Dimadick (
talk) 12:55, 19 August 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:Kwame Nkrumah University
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:Deaths by jungle justice
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, better suited by being mentioned in the article about jungle justice.
Geschichte (
talk) 20:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per nom, without prejudice to recreating if more than five jungle justice incidents later make it into Wikipedia.
Catrìona (
talk) 22:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment The definition is problematic: "Jungle justice or mob justice is a form of public extrajudicial killings in Sub-Saharan Africa, most notably Nigeria and Cameroon, where an alleged criminal is humiliated, beaten or summarily executed by a crowd or vigilantes." The concept largely overlaps with
lynching: "Lynching is a premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate a group."
Dimadick (
talk) 13:00, 19 August 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:Hindi films based on actual events
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 category is sparsely populated. Renaming it can allow the inclusion of more articles. Kailash29792(talk) 15:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The language used in a film is a defining characteristic. We should no more merge Hindi and Tamil than we would merge English and French.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:24, 18 August 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:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished during the Francoist Spain 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 result of the discussion was:merge.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, as far as I can see there is no relationship between the Francoist regime in Spain and the demolition of these buildings and structures. They have been demolished for various non-political reasons.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support -- I thought we had already has this discussion!
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
You are probably referring to
this discussion, but a smallcat rationale as in the previous discussion doesn't apply to the Francoist category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:19, 19 August 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.
Events by decade
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, these "events" categories do not distinguish themselves from their parent "decade" categories because decade categories are collecting events almost by definition. The nomination ends in 1800 because from that year on there is a deeper subcategorization of events by month. This is a follow-up nomination after
this earlier discussion has been closed as delete. There is no need to merge something because all content is also otherwise in the tree of the decade parent categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - per arguments of previous linked cfd. Looking at
Category:1790s, everything in there results from an event of some sort in the 1790s. I have checked that the first and last do not need an upmerge, and trust the nom on the others.
Oculi (
talk) 18:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support -- The previous discussion was for "by year" categories. The same rules should apply to the decade ones.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I disagree with the nominator's assertions events are not distinguished from general date categories.
Tim! (
talk) 08:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Births and deaths, battles and treaties, etc. (which are in the general date categories), aren't they all events?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support And I was wondering why the decade-categories looked increasingly empty. The new category layer is not needed.
Dimadick (
talk) 13:03, 19 August 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.
Loyola Lions football
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The football program at what is now called
Loyola Marymount University was disbanded following the 1951 season, when the school was known as Loyola College of Los Angeles. The school's sports teams were known simply as the "Loyola Lions" at the time.
Jweiss11 (
talk) 05:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support renaming. Loyola Marymount never had a football team. The program was disbanded in the early 1950s, long before the merger of Loyola and Marymount.
Cbl62 (
talk) 23:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support renaming per nom and Cbl - merger took place in 1973.
PCN02WPS (
talk |
contribs) 23:58, 18 August 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:rename, the current category name wrongly suggests these are organizations of the United Nations, which is not actually the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename but not as suggested. The majority of the content is national (etc) United Nations Associations, which are organisations whose role is to be cheer-leaders for UN. I am not quite sure what the rest of the content is doing there: are they NGOs recognised by UN? if so, that is a separate category. My preferred target would be
Category:United Nations Associations, with anything else purged to somewhere else. This needs more discussion: please relist.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon 13:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 00:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Use
Category:United Nations associations. We do actually need a category for official UN organisations (UNESCO, UNICEF, etc.) if we don't already have one, but it shouldn't be commingled with national UN associations. However, it should not be "Associations" with a capital "A" per
MOS:CAPS. In plural form like that, it's a
common not proper noun (if you attended both Harvard and Oxford, you went to two universities not "two Universities"). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is clear support for a rename, but no solid target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 00:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
As nominator, I'm mostly in favour of option C or E, while I'm opposing option D because it would wrongly suggest they are associations of the United Nations. I would consider option A to be outdated.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Prefer option E (my suggestion). Option D would be a valid category, but a different one. Option C (=option E without abbreviation) or perhaps option B (a low preference).
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:56, 18 August 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:Survivors in the United States
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Too heterogenous in my opinion. There are too many different events that one can survive in
Category:Survivors: Holocaust survivors, survivors of plane crashes, survivors of seafaring incidents, survivors of mundane crime, survivors of diseases, survivors of assassination attempts, for a national division to make sense at this level.
Catrìona (
talk) 00:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support and I also wonder about the definingness of some of the subcategories (see discussion below).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, not something they really have in common.
Geschichte (
talk) 20:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comments Why is this subcategory in the category tree for
Category:Victims? The main category is intended for victims of violence (in one form or another) and "earthquake survivors" are not typically part of the definition. The main article is
Victimology.
