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.
Full upmerge, as just suggested. Furthermore the use of "school" for tertiary education is American English, not British English, the language I would expect for an ex-British colony.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:17, 26 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:Members of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
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 ambiguous because it does not name the school to which it refers.
Klbrain (
talk) 17:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: that name would duplicate the scope of the parent
Category:Cambridge mathematicians. If the split to the two departments is not retained, it would be better to merge to the parent and then consider renaming that one. –
FayenaticLondon 21:24, 26 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:Members of the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics
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 as proposed. This result was chosen to match the result of the nomination immediately above.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous title (missing the University name) that duplicates a page with simpler but clearer title.
Klbrain (
talk) 17:42, 25 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:Southern jaguars
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 by merger to
Category:Jaguars for the single remaining page. @
SilverTiger12: please do not empty categories out-of-process again, nor blank the category pages, but use CFD and wait for the discussion to close. Disclosure: I am closing this discussion to put it out of its misery; although I commented, I consider myself not
WP:INVOLVED in this one. –
FayenaticLondon 20:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These 3 categories have been emptied by edits such as
this. If these categories are not re-populated then they should be deleted. DexDor(talk) 15:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
They have been repopulated.
Leo1pard (
talk) 15:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Leo1pard,
Category:Jaguars (currently) contains only 21 pages (and most of those are redirects). Thus, there's no need for it to have subcategories. If by-region subcats were needed then it would be best to use regions that are already in use for other categories. DexDor(talk) 14:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Agree I was the one who depopulated them, because all they contained was a huge number of redirects, most of which seemed rather superfluous. And I agree, there was an unnecessary amount of categories for all those redirects. So I agree that those need to go.--
SilverTiger12 (
talk) 18:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
That is what I said- that I was emptying those categories. There are exactly 3 pages about extant jaguar populations-
Jaguar,
North American jaguar, and
South American jaguar. The rest of the items in those categories were all redirects to one of the latter two pages. And most of those redirects aren't even in use.--
SilverTiger12 (
talk) 20:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Your statement "all they contained was ... redirects" is incorrect - please
strike it. DexDor(talk) 06:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - it's difficult to see whether these are valid as
the original idea has been '
cleaned' by SilverTiger12. Moreover SilverTiger12 not content with emptying the categories once has now today emptied them again.
Oculi (
talk) 19:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: Here
[4] is a link to the diffs showing the former members of these categories. –
FayenaticLondon 21:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: Thanks for providing this list. @
SilverTiger12: please do not empty a category while the discussion is still ongoing, that is very unhelpful. Based on the list of diffs I note that most of the former category content are redirects to the same articles that are already in the category, therefore redundant. Hence I agree with the merge to
Category:Jaguars.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Update: I am moving all items in the discussed categories to cat:Jaguars, since there seems to be a consensus to merge.--
SilverTiger12 (
talk) 12:40, 5 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:Donald J. Trump Foundation
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:WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles, unlikely to grow. Both articles refer to each other, that's enough. —
JFGtalk 12:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Oh, no objection to placing those articles in a parent category. I just noticed this smallcat was unnecessary. —
JFGtalk 08:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
JFG: In that case, please nominate such cases for merger in future, rather than deletion. Deleting a category removes its contents from the parent hierarchies (unless the contents are already in other sibling categories). –
FayenaticLondon 09:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
OK, wasn't aware of that process. It can be disputed whether articles about the foundation belong in the parent category anyway (the Trump Foundation was not a business activity). —
JFGtalk 09:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, of course. —
JFGtalk 05:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Support deletion, per
WP:SMALLCAT and per further explanation by nominator (the Trump Foundation was not a business activity).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:54, 29 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:Roman Catholic cardinals by X
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:consensus to rename, but no consensus on which form, so defaulting to not including disambiguated form since other similar categories do not include the disambiguator. A fresh nomination dedicated to this issue could be had.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename or alt rename, either way is fine, in these particular cases adding the disambiguator is not crucial because it is very clear from the context (e.g. by papal appointment) what kind of cardinals are meant here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename as nom. Context (e.g. "papal appointment" or "suburbican diocese") make the (Catholic Church) precision redundant and useless. The short name is not ambiguous here, and a lot better.
Place Clichy (
talk) 14:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment This is the follow-up of an opposed speedy nomination (actually, two of them). It is good and civil practice to provide a copy of the discussion at CFD/S when moving to full discussion. I noticed that @
Chicbyaccident: quite often opens such full discussions without respecting this goodwill gesture. I think it would improve the quality of collaboration if they did.
Place Clichy (
talk) 14:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose these 3 as "papal appointment" and "suburbican diocese" make the (Catholic Church) precision redundant and useless. I see that the most simple name was opposed below by another user, so I guess you just need to start a full discussion.
Place Clichy (
talk) 20:27, 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:People associated with 3D printing
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:Women by association
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge per
WP:OCASSOC and because the distinction between this category and the parent category is unclear.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
(as nom) That is a certainly a nice alternative.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:09, 26 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:People whose birthplace is disputed
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. –
FayenaticLondon 20:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Cf.
Category:Age controversies. Renaming will avoid disagreements over whether a person's birthplace is or was disputed. It will also avoid arguments over
WP:FRINGE, which is already happening after this Category was added to
Barack Obama.
Muzilon (
talk) 03:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, this concerns a non-defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
It is not defining for any of the three people in the nominated category. Let's discuss the other category at some other occasion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Where a person was born is rarely defining. If kept, I would support the nom rename, but we do not need it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete with fire. This was created primarily to add Barack Obama, and that is pretty much all you need to know. Guy (
Help!) 19:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
No, it was not created because of Barack Obama.
User:Muzilonasked at the help desk if it would be an appropriate category. The OP did not mention Obama at all among the several examples provided. I created the category, and then added Obama as the fourth entry and second POTUS, with a third,
Chester A. Arthur, lurking in the background. You will not find anything in my extensive editing record that is in the least derogatory to Obama; you will, however, find many snide remarks - not in mainspace, of course - regarding Trump.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 04:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: Since my name has been mentioned... yes, I did suggest a category called
Category:Birthplace controversies at the Helpdesk to align with
Category:Age controversies. (Although I see an editor above now seems to be questioning the appropriateness of the latter too.) I did not have Mr. Obama's biography in mind either. If the consensus is that one or both of these categories should be deleted, I'm happy to go with the flow.--
Muzilon (
talk) 06:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
These examples merely illustrate that birthplace controversies may be interesting details of a biography, it does not make it a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as the proposed name is not better. "Controversy" is vague and subject to fringe interpretations, leaving room to add, for instance,
Alexander Hamilton, whose birthplace is not disputed, but whose disqualification for any candidacy as President of the United States while being one of the most important Founding Fathers is of importance in American history.
Place Clichy (
talk) 09:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete not particularly defining for the biography - perhaps only for the biographers. Also we have likely scholarly disputes about many ancient folks - even queries as to whether some even existed.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:09, 2 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:People associated with the anti-austerity movement
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.
Timrollpickering 20:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, these are people associated with an anti-austerity movement in different countries, they do not have a relationship with each other.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)reply
That would not solve the problem that the articles of this category are very unrelated to each other.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)reply
*rename and prune to
Category:Anti-austerity activists. One person certainly fitted this. Another was an economist, who was probably not an "activist". I note this has a lot of redirects in it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 02:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Now Delete (changed vote). I suggested a rename, but if others want to delete it, I would not oppose that.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:29, 26 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:People associated with Anonymous
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, removing only
Parmy Olson as the other nine appear to fall within the revised scope. I will move Olson up the parent category as her reporting on the group appears to be defining for her at the moment. –
FayenaticLondon 20:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:rename and purge per
WP:OCASSOC, this is currently a hodgepodge category of people associated with Anonymous in very different ways.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OCASSOC and similar to my comments to the Labor Party above. "Activists" are hardly better. Look at our article "activism" which defines it as: "efforts to promote, impede, or direct social, political, economic, or environmental reform or stasis with the desire to make improvements in society. Forms of activism range from writing letters to newspapers or to politicians, political campaigning, economic activism such as boycotts or preferentially patronizing businesses, rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, and hunger strikes." So anyone who writes to a newspaper or politician or campaigns could be an "activist". Malarkey.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 17:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. "Associated" is too vague.
Place Clichy (
talk) 11:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 02:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support (prune if necessary). People actually involved in its activities are however worth categorising. I support adding "group" or another disambiguator, to prevent irrelevant additions.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:32, 26 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:Wikipedian document markup users
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I am proposing two changes: (1) to align with the title of the main article,
Markup language; and (2) to replace "users" (which we all are) with a more active descriptor such as coders, writers, etc. (Category creator notified using
Template:Cfd-notify) --
Black Falcon(
talk) 03:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: that name should make it a container category. @
Bradd,
Dom1986,
RubenSchade, and
Sirasith: your user pages are currently directly categorised at this level; would you accept being recategorised into one or more of the sub-categories? –
FayenaticLondon 08:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Three of the four users noted above by
Fayenatic london are no longer active. Should this category be changed to a container?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 02:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
RubenSchade: as the only currently active editor with a user page in this category, please reply re moving it into one or more sub-categories. –
FayenaticLondon 15:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: He is already in several of the subcategories, so I think it would be fine just to remove him from this category if becomes a container. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 19:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Agree Proposal by Fayenatic London to change to a sub-category consistent with
Category:Wikipedians by programming language makes sense. I'll revise my page with the agreed-upon sub-category once it's created. Cheers --RubenSchade (
talk) 07:17, 30 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.
Full upmerge, as just suggested. Furthermore the use of "school" for tertiary education is American English, not British English, the language I would expect for an ex-British colony.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:17, 26 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:Members of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
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 ambiguous because it does not name the school to which it refers.
Klbrain (
talk) 17:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: that name would duplicate the scope of the parent
Category:Cambridge mathematicians. If the split to the two departments is not retained, it would be better to merge to the parent and then consider renaming that one. –
FayenaticLondon 21:24, 26 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:Members of the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics
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 as proposed. This result was chosen to match the result of the nomination immediately above.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous title (missing the University name) that duplicates a page with simpler but clearer title.
Klbrain (
talk) 17:42, 25 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:Southern jaguars
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 by merger to
Category:Jaguars for the single remaining page. @
SilverTiger12: please do not empty categories out-of-process again, nor blank the category pages, but use CFD and wait for the discussion to close. Disclosure: I am closing this discussion to put it out of its misery; although I commented, I consider myself not
WP:INVOLVED in this one. –
FayenaticLondon 20:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These 3 categories have been emptied by edits such as
this. If these categories are not re-populated then they should be deleted. DexDor(talk) 15:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
They have been repopulated.
Leo1pard (
talk) 15:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Leo1pard,
Category:Jaguars (currently) contains only 21 pages (and most of those are redirects). Thus, there's no need for it to have subcategories. If by-region subcats were needed then it would be best to use regions that are already in use for other categories. DexDor(talk) 14:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Agree I was the one who depopulated them, because all they contained was a huge number of redirects, most of which seemed rather superfluous. And I agree, there was an unnecessary amount of categories for all those redirects. So I agree that those need to go.--
SilverTiger12 (
talk) 18:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
That is what I said- that I was emptying those categories. There are exactly 3 pages about extant jaguar populations-
Jaguar,
North American jaguar, and
South American jaguar. The rest of the items in those categories were all redirects to one of the latter two pages. And most of those redirects aren't even in use.--
SilverTiger12 (
talk) 20:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Your statement "all they contained was ... redirects" is incorrect - please
strike it. DexDor(talk) 06:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - it's difficult to see whether these are valid as
the original idea has been '
cleaned' by SilverTiger12. Moreover SilverTiger12 not content with emptying the categories once has now today emptied them again.
Oculi (
talk) 19:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: Here
[4] is a link to the diffs showing the former members of these categories. –
FayenaticLondon 21:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: Thanks for providing this list. @
SilverTiger12: please do not empty a category while the discussion is still ongoing, that is very unhelpful. Based on the list of diffs I note that most of the former category content are redirects to the same articles that are already in the category, therefore redundant. Hence I agree with the merge to
Category:Jaguars.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Update: I am moving all items in the discussed categories to cat:Jaguars, since there seems to be a consensus to merge.--
SilverTiger12 (
talk) 12:40, 5 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:Donald J. Trump Foundation
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:WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles, unlikely to grow. Both articles refer to each other, that's enough. —
JFGtalk 12:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Oh, no objection to placing those articles in a parent category. I just noticed this smallcat was unnecessary. —
JFGtalk 08:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
JFG: In that case, please nominate such cases for merger in future, rather than deletion. Deleting a category removes its contents from the parent hierarchies (unless the contents are already in other sibling categories). –
FayenaticLondon 09:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
OK, wasn't aware of that process. It can be disputed whether articles about the foundation belong in the parent category anyway (the Trump Foundation was not a business activity). —
JFGtalk 09:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, of course. —
JFGtalk 05:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Support deletion, per
WP:SMALLCAT and per further explanation by nominator (the Trump Foundation was not a business activity).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:54, 29 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:Roman Catholic cardinals by X
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:consensus to rename, but no consensus on which form, so defaulting to not including disambiguated form since other similar categories do not include the disambiguator. A fresh nomination dedicated to this issue could be had.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename or alt rename, either way is fine, in these particular cases adding the disambiguator is not crucial because it is very clear from the context (e.g. by papal appointment) what kind of cardinals are meant here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename as nom. Context (e.g. "papal appointment" or "suburbican diocese") make the (Catholic Church) precision redundant and useless. The short name is not ambiguous here, and a lot better.
Place Clichy (
talk) 14:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment This is the follow-up of an opposed speedy nomination (actually, two of them). It is good and civil practice to provide a copy of the discussion at CFD/S when moving to full discussion. I noticed that @
Chicbyaccident: quite often opens such full discussions without respecting this goodwill gesture. I think it would improve the quality of collaboration if they did.
Place Clichy (
talk) 14:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose these 3 as "papal appointment" and "suburbican diocese" make the (Catholic Church) precision redundant and useless. I see that the most simple name was opposed below by another user, so I guess you just need to start a full discussion.
Place Clichy (
talk) 20:27, 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:People associated with 3D printing
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:Women by association
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge per
WP:OCASSOC and because the distinction between this category and the parent category is unclear.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
(as nom) That is a certainly a nice alternative.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:09, 26 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:People whose birthplace is disputed
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. –
FayenaticLondon 20:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Cf.
Category:Age controversies. Renaming will avoid disagreements over whether a person's birthplace is or was disputed. It will also avoid arguments over
WP:FRINGE, which is already happening after this Category was added to
Barack Obama.
Muzilon (
talk) 03:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, this concerns a non-defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
It is not defining for any of the three people in the nominated category. Let's discuss the other category at some other occasion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Where a person was born is rarely defining. If kept, I would support the nom rename, but we do not need it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete with fire. This was created primarily to add Barack Obama, and that is pretty much all you need to know. Guy (
Help!) 19:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
No, it was not created because of Barack Obama.
User:Muzilonasked at the help desk if it would be an appropriate category. The OP did not mention Obama at all among the several examples provided. I created the category, and then added Obama as the fourth entry and second POTUS, with a third,
Chester A. Arthur, lurking in the background. You will not find anything in my extensive editing record that is in the least derogatory to Obama; you will, however, find many snide remarks - not in mainspace, of course - regarding Trump.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 04:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: Since my name has been mentioned... yes, I did suggest a category called
Category:Birthplace controversies at the Helpdesk to align with
Category:Age controversies. (Although I see an editor above now seems to be questioning the appropriateness of the latter too.) I did not have Mr. Obama's biography in mind either. If the consensus is that one or both of these categories should be deleted, I'm happy to go with the flow.--
Muzilon (
talk) 06:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
These examples merely illustrate that birthplace controversies may be interesting details of a biography, it does not make it a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as the proposed name is not better. "Controversy" is vague and subject to fringe interpretations, leaving room to add, for instance,
Alexander Hamilton, whose birthplace is not disputed, but whose disqualification for any candidacy as President of the United States while being one of the most important Founding Fathers is of importance in American history.
Place Clichy (
talk) 09:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete not particularly defining for the biography - perhaps only for the biographers. Also we have likely scholarly disputes about many ancient folks - even queries as to whether some even existed.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:09, 2 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:People associated with the anti-austerity movement
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.
Timrollpickering 20:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, these are people associated with an anti-austerity movement in different countries, they do not have a relationship with each other.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)reply
That would not solve the problem that the articles of this category are very unrelated to each other.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)reply
*rename and prune to
Category:Anti-austerity activists. One person certainly fitted this. Another was an economist, who was probably not an "activist". I note this has a lot of redirects in it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 02:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Now Delete (changed vote). I suggested a rename, but if others want to delete it, I would not oppose that.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:29, 26 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:People associated with Anonymous
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, removing only
Parmy Olson as the other nine appear to fall within the revised scope. I will move Olson up the parent category as her reporting on the group appears to be defining for her at the moment. –
FayenaticLondon 20:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:rename and purge per
WP:OCASSOC, this is currently a hodgepodge category of people associated with Anonymous in very different ways.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OCASSOC and similar to my comments to the Labor Party above. "Activists" are hardly better. Look at our article "activism" which defines it as: "efforts to promote, impede, or direct social, political, economic, or environmental reform or stasis with the desire to make improvements in society. Forms of activism range from writing letters to newspapers or to politicians, political campaigning, economic activism such as boycotts or preferentially patronizing businesses, rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, and hunger strikes." So anyone who writes to a newspaper or politician or campaigns could be an "activist". Malarkey.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 17:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. "Associated" is too vague.
Place Clichy (
talk) 11:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 02:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support (prune if necessary). People actually involved in its activities are however worth categorising. I support adding "group" or another disambiguator, to prevent irrelevant additions.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:32, 26 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:Wikipedian document markup users
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I am proposing two changes: (1) to align with the title of the main article,
Markup language; and (2) to replace "users" (which we all are) with a more active descriptor such as coders, writers, etc. (Category creator notified using
Template:Cfd-notify) --
Black Falcon(
talk) 03:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: that name should make it a container category. @
Bradd,
Dom1986,
RubenSchade, and
Sirasith: your user pages are currently directly categorised at this level; would you accept being recategorised into one or more of the sub-categories? –
FayenaticLondon 08:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Three of the four users noted above by
Fayenatic london are no longer active. Should this category be changed to a container?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ℯxplicit 02:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
RubenSchade: as the only currently active editor with a user page in this category, please reply re moving it into one or more sub-categories. –
FayenaticLondon 15:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: He is already in several of the subcategories, so I think it would be fine just to remove him from this category if becomes a container. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 19:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Agree Proposal by Fayenatic London to change to a sub-category consistent with
Category:Wikipedians by programming language makes sense. I'll revise my page with the agreed-upon sub-category once it's created. Cheers --RubenSchade (
talk) 07:17, 30 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.