Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 8 March 10 >

March 9

Category:Trials in Great Britain

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Trials in the Kingdom of Great Britain. Re: the deletion issue that was raised, if anyone would like to nominate the category for deletion (or dispersion to Category:Trials in England and Category:Trials in Scotland), feel free to do so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category does not need to hold the subcategories Category:Trials in England and Category:Trials in Scotland, because it is an unnecessary level below Category:Trials in the United Kingdom. If it is to be used, it should instead be used to categorize all trials within Great Britain before its union with Ireland (1707-1801). — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 22:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Alt rename to Category:Trials in the Kingdom of Great Britain, to align with article Kingdom of Great Britain and parent Category:Kingdom of Great Britain. The proposed name by nom is still better than the current name. Also purge the subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • rename to Category:Trials in the Kingdom of Great Britain. Sufficient disambiguation. Dimadick ( talk) 20:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support alt Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Alt rename to Category:Trials in the Kingdom of Great Britain, per Marcocapelle. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- Potentially delete -- Great Britain is not and never has been a single jurisdiction. England and Wales was one jurisdiction; Scotland another. The whole policy of WP in treating England/GB/UK as separate polities is fundamentally flawed. The English Parliament did not cease in 1707: it continued, as it always had, except that it had admitted Scottish members; similarly on Irish Union in 1801. In the same way the departure of the Republic of Ireland in c.1921 did not create a new country. Likewise, the United States did not become a new country each time a new state joined the union. The last sentence of the headnote is almost certainly wrong. Criminal proceedings are in the name of the king, but do not require any action by him. Justiciary subcat is Scottish. The treason cases are English. The only case that is arguably a GB case is Warren Hastings, which was an impeachment in the House of Lords, though this would have been conducted according to English law. There was a unity of the Crown from 1603, the only change in 1707 was in the title of Queen Anne. The concept of king of GB goes back to James VI & I. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- Potentially delete per Peterkingiron. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Reply By that logic, then Category:Trials in the United Kingdom ought to be deleted also. It is not true to say that a few more constituencies were added to the Parliament of England to cater for additions from Scotland & Ireland. After the Treaty of Union in 1707, Acts of Parliament passed in the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland created a new Kingdom of Great Britain and dissolved both parliaments, replacing them with a new Parliament of Great Britain based in the former home of the English parliament. So only the meeting place was the same. That two legal traditions exist in the same state is not to say that trials - under either tradition - do not take place in that state. There were trials in Scotland. There were trials in England. And from 1707-1801 there were trials in the newly minted state of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Possibly there is no true or false in this discussion and is it just a case of two oppositie POVs. Regardless, Wikipedia has a history of categorizing by Kingdom of Great Britain and we should keep consistency with that. If anyone would like to nominate the whole tree of Category:Kingdom of Great Britain, just go ahead, but while the tree still exists we should not randomly create holes in it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:16, 15 March 2021 (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:Taxa named by Kiavash Golzarianpour

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: author is redlinked and category is only populated by two articles (I tried and failed to find more). They don't appear to have described many other species. Limited potential for growth. For more info about this and related categories created by this user, see discussion here. Enwebb ( talk) 22:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A single editor creating many underpopulated categories does not fit the WP:SMALLCAT exception as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". - RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete perhaps there would be a way for there to be a list of taxa by those who named them, including Golzarianpour, but this category fails WP:SMALLCAT. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:23, 14 March 2021 (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:Taxa named by Roberta Barbieri

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: author is redlinked and category is only populated by two articles (I tried and failed to find more). She doesn't appear to have described many other species. Limited potential for growth. For more info about this and related categories created by this user, see discussion here. Enwebb ( talk) 22:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A single editor creating many underpopulated categories does not fit the WP:SMALLCAT exception as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". - RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete perhaps there would be a way for there to be a list of taxa by those who named them, including Barbieri, but this category fails WP:SMALLCAT. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (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:Taxa named by Asghar Abdoli

