Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 27 June 29 >

June 28

Category:Functionalism

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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 19#Category:Functionalism. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Of the 25 articles and 2 sub-category. 12 articles treat this category as if it means functionalism (social theory). (These fit the category description). 5 articles and 1 sub-category treat this category as if it refers to Functionalism (architecture). The remaining 8 articles and 1 sub-cat, are to do with Functionalism (international relations) (3 articles), Functionalism (philosophy of mind) (2 articles, 1 sub-cat) and the functionalist perspective in linguistics (3 articles). This split chooses the versions which would be most populated. 8/25 articles and 1 sub-category would not fit this split. But this split would group only relevant articles together and make things a bit clearer. imo it would be worth the split into 5 categories. Brad7777 ( talk) 22:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have removed 2 articles and 1 sub-cat which I added before reading the category definition. Brad7777 ( talk) 22:25, 28 June 2012 (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.

Years in Botswana

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename per decision at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 29#Category:1965 in Botswana to use Bechuanaland Protectorate for before 1966. Tim! ( talk) 20:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
While I don't prefer such one-sided historical perspective (both the historical reality, and the current situation, should be reflected in categories, since both are valid and informative groupings for our readers), it doesn't do much harm in such one-on-one situations (it gets a lot more complicated when the historical country doesn't match the current one). I would prefer the current categories to remain, but as long as they are easily navigable (so that readers get the older cats and the newer cats together, not as two separate groups) I don't have strong objections to the proposed renames either. Fram ( talk) 07:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename -- The polity should ave its contemporary name. However the change of name ought not to require the creation of a new parent. They can satisfactorily remain sub-cats of a Botswana parent, possibly with the addition of a head note there to explain this, since the colonial protectorate and the independent nation are coterminous. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • oppose; what about this Category:43 BC establishments in Italy and many other anachronisms in that by country and year tree. While I appreciate the effort for historical accuracy, either we do this right (meaning do it everywhere), or we accept anachronism for simplicity. I vote for keeping it simple.-- KarlB ( talk) 21:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom and Peterkingiron. I think this is a more straightforward case than Category:43 BC in Italy, largely for the reason noted by Fram: Botswana is the direct and immediate historical and territorial successor of Bechuanaland Protectore, but the same cannot be said of Italy and the Roman Republic. Even in that case, I support a change; however, that's a more complicated case that should be considered in another discussion. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. The fact that Category:43 BC establishments in Italy exists is not an issue here since other stuff existing is not an accepted argument here. If that category is a problem, it can be nominated and discussed on its merits. For me historical accuracy is more important then getting it wrong in order to keep it simple which in the end ends up being the most confusing option. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:56, 5 July 2012 (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:Kemetic Orthodox Wikipedians

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Kemetic Orthodoxy is a branch of Kemetism. This category was created in 2007 but remains empty of users; the parent, Category:Kemetic Wikipedians, contains only six users. It is safe to say, I think, that this split is not needed at this time. To upmerge, remove the relevant category code from {{ User:Esimal/Orthodox Kemetism}}. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 06:02, 28 June 2012 (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:Caucasian Wikipedians

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category appears under Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality but is actually a racial category. Grouping users by race does not facilitate encyclopedic coordination and collaboration but it does have the potential to be divisive or otherwise disruptive. We eschew categorization by race, except in a few circumstances where the intersection of race and nationality produces an 'ethnic' identity (e.g. African Americans), and I see no reason to reverse our long-standing position on this matter. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - forced to say "per nom" - well-written. - jc37 05:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Limits on usercategories are generally too restrictive, but I have to agree on this one. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we do not categorize by race. On the other hand this might be refering to people from Armenia and neighboring countries, but I doubt it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    That occurred to me, too, but the initial edit contained a link to Caucasian race. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete vague. Many people in the world at large would object to having the full spectrum of caucasian be classified as caucasian (ie. people from the Caucuses, Indian subcontinent, of semetic/arabic origins are frequently not called caucasian by more restrictive definitions, that also sometimes reject Slavic peoples) -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if we keep this we should also have Category:Negroid wikipedians and Category:Mongoloid wikipedians. If we are going to have part of the discredited racial scheme, we should have all of it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:38, 3 July 2012 (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:English independent ministers of the Rebellion period

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:English independent ministers of the Interregnum and Category:English presbyterian ministers of the Interregnum.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 11:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Copy of discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy
Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing from WP:CFD/S, since neither one is a topic category eligible for renaming under criterion C2.D. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Not too sure about "Independent" vs "Presbyterian"; these are not the same people. Johnbod ( talk) 22:49, 2 July 2012 (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:1960s Radical Activists

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Hopelessly vague. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 03:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Too broad. Appears redundant to better categories. No parent article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The point of creating this category is that there was none for the radical element of activism. There were plenty of "negative" activist categories -- American anti–Vietnam War activists, American anti-war activists, Anti-poverty advocates, Anti-racism activists, etc. But nothing which properly captured the radical element within activism. Alternately, this category could also be a sub-category under Category: American activists, i.e. American Radical Activists, if the objection is not having a link to a Parent category (article). -- 10stone5 ( talk) 22:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Subjective and POV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- The problems with this are multiple: did they only become radicals after 1959 and cease to be radicals in 1970? We have deleted "conservative" and "liberal" categories (save for membership of parties using the word), becaue they are too vague and a person may be liberal in one area and conservative in another. WE maight possibly have "Radical Activists" as a parent-only container category for more specific forms of activism, but this is at present far too woolly. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am not sure we can come up with a NPOV definition of "radical" in this context. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:39, 3 July 2012 (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:Trinity College, Hartford

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 (C2D). The Bushranger One ping only 17:56, 2 July 2012 (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:Armoured fighting vehicles of Australia in active service

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: "In active service"/"Current"/"Modern" categories are not something that is encouraged, and consensus at CfD has been that they should be eliminated. Here's more of them, with the same reasons as always for their removal: that 'in active service' is something subject to change, and, in some cases, the removal from active status is something difficult to verify (and also hard to define - is the reserves 'active service' when they can be called up in short order?). The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 28 June 2012 (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.