Dimadick (
talk) 13:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support as creator of the category. --
PanchoS (
talk) 05:50, 21 August 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:Assassination attempt survivors
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-defining in many cases (e.g.
Donald Trump whose article doesn't mention
an assasination attempt) and too subjective (e.g. "The
Brighton hotel bombing was a ... assassination attempt against the top tier of the British government ..." so should all the then cabinet be in the category?). DexDor(talk) 06:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Neutral on deletion of this category.
Catrìona (
talk) 16:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete for some
Gabrielle Giffords, I think it's likely defining; however, it's better handled in a sourced list and how serious is the "attempt" and to whom is it directed (like the Brighton bomboing mentioned above) may be subjective: see recent events in Venezuela, and presumably lots of WWII aerial bombings of capitals were at least somewhat in hope of knocking off key people.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 18:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete it's not defining. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 05:09, 24 August 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:Wikipedia articles with style issues
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 confusing names, not much of a substantive difference. —Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs) 02:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 05:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment to @
Mr. Guye,
Marcocapelle, and
Oculi: the categories by date are "Wikipedia articles needing style editing from Mmm YYYY"; would you have these renamed as well, as follow-up housekeeping? I believe this could be done without too much work, by editing the 15 templates that populate them.
The monthly categories are created by AnomieBOT, containing only {{Monthly clean up category}}, which I believe generates parent categories based on the name excluding "from [date]", i.e. it won´t populate a parent named "articles [with problem] by date".
I could add the category to the bot's list of "special" categories that don't follow the usual naming convention, if necessary.
Category:Articles needing expert attention by month is an example of a category in that list.
Anomie⚔ 12:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Following that example mentioned by Anomie, the second nominated category should probably end with "by month" rather than "by date".
For the record, I note that the name "articles with style issues" complements "articles with content issues" and "articles with sourcing issues" in
Category:Wikipedia article cleanup. –
FayenaticLondon 14:24, 8 September 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: According to Google, it's a slightly more common term, and more transparent, not needing a definition for a general audience.
Catrìona (
talk) 22:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic: I chose the name because it is the general common name and is not ambiguous in how it's used. There's no ambiguity because someone from a "Celtic" background would be much more likely to describe themselves as "Scottish", grew up in an Irish speaking community, of Breton descent etc. In that sense there is no real pan-Celtic identity. Celtic scholars are not necessarily from a "Celtic" background, and include folklorists, historians, art historians, literature studies etc. as well as linguists per se. That said it does look like "Celtic studies scholars" would be consistent with other categories, although I've never heard that phrase used because it would be considered redundant. For these reasons I also support "Celtic studies scholars".
Catrìona (
talk) 13:32, 7 September 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:Polish resistance fighters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support for consistency reasons. It should match other categories on members of resistance movements.
Dimadick (
talk) 12:55, 19 August 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:Kwame Nkrumah University
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:Deaths by jungle justice
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, better suited by being mentioned in the article about jungle justice.
Geschichte (
talk) 20:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per nom, without prejudice to recreating if more than five jungle justice incidents later make it into Wikipedia.
Catrìona (
talk) 22:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment The definition is problematic: "Jungle justice or mob justice is a form of public extrajudicial killings in Sub-Saharan Africa, most notably Nigeria and Cameroon, where an alleged criminal is humiliated, beaten or summarily executed by a crowd or vigilantes." The concept largely overlaps with
lynching: "Lynching is a premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate a group."
Dimadick (
talk) 13:00, 19 August 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:Hindi films based on actual events
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 category is sparsely populated. Renaming it can allow the inclusion of more articles. Kailash29792(talk) 15:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The language used in a film is a defining characteristic. We should no more merge Hindi and Tamil than we would merge English and French.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:24, 18 August 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:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished during the Francoist Spain 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 result of the discussion was:merge.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, as far as I can see there is no relationship between the Francoist regime in Spain and the demolition of these buildings and structures. They have been demolished for various non-political reasons.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support -- I thought we had already has this discussion!
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
You are probably referring to
this discussion, but a smallcat rationale as in the previous discussion doesn't apply to the Francoist category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:19, 19 August 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.
Events by decade
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, these "events" categories do not distinguish themselves from their parent "decade" categories because decade categories are collecting events almost by definition. The nomination ends in 1800 because from that year on there is a deeper subcategorization of events by month. This is a follow-up nomination after
this earlier discussion has been closed as delete. There is no need to merge something because all content is also otherwise in the tree of the decade parent categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - per arguments of previous linked cfd. Looking at
Category:1790s, everything in there results from an event of some sort in the 1790s. I have checked that the first and last do not need an upmerge, and trust the nom on the others.
Oculi (
talk) 18:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support -- The previous discussion was for "by year" categories. The same rules should apply to the decade ones.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I disagree with the nominator's assertions events are not distinguished from general date categories.
Tim! (
talk) 08:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Births and deaths, battles and treaties, etc. (which are in the general date categories), aren't they all events?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support And I was wondering why the decade-categories looked increasingly empty. The new category layer is not needed.
Dimadick (
talk) 13:03, 19 August 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.
Loyola Lions football
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The football program at what is now called
Loyola Marymount University was disbanded following the 1951 season, when the school was known as Loyola College of Los Angeles. The school's sports teams were known simply as the "Loyola Lions" at the time.
Jweiss11 (
talk) 05:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support renaming. Loyola Marymount never had a football team. The program was disbanded in the early 1950s, long before the merger of Loyola and Marymount.
Cbl62 (
talk) 23:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support renaming per nom and Cbl - merger took place in 1973.
PCN02WPS (
talk |
contribs) 23:58, 18 August 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:rename, the current category name wrongly suggests these are organizations of the United Nations, which is not actually the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename but not as suggested. The majority of the content is national (etc) United Nations Associations, which are organisations whose role is to be cheer-leaders for UN. I am not quite sure what the rest of the content is doing there: are they NGOs recognised by UN? if so, that is a separate category. My preferred target would be
Category:United Nations Associations, with anything else purged to somewhere else. This needs more discussion: please relist.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon 13:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 00:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Use
Category:United Nations associations. We do actually need a category for official UN organisations (UNESCO, UNICEF, etc.) if we don't already have one, but it shouldn't be commingled with national UN associations. However, it should not be "Associations" with a capital "A" per
MOS:CAPS. In plural form like that, it's a
common not proper noun (if you attended both Harvard and Oxford, you went to two universities not "two Universities"). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is clear support for a rename, but no solid target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 00:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
As nominator, I'm mostly in favour of option C or E, while I'm opposing option D because it would wrongly suggest they are associations of the United Nations. I would consider option A to be outdated.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Prefer option E (my suggestion). Option D would be a valid category, but a different one. Option C (=option E without abbreviation) or perhaps option B (a low preference).
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:56, 18 August 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:Survivors in the United States
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Too heterogenous in my opinion. There are too many different events that one can survive in
Category:Survivors: Holocaust survivors, survivors of plane crashes, survivors of seafaring incidents, survivors of mundane crime, survivors of diseases, survivors of assassination attempts, for a national division to make sense at this level.
Catrìona (
talk) 00:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support and I also wonder about the definingness of some of the subcategories (see discussion below).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, not something they really have in common.
Geschichte (
talk) 20:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comments Why is this subcategory in the category tree for
Category:Victims? The main category is intended for victims of violence (in one form or another) and "earthquake survivors" are not typically part of the definition. The main article is
Victimology.
Dimadick (
talk) 13:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support as creator of the category. --
PanchoS (
talk) 05:50, 21 August 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:Assassination attempt survivors
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-defining in many cases (e.g.
Donald Trump whose article doesn't mention
an assasination attempt) and too subjective (e.g. "The
Brighton hotel bombing was a ... assassination attempt against the top tier of the British government ..." so should all the then cabinet be in the category?). DexDor(talk) 06:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Neutral on deletion of this category.
Catrìona (
talk) 16:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete for some
Gabrielle Giffords, I think it's likely defining; however, it's better handled in a sourced list and how serious is the "attempt" and to whom is it directed (like the Brighton bomboing mentioned above) may be subjective: see recent events in Venezuela, and presumably lots of WWII aerial bombings of capitals were at least somewhat in hope of knocking off key people.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 18:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete it's not defining. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 05:09, 24 August 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:Wikipedia articles with style issues
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 confusing names, not much of a substantive difference. —Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs) 02:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 05:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment to @
Mr. Guye,
Marcocapelle, and
Oculi: the categories by date are "Wikipedia articles needing style editing from Mmm YYYY"; would you have these renamed as well, as follow-up housekeeping? I believe this could be done without too much work, by editing the 15 templates that populate them.
The monthly categories are created by AnomieBOT, containing only {{Monthly clean up category}}, which I believe generates parent categories based on the name excluding "from [date]", i.e. it won´t populate a parent named "articles [with problem] by date".
I could add the category to the bot's list of "special" categories that don't follow the usual naming convention, if necessary.
Category:Articles needing expert attention by month is an example of a category in that list.
Anomie⚔ 12:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Following that example mentioned by Anomie, the second nominated category should probably end with "by month" rather than "by date".
For the record, I note that the name "articles with style issues" complements "articles with content issues" and "articles with sourcing issues" in
Category:Wikipedia article cleanup. –
FayenaticLondon 14:24, 8 September 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.