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: author is redlinked and category is only populated by one article. He doesn't appear to have described many other species. Limited potential for growth. For more info about this and related categories created by this user, see discussion here. Enwebb ( talk) 21:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A single editor creating many underpopulated categories does not fit the WP:SMALLCAT exception as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". - RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete perhaps there would be a way for there to be a list of taxa by those who named them, including Abdoli, but this category fails WP:SMALLCAT. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:25, 14 March 2021 (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:Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, Armenian control was just a temporary status, so we should not categorize by it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
copy of speedy discussion
  • Comment (not opposing the rename), Armenian control was just a temporary status, so we should not categorize by it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed, the fact that these places were occupied in the past is probably not defining. We have Category:Military occupation for articles about occupations themselves, but if we started to categorize articles about places (i.e. every town, village and field) by every former military power which once held them, there would be no end to that. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
@ CuriousGolden and Place Clichy: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not every article necessitates a category. Sufficient categories exist to record the tragic and desultory history of events in that corner of the world. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- I would have asked for a list but we have one in the main article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:26, 14 March 2021 (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.

Orissa before 2011

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: option A rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Odisha, a state in India, was named Orissa until 2011. The parent chronology categories (option B) therefore use the name Orissa before that year. However, User:Johnpacklambert thinks we should use Odisha for all categories, and has created the establishments-by-year categories (option A). He opposes speedy renaming to match, hence this full nomination is required. – Fayenatic London 16:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose all the Odisha to Orissa proposals. I think we should treat the name in unity. Odisha is a better reflection of long-standing local pronunciation standards and I do not think we should cause confusion by introducing the old spelling needlessly. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Option A. Now that {{ Navseasoncats}} elegantly handles redirects, there is no convenience advantage to using anachronistic names. Just create category redirects for all cases, and the result is seamless navigaton with no anachronism. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Option A. I also think that articles such as 1952 Orissa Legislative Assembly election should use Orissa in the text. Oculi ( talk) 18:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • As the articles are, apparently, directly affected by this discussion, it might make sense to start an RFC. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • That was merely an observation: I am not suggesting that cfd should involve itself in the renaming of text within articles. Oculi ( talk) 16:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • True. What I meant to say is an RFC may result in using either Odisha or Orissa throughout, i.e. both in the text of articles and in the article titles and in the category names. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Orissa. I have been convinced that this is the best way to reflect the situation at the time. I still feel that many people are not appreciating the huge amount of work and close precision that is needed to split up this India establishment categories. I had to fill two sides of a paper with the exact creation date for each and every Indian state, and to mark which state that state was created from, to even begin to undertake this project. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ John Pack Lambert: your comments about the huge amount of work are unpersuasive, because a) you are not the only person doing that work; b) it's not that complex; c) you set low standards. You created a significant number of inadequately parented categories: some had only one parent. Even when this was pointed out, and your attention was drawn to {{ EstcatIndiastate}}, you didn't go back to fix the mangled categories you had created. I fixed a bunch of them last night, which was six days after your attention was drawn to the problem on 5 March.
      Despite having left your own lazy errors unfixed for four days, on 9 March you hypocritically lashed out at FL [1] for civilly pointing out this naming problem. You wrote of attacks by lazy editors who do nothing but criticize those of us who actually put in the work.
      In summary, you have been making lots of errors, but have repeatedly responded with hostility to thoroughly civil comments about them. You have accused others of being lazy, even tho you are too lazy to fix your own errors. Then then you claim to be underappreciated ... but you don't seem to understand why. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Option A -- We have had this discussion many times over renamed countries e.g. Belgian Congo/Zaire/DRC. The solution is to avoid anachronism, by using the English spelling applicable at the time. However, since Orissa and Odisha are the same state, parents should not be split. According Category:21st century in Odisha should be the parent to Category:2000s in Orissa. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Option A. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment More categories have been created that use Odisha pre-2011 since this discussion was started. Although we now have both Category:2001 establishments in Odisha and Category:2001 establishments in Orissa. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support option A - using Odisha prior to the name-change is ahistorical, problematic if we would apply same standard to Chennai, Mumbai, etc.. -- Soman ( talk) 12:56, 16 March 2021 (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:Deaths from cardiovascular disease