Modern military vehicles

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: More nebulously-defined "modern" category, of the sort that is frowned upon greatly. How, exactly, is 'modern' defined? It's a subjective and non-defining definition that changes over time; therefore these categories should be deleted or upmerged. need to be renamed to clearly define their scope and avoid the "modern" trap. The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia rollbackers open to recall

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: It has only had one person in it since it was created in December 2011, and doesn't seem to serve any purpose...I could not find any explanation of the category's purpose. — JmaJeremy TALK CONTRIBS 01:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
How do you know the history of the membership? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the rollbacker user group is not adminship, and is gained through a different process. This category serves little use. - jc37 01:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and jc37. The recall process does not apply to rollbackers, in part because the rollback user access level can both be given and removed relatively easily. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Absolutely no harm, and of symbolic purpose to the member. If you want to persuade him otherwise, do so with reasoning, not by deletion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    Even if your assumption is correct, the user is in no way discouraged or prevented from reaching this "symbolic purpose" by declaring (via text or a userbox) on his or her user page that he or she is open to recall. Such a declaration does not require the use of category code or the creation of a separate page—a category. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    That's a discussion to have with the member, not with me. My position is that if one user has a valid use for a category, then don't delete it without at least talking to him. User categories do not need the same restrictive use rules as do mainspace visible categories. That said, if deleted, it should be upmerged. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    Ay, there's the rub. :) My contention, and I suspect the others' as well, is that this case does not constitute a "valid use [of] a [user] category". Indeed, the purpose of a CFD is to determine whether a certain category is valid or not; we should not simply presuppose validity.
    Nonetheless, I agree wholeheartedly that one should talk to a categorized user when it is practical to do so. A case such as this one, in particular, is suited to such an approach since the category contains only one member. That being said, I must stress again that this approach is not always practical – for example, the user in this case is semi-retired and last edited on 3 June. Still, I commend the nom for notifying the user of this nomination so that he or she might be able to join the discussion. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    User:Thebirdlover is already in Category:Wikipedia rollbackers, so the redundant Category:Wikipedia rollbackers open to recall can be simply deleted. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I don't think I've ever seen a rollbacker "recalled" before. I would guess that it is pretty clear when a rollbacker is abusing the tool, and it is easy for an admin to remove the right if that is the case, without some weird recall process. Besides, I see no reason to treat the rollbacking right as if it were something important. It's not. Twinkle gives you nearly the same thing, plus a bunch of extra tools, and I'll laugh when I see the category Twinkle users open to recall :-) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 22:05, 28 June 2012 (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/2012_June_28&oldid=1074809291"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 27 June 29 >

June 28

Category:Functionalism

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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 19#Category:Functionalism. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Of the 25 articles and 2 sub-category. 12 articles treat this category as if it means functionalism (social theory). (These fit the category description). 5 articles and 1 sub-category treat this category as if it refers to Functionalism (architecture). The remaining 8 articles and 1 sub-cat, are to do with Functionalism (international relations) (3 articles), Functionalism (philosophy of mind) (2 articles, 1 sub-cat) and the functionalist perspective in linguistics (3 articles). This split chooses the versions which would be most populated. 8/25 articles and 1 sub-category would not fit this split. But this split would group only relevant articles together and make things a bit clearer. imo it would be worth the split into 5 categories. Brad7777 ( talk) 22:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have removed 2 articles and 1 sub-cat which I added before reading the category definition. Brad7777 ( talk) 22:25, 28 June 2012 (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.

Years in Botswana

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename per decision at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 29#Category:1965 in Botswana to use Bechuanaland Protectorate for before 1966. Tim! ( talk) 20:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
While I don't prefer such one-sided historical perspective (both the historical reality, and the current situation, should be reflected in categories, since both are valid and informative groupings for our readers), it doesn't do much harm in such one-on-one situations (it gets a lot more complicated when the historical country doesn't match the current one). I would prefer the current categories to remain, but as long as they are easily navigable (so that readers get the older cats and the newer cats together, not as two separate groups) I don't have strong objections to the proposed renames either. Fram ( talk) 07:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename -- The polity should ave its contemporary name. However the change of name ought not to require the creation of a new parent. They can satisfactorily remain sub-cats of a Botswana parent, possibly with the addition of a head note there to explain this, since the colonial protectorate and the independent nation are coterminous. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • oppose; what about this Category:43 BC establishments in Italy and many other anachronisms in that by country and year tree. While I appreciate the effort for historical accuracy, either we do this right (meaning do it everywhere), or we accept anachronism for simplicity. I vote for keeping it simple.-- KarlB ( talk) 21:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom and Peterkