The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose For many of these individuals, especially the politicians, it's a defining characteristic. Especially given the increased tribalism in U.S. politics. It's likely not defining for, say, an actor who is public about their political affiliation. But that doesn't justify deletion. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
15:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I interpret the proposal is make each of these categories a diffusing/container category (
WP:CONTAINER), with each member belonging to a more specific category (e.g. Wyoming Republican elected officials, Wyoming Republican party officials). The proposal is not to delete the category.
🌊PacificDepthstalk|
contrib
Comment: I agree with nom that many members of these categories should not belong because party affiliation
non-defining for many individuals like celebrities. Have we thought about the right sub-categories to use? I see political office and party office from nominator. Is that enough? What about the class of writers, nonprofit staff, influencers, and operatives who belong to neither of those categories?
🌊PacificDepthstalk|
contrib02:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree. Political Party affiliation may be non-defining, but running for office under a specific political party probably is defining, and we do not currently have categories for "Democratic gubernatorial candidates from North Dakota", for example. That example is probably
WP:OVERCAT, but we might need a "Democratic party politicians from North Dakota" category or something similar to catch stragglers that don't fit elsewhere.
LinkTiger (
talk)
18:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support containerizing. It has been a longstanding consensus that these categories are only supposed to be used on people who are actually active in party politics in some way, i.e. officeholders and party operatives, but obviously it's hard to enforce that adequately given the sheer size of the job involved. So creating the relevant party-office intersection categories, and diffusing people into them instead of the parent, is the obvious way forward.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Regardless, there are countless ways that party membership can be defining that do not involve holding office. Rather than creating hundreds of new categories intersecting party affiliation and city council, mayor, county commissioner, school board, sheriff, national or state committee member, and any other way these intersect, I suggest we keep the current system and address whether the existing categories are clutter.--
User:Namiba20:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I was under the impression that Namiba was objecting to these intersections ("I would support deleting the above categories and keep the more generalized party categories").
Oculi (
talk)
03:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I see, that I misunderstood. It could be an alternative way to go forward but that would require a new (massive) nomination. Then I would still suggest first to purge the categories that are currently nominated before starting that discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep as
Category:Alabama Democrat politicians and
Category:Alabama Republican politicians(party is redundant) but purge of anyone who is (1) already in a subcat (ass governor, representative or senator (state or federal) (2) not a politician, by virtue of having run for an elected office at any level. Party affiliation is not a permanent characteristic and for those who merely endorse a candidate in one election, it is likely to be a NN characteristic.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
There are many ways by which partisan affiliation is distinctive outside of holding elected office. Some people are notable for their failed candidacies for office. Others as prominent donors or political activists. What this nomination does is eliminate a partisan category from hundreds of people whose notability is partially or mainly linked to their partisan activities. To continue with the Maine example,
Steve Abbott (politician),
Donald Sussman, and
Linda Bean are three such examples.--
User:Namiba18:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron's proposal does apply to candidates: "a politician, by virtue of having run for an elected office at any level". We could expand to donors/activists if it is a defining characteristic (
George Soros?
Peter Thiel?) - though those may rather go a different category taxonomy as these names tend to be national.
🌊PacificDepthstalk|
contrib05:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Realistically, which articles does this category change exclude? Donors, convention delegates, campaign managers, and more broadly party activists. I don't see why partisan affiliation is not defining to someone who makes their career working in politics, is an appointed partisan officer, or who is an elected convention delegate. If a source routinely describes someone as an active partisan, then they should be in a partisan category, regardless of the kind of partisan involvement.--
User:Namiba14:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Let me use another example: Author Stephen King is a staunch, partisan Democrat. Numerous sources describe him as such
[1][2][3]. He has never run for office and therefore would be excluded from having a partisan category if this proposal passes. How does this make sense? What problem is this proposal seeking to fix if people like King and other non-candidates would be excluded? Partisan activity is far deeper than political candidacy.--
User:Namiba14:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Leaning keep as to all. I just created
George H. Brown Jr. who was temporarily appointed to a Tennessee Supreme Court vacancy by a Republican, and ran unsuccessfully for election to the office he then held, as a Republican. How would he not be a Tennessee Republican, despite never being successfully elected to office as one?
BD2412T17:35, 3 December 2022 (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:Cities and towns under jurisdiction of Moscow
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.
On the contrary,
Moscow city is not part of
Moscow Oblast. The category contains former cities in Moscow Oblast, now having become part of Moscow city. The category may be deleted because the articles already are in a proper okrug tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I have to add this template so the discussion closes, but this is a bad merge, please vote against as Moscow City and Oblast are not the same.
BhamBoi (
talk)
00:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
They both have their own uses and non-overlapping articles. I say keep both, as when I made this, I didn't realize they were different federal subjects. They should both exist.
BhamBoi (
talk)
06:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
But I don't know anything about 'Okrug trees', I just tried to erroneously nom a cat for deletion because I thought they were duplicates when they were not. If one has another reason that I don't understand to be removed, I say go for it.
BhamBoi (
talk)
06:45, 7 December 2022 (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:Singers from Belleville, Ontario
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: Category of unclear necessity. With just five people here and only one other person filed in the target, it's not at all clear that Belleville needs two separate categories for singers and musicians at this time -- and with ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Canadian singers by city having just one sibling category for any other city, there isn't yet a comprehensive scheme of "Singers from Canadian city" to justify this. And for added bonus, Belleville is a small city (pop. 50K), so even if somebody wanted to start actually expanding the Canadian singers by city tree, Belleville still wouldn't be a high priority ahead of the likes of Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary or Winnipeg.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:16, 28 November 2022 (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:Basketball players by city or town in India
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:Ships built at Gosport
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose For many of these individuals, especially the politicians, it's a defining characteristic. Especially given the increased tribalism in U.S. politics. It's likely not defining for, say, an actor who is public about their political affiliation. But that doesn't justify deletion. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
15:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I interpret the proposal is make each of these categories a diffusing/container category (
WP:CONTAINER), with each member belonging to a more specific category (e.g. Wyoming Republican elected officials, Wyoming Republican party officials). The proposal is not to delete the category.
🌊PacificDepthstalk|
contrib
Comment: I agree with nom that many members of these categories should not belong because party affiliation
non-defining for many individuals like celebrities. Have we thought about the right sub-categories to use? I see political office and party office from nominator. Is that enough? What about the class of writers, nonprofit staff, influencers, and operatives who belong to neither of those categories?
🌊PacificDepthstalk|
contrib02:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree. Political Party affiliation may be non-defining, but running for office under a specific political party probably is defining, and we do not currently have categories for "Democratic gubernatorial candidates from North Dakota", for example. That example is probably
WP:OVERCAT, but we might need a "Democratic party politicians from North Dakota" category or something similar to catch stragglers that don't fit elsewhere.
LinkTiger (
talk)
18:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support containerizing. It has been a longstanding consensus that these categories are only supposed to be used on people who are actually active in party politics in some way, i.e. officeholders and party operatives, but obviously it's hard to enforce that adequately given the sheer size of the job involved. So creating the relevant party-office intersection categories, and diffusing people into them instead of the parent, is the obvious way forward.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Regardless, there are countless ways that party membership can be defining that do not involve holding office. Rather than creating hundreds of new categories intersecting party affiliation and city council, mayor, county commissioner, school board, sheriff, national or state committee member, and any other way these intersect, I suggest we keep the current system and address whether the existing categories are clutter.--
User:Namiba20:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I was under the impression that Namiba was objecting to these intersections ("I would support deleting the above categories and keep the more generalized party categories").
Oculi (
talk)
03:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I see, that I misunderstood. It could be an alternative way to go forward but that would require a new (massive) nomination. Then I would still suggest first to purge the categories that are currently nominated before starting that discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep as
Category:Alabama Democrat politicians and
Category:Alabama Republican politicians(party is redundant) but purge of anyone who is (1) already in a subcat (ass governor, representative or senator (state or federal) (2) not a politician, by virtue of having run for an elected office at any level. Party affiliation is not a permanent characteristic and for those who merely endorse a candidate in one election, it is likely to be a NN characteristic.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
There are many ways by which partisan affiliation is distinctive outside of holding elected office. Some people are notable for their failed candidacies for office. Others as prominent donors or political activists. What this nomination does is eliminate a partisan category from hundreds of people whose notability is partially or mainly linked to their partisan activities. To continue with the Maine example,
Steve Abbott (politician),
Donald Sussman, and
Linda Bean are three such examples.--
User:Namiba18:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron's proposal does apply to candidates: "a politician, by virtue of having run for an elected office at any level". We could expand to donors/activists if it is a defining characteristic (
George Soros?
Peter Thiel?) - though those may rather go a different category taxonomy as these names tend to be national.
🌊PacificDepthstalk|
contrib05:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Realistically, which articles does this category change exclude? Donors, convention delegates, campaign managers, and more broadly party activists. I don't see why partisan affiliation is not defining to someone who makes their career working in politics, is an appointed partisan officer, or who is an elected convention delegate. If a source routinely describes someone as an active partisan, then they should be in a partisan category, regardless of the kind of partisan involvement.--
User:Namiba14:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Let me use another example: Author Stephen King is a staunch, partisan Democrat. Numerous sources describe him as such
[1][2][3]. He has never run for office and therefore would be excluded from having a partisan category if this proposal passes. How does this make sense? What problem is this proposal seeking to fix if people like King and other non-candidates would be excluded? Partisan activity is far deeper than political candidacy.--
User:Namiba14:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Leaning keep as to all. I just created
George H. Brown Jr. who was temporarily appointed to a Tennessee Supreme Court vacancy by a Republican, and ran unsuccessfully for election to the office he then held, as a Republican. How would he not be a Tennessee Republican, despite never being successfully elected to office as one?
BD2412T17:35, 3 December 2022 (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:Cities and towns under jurisdiction of Moscow
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.
On the contrary,
Moscow city is not part of
Moscow Oblast. The category contains former cities in Moscow Oblast, now having become part of Moscow city. The category may be deleted because the articles already are in a proper okrug tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I have to add this template so the discussion closes, but this is a bad merge, please vote against as Moscow City and Oblast are not the same.
BhamBoi (
talk)
00:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
They both have their own uses and non-overlapping articles. I say keep both, as when I made this, I didn't realize they were different federal subjects. They should both exist.
BhamBoi (
talk)
06:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
But I don't know anything about 'Okrug trees', I just tried to erroneously nom a cat for deletion because I thought they were duplicates when they were not. If one has another reason that I don't understand to be removed, I say go for it.
BhamBoi (
talk)
06:45, 7 December 2022 (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:Singers from Belleville, Ontario
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: Category of unclear necessity. With just five people here and only one other person filed in the target, it's not at all clear that Belleville needs two separate categories for singers and musicians at this time -- and with ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Canadian singers by city having just one sibling category for any other city, there isn't yet a comprehensive scheme of "Singers from Canadian city" to justify this. And for added bonus, Belleville is a small city (pop. 50K), so even if somebody wanted to start actually expanding the Canadian singers by city tree, Belleville still wouldn't be a high priority ahead of the likes of Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary or Winnipeg.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:16, 28 November 2022 (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:Basketball players by city or town in India
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:Ships built at Gosport
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.