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 as too routine a cause of death to be defining. BD2412 T 04:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING cause of death. Recreation of Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths, which was deleted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 20#Category:Cardiovascular_disease_deaths. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the last CFD suggested that it be deleted due to the need to specify which exact type disease was the cause of death, but that ignores the fact that many people are only said to have passed due to “heart disease”, and it also deletes a perfectly valid WP:CONTAINER category for the other heart diseases. Category:Deaths from cardiomyopathy was not spec the subject of the CFD — Prisencolin ( talk) 19:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The subcat has since been tagged by another editor. (I would have shared your concern about orphaning a subcat.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a too common and trivial cause of death. It is not something that biographies specifically elaborate on, nor is it worth elaborating on. (That applies to many diseases as a cause of death, by the way.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Too common to be defining. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - like most causes of death it's not defining. And for most people these days there are multiple causes of death. Rathfelder ( talk) 00:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and precedent. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Causes of death are defining, and we should not exclude entire groups of medical causes. Dimadick ( talk) 20:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Causes of death are defining. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:34, 14 March 2021 (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:COVID-19 vaccination programmes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Inaccurate name. These are not all vaccination programmes. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support I set up the original category. At the time there were not many articles in it. Now that editors have made articles, it is apparent that the trend is to make articles for deployment by country, and not by the name of individual vaccination programs. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:35, 14 March 2021 (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.

People of Hainanese descent

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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, we do not categorize people by the region or city where their ancestors have been living, like in this case the province Hainan, per WP:COPHERITAGE. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:06, 9 March 2021 (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:Chilean marxists

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 as duplicate of Category:Chilean Marxists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a total duplicate category of this with a lowercase "M". Chillabit ( talk) 04:18, 9 March 2021 (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:Daniel Barenboim

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. A single related article doesn't warrant an eponymous category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 03:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Adding relatives does not add any justification for the need for this category. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 16:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with Starcheers, the two extra articles do not provide any extra information about Daniel Barenboim. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:31, 16 March 2021 (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:Kentucky colonels

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. G4: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_22#Category:Kentucky_colonels Fences& Windows 01:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not entirely sure what is happening here, but this appears to be a category for people given an honorary title and thus non-defining. User:Namiba 02:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete Category:Kentucky colonels The category IS NOT WP:OCAWARD and NOT non-defining. Kentucky colonelcy has its roots in 1775 and includes over 20 American presidents and more than 1,000 celebrities. It is more than an award or honorific title, it is a civil status under common law and is awarded with letters patent. See my note at Category talk:Kentucky colonels. The Kentucky Colonel was responsible for the secession of the state from Virginia, founding the state as the 15th, as well as writing the foundational doctrine document the "Kentucke Magna Charta" which was incorporated in the United States Constitution and the constitutions of several other US States. "COLONELCY" in America is very significant inasmuch as it is/was and remains the "highest honorific title" that can be bestowed to a person who is not a Lord, Count, Baron or Duke, it is also the same title that took away the divine right of kings in America, likewise the Kentucky Colonel certificate today is awarded today to many of these same people and has the same rights and duties as the original title in common law. An alternative to simple categorization of (contemporary and historical) colonels and award recipients together will be to introduce a List of original Kentucky colonels article with citations, references and Wiki links. Problemsmith ( talk) 09:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
I read the talk page as you suggested. The problem was never that the category was too small since the award is given out widely; the problem was that it was only defining to Colonel Sanders. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • There has been a list of recipients in the Kentucky Colonel article but it has been deleted after discussion on the talk page that the list did not serve any purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:14, 9 March 2021 (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:Caribbean Series 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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Category:Caribbean Series managers also exists but was not included in this nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:PERFCAT; this is a trial balloon for many of its sibling categories in the Category:Baseball players by competition. We recently got rid of a similar Super Bowl category ( here) and a few other bicycle racing ones here and here. Ultimately, sportspeople play in numerous venues and events and our precedent is that this is not defining. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per precedent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as well. Carlossuarez46 is correct to state that appearing in a certain event is non-defining for individual sportspeople.-- User:Namiba 02:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, we might as well adapt the text of WP:PERFCAT to further emphasize that it may apply to all sorts of professions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Agreed. And that goes both ways: if there are acting jobs that are generally long-term careers, that could be defining. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
There is an ongoing discussion about including sportspeople.-- User:Namiba 15:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, not defined by a single performance. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per PERFCAT. Categorisation by team is appropriate, but not by competition. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and precedent. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Crown (Württemberg)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD, WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT)
When high ranking foreign leaders from visited the German Kingdom of Württemberg or vice versa, the Order of the Crown (Württemberg) is given out as souvenir. Alexander II of Russia, Ludwig III of Bavaria, George V, and Prince Charles of Prussia are not remotely defined by this award. (There are also a small percentage of local people like Prince August of Württemberg and William II of Württemberg but they are already well categorized under Category:Political office-holders in Württemberg, Category:House of Württemberg, etc.) There wasn't a list so I created a collapsible right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of Hilal-e-Kashmir

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. (At the close, the category had already been deleted via G7.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:SMALLCAT and likely WP:OCAWARD)
The Hilal-e-Kashmir is an award issued by Pakistani-administered section of the disputed Kashmir area. There is only 1 article in this category, Saif Ali Janjua, which could use some further editor attention. I can't really say the category contents are "listified" but that 1 biography is already linked in right here in the main article. For what's it's worth, that 1 article does mention the award in the lede but since the award and 1 recipient already link to each other, this category doesn't serve a navigational function and I can't find any other articles to add. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_9&oldid=1166612966"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 8 March 10 >

March 9

Category:Trials in Great Britain

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Trials in the Kingdom of Great Britain. Re: the deletion issue that was raised, if anyone would like to nominate the category for deletion (or dispersion to Category:Trials in England and Category:Trials in Scotland), feel free to do so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category does not need to hold the subcategories Category:Trials in England and Category:Trials in Scotland, because it is an unnecessary level below Category:Trials in the United Kingdom. If it is to be used, it should instead be used to categorize all trials within Great Britain before its union with Ireland (1707-1801). — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 22:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Alt rename to Category:Trials in the Kingdom of Great Britain, to align with article Kingdom of Great Britain and parent Category:Kingdom of Great Britain. The proposed name by nom is still better than the current name. Also purge the subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • rename to Category:Trials in the Kingdom of Great Britain. Sufficient disambiguation. Dimadick ( talk) 20:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support alt Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Alt rename to Category:Trials in the Kingdom of Great Britain, per Marcocapelle. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- Potentially delete -- Great Britain is not and never has been a single jurisdiction. England and Wales was one jurisdiction; Scotland another. The whole policy of WP in treating England/GB/UK as separate polities is fundamentally flawed. The English Parliament did not cease in 1707: it continued, as it always had, except that it had admitted Scottish members; similarly on Irish Union in 1801. In the same way the departure of the Republic of Ireland in c.1921 did not create a new country. Likewise, the United States did not become a new country each time a new state joined the union. The last sentence of the headnote is almost certainly wrong. Criminal proceedings are in the name of the king, but do not require any action by him. Justiciary subcat is Scottish. The treason cases are English. The only case that is arguably a GB case is Warren Hastings, which was an impeachment in the House of Lords, though this would have been conducted according to English law. There was a unity of the Crown from 1603, the only change in 1707 was in the title of Queen Anne. The concept of king of GB goes back to James VI & I. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- Potentially delete per Peterkingiron. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Reply By that logic, then Category:Trials in the United Kingdom ought to be deleted also. It is not true to say that a few more constituencies were added to the Parliament of England to cater for additions from Scotland & Ireland. After the Treaty of Union in 1707, Acts of Parliament passed in the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland created a new Kingdom of Great Britain and dissolved both parliaments, replacing them with a new Parliament of Great Britain based in the former home of the English parliament. So only the meeting place was the same. That two legal traditions exist in the same state is not to say that trials - under either tradition - do not take place in that state. There were trials in Scotland. There were trials in England. And from 1707-1801 there were trials in the newly minted state of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Possibly there is no true or false in this discussion and is it just a case of two oppositie POVs. Regardless, Wikipedia has a history of categorizing by Kingdom of Great Britain and we should keep consistency with that. If anyone would like to nominate the whole tree of Category:Kingdom of Great Britain, just go ahead, but while the tree still exists we should not randomly create holes in it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:16, 15 March 2021 (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:Taxa named by Kiavash Golzarianpour

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: author is redlinked and category is only populated by two articles (I tried and failed to find more). They don't appear to have described many other species. Limited potential for growth. For more info about this and related categories created by this user, see discussion here. Enwebb ( talk) 22:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A single editor creating many underpopulated categories does not fit the WP:SMALLCAT exception as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". - RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete perhaps there would be a way for there to be a list of taxa by those who named them, including Golzarianpour, but this category fails WP:SMALLCAT. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:23, 14 March 2021 (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:Taxa named by Roberta Barbieri

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: author is redlinked and category is only populated by two articles (I tried and failed to find more). She doesn't appear to have described many other species. Limited potential for growth. For more info about this and related categories created by this user, see discussion here. Enwebb ( talk) 22:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A single editor creating many underpopulated categories does not fit the WP:SMALLCAT exception as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". - RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete perhaps there would be a way for there to be a list of taxa by those who named them, including Barbieri, but this category fails WP:SMALLCAT. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (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:Taxa named by Asghar Abdoli

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: author is redlinked and category is only populated by one article. He doesn't appear to have described many other species. Limited potential for growth. For more info about this and related categories created by this user, see discussion here. Enwebb ( talk) 21:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A single editor creating many underpopulated categories does not fit the WP:SMALLCAT exception as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". - RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete perhaps there would be a way for there to be a list of taxa by those who named them, including Abdoli, but this category fails WP:SMALLCAT. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:25, 14 March 2021 (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:Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, Armenian control was just a temporary status, so we should not categorize by it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
copy of speedy discussion
  • Comment (not opposing the rename), Armenian control was just a temporary status, so we should not categorize by it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed, the fact that these places were occupied in the past is probably not defining. We have Category:Military occupation for articles about occupations themselves, but if we started to categorize articles about places (i.e. every town, village and field) by every former military power which once held them, there would be no end to that. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
@ CuriousGolden and Place Clichy: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not every article necessitates a category. Sufficient categories exist to record the tragic and desultory history of events in that corner of the world. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- I would have asked for a list but we have one in the main article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:26, 14 March 2021 (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.

Orissa before 2011

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: option A rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Odisha, a state in India, was named Orissa until 2011. The parent chronology categories (option B) therefore use the name Orissa before that year. However, User:Johnpacklambert thinks we should use Odisha for all categories, and has created the establishments-by-year categories (option A). He opposes speedy renaming to match, hence this full nomination is required. – Fayenatic London 16:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose all the Odisha to Orissa proposals. I think we should treat the name in unity. Odisha is a better reflection of long-standing local pronunciation standards and I do not think we should cause confusion by introducing the old spelling needlessly. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Option A. Now that {{ Navseasoncats}} elegantly handles redirects, there is no convenience advantage to using anachronistic names. Just create category redirects for all cases, and the result is seamless navigaton with no anachronism. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Option A. I also think that articles such as 1952 Orissa Legislative Assembly election should use Orissa in the text. Oculi ( talk) 18:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • As the articles are, apparently, directly affected by this discussion, it might make sense to start an RFC. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • That was merely an observation: I am not suggesting that cfd should involve itself in the renaming of text within articles. Oculi ( talk) 16:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • True. What I meant to say is an RFC may result in using either Odisha or Orissa throughout, i.e. both in the text of articles and in the article titles and in the category names. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Orissa. I have been convinced that this is the best way to reflect the situation at the time. I still feel that many people are not appreciating the huge amount of work and close precision that is needed to split up this India establishment categories. I had to fill two sides of a paper with the exact creation date for each and every Indian state, and to mark which state that state was created from, to even begin to undertake this project. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ John Pack Lambert: your comments about the huge amount of work are unpersuasive, because a) you are not the only person doing that work; b) it's not that complex; c) you set low standards. You created a significant number of inadequately parented categories: some had only one parent. Even when this was pointed out, and your attention was drawn to {{ EstcatIndiastate}}, you didn't go back to fix the mangled categories you had created. I fixed a bunch of them last night, which was six days after your attention was drawn to the problem on 5 March.
      Despite having left your own lazy errors unfixed for four days, on 9 March you hypocritically lashed out at FL [1] for civilly pointing out this naming problem. You wrote of attacks by lazy editors who do nothing but criticize those of us who actually put in the work.
      In summary, you have been making lots of errors, but have repeatedly responded with hostility to thoroughly civil comments about them. You have accused others of being lazy, even tho you are too lazy to fix your own errors. Then then you claim to be underappreciated ... but you don't seem to understand why. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Option A -- We have had this discussion many times over renamed countries e.g. Belgian Congo/Zaire/DRC. The solution is to avoid anachronism, by using the English spelling applicable at the time. However, since Orissa and Odisha are the same state, parents should not be split. According Category:21st century in Odisha should be the parent to Category:2000s in Orissa. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Option A. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment More categories have been created that use Odisha pre-2011 since this discussion was started. Although we now have both Category:2001 establishments in Odisha and Category:2001 establishments in Orissa. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support option A - using Odisha prior to the name-change is ahistorical, problematic if we would apply same standard to Chennai, Mumbai, etc.. -- Soman ( talk) 12:56, 16 March 2021 (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:Deaths from cardiovascular disease

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 as too routine a cause of death to be defining. BD2412 T 04:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING cause of death. Recreation of Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths, which was deleted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 20#Category:Cardiovascular_disease_deaths. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the last CFD suggested that it be deleted due to the need to specify which exact type disease was the cause of death, but that ignores the fact that many people are only said to have passed due to “heart disease”, and it also deletes a perfectly valid WP:CONTAINER category for the other heart diseases. Category:Deaths from cardiomyopathy was not spec the subject of the CFD — Prisencolin ( talk) 19:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The subcat has since been tagged by another editor. (I would have shared your concern about orphaning a subcat.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a too common and trivial cause of death. It is not something that biographies specifically elaborate on, nor is it worth elaborating on. (That applies to many diseases as a cause of death, by the way.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Too common to be defining. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - like most causes of death it's not defining. And for most people these days there are multiple causes of death. Rathfelder ( talk) 00:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and precedent. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Causes of death are defining, and we should not exclude entire groups of medical causes. Dimadick ( talk) 20:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Causes of death are defining. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:34, 14 March 2021 (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:COVID-19 vaccination programmes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Inaccurate name. These are not all vaccination programmes. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support I set up the original category. At the time there were not many articles in it. Now that editors have made articles, it is apparent that the trend is to make articles for deployment by country, and not by the name of individual vaccination programs. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:35, 14 March 2021 (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.

People of Hainanese descent

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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, we do not categorize people by the region or city where their ancestors have been living, like in this case the province Hainan, per WP:COPHERITAGE. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:06, 9 March 2021 (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:Chilean marxists

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 as duplicate of Category:Chilean Marxists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a total duplicate category of this with a lowercase "M". Chillabit ( talk) 04:18, 9 March 2021 (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:Daniel Barenboim

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. A single related article doesn't warrant an eponymous category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 03:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Adding relatives does not add any justification for the need for this category. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 16:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with Starcheers, the two extra articles do not provide any extra information about Daniel Barenboim. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:31, 16 March 2021 (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:Kentucky colonels

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. G4: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_22#Category:Kentucky_colonels Fences& Windows 01:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not entirely sure what is happening here, but this appears to be a category for people given an honorary title and thus non-defining. User:Namiba 02:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete Category:Kentucky colonels The category IS NOT WP:OCAWARD and NOT non-defining. Kentucky colonelcy has its roots in 1775 and includes over 20 American presidents and more than 1,000 celebrities. It is more than an award or honorific title, it is a civil status under common law and is awarded with letters patent. See my note at Category talk:Kentucky colonels. The Kentucky Colonel was responsible for the secession of the state from Virginia, founding the state as the 15th, as well as writing the foundational doctrine document the "Kentucke Magna Charta" which was incorporated in the United States Constitution and the constitutions of several other US States. "COLONELCY" in America is very significant inasmuch as it is/was and remains the "highest honorific title" that can be bestowed to a person who is not a Lord, Count, Baron or Duke, it is also the same title that took away the divine right of kings in America, likewise the Kentucky Colonel certificate today is awarded today to many of these same people and has the same rights and duties as the original title in common law. An alternative to simple categorization of (contemporary and historical) colonels and award recipients together will be to introduce a List of original Kentucky colonels article with citations, references and Wiki links. Problemsmith ( talk) 09:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
I read the talk page as you suggested. The problem was never that the category was too small since the award is given out widely; the problem was that it was only defining to Colonel Sanders. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • There has been a list of recipients in the Kentucky Colonel article but it has been deleted after discussion on the talk page that the list did not serve any purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:14, 9 March 2021 (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:Caribbean Series 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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Category:Caribbean Series managers also exists but was not included in this nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:PERFCAT; this is a trial balloon for many of its sibling categories in the Category:Baseball players by competition. We recently got rid of a similar Super Bowl category ( here) and a few other bicycle racing ones here and here. Ultimately, sportspeople play in numerous venues and events and our precedent is that this is not defining. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per precedent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as well. Carlossuarez46 is correct to state that appearing in a certain event is non-defining for individual sportspeople.-- User:Namiba 02:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, we might as well adapt the text of WP:PERFCAT to further emphasize that it may apply to all sorts of professions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Agreed. And that goes both ways: if there are acting jobs that are generally long-term careers, that could be defining. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
There is an ongoing discussion about including sportspeople.-- User:Namiba 15:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, not defined by a single performance. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per PERFCAT. Categorisation by team is appropriate, but not by competition. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and precedent. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Crown (Württemberg)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD, WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT)
When high ranking foreign leaders from visited the German Kingdom of Württemberg or vice versa, the Order of the Crown (Württemberg) is given out as souvenir. Alexander II of Russia, Ludwig III of Bavaria, George V, and Prince Charles of Prussia are not remotely defined by this award. (There are also a small percentage of local people like Prince August of Württemberg and William II of Württemberg but they are already well categorized under Category:Political office-holders in Württemberg, Category:House of Württemberg, etc.) There wasn't a list so I created a collapsible right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of Hilal-e-Kashmir

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. (At the close, the category had already been deleted via G7.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:SMALLCAT and likely WP:OCAWARD)
The Hilal-e-Kashmir is an award issued by Pakistani-administered section of the disputed Kashmir area. There is only 1 article in this category, Saif Ali Janjua, which could use some further editor attention. I can't really say the category contents are "listified" but that 1 biography is already linked in right here in the main article. For what's it's worth, that 1 article does mention the award in the lede but since the award and 1 recipient already link to each other, this category doesn't serve a navigational function and I can't find any other articles to add. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_9&oldid=1166612966"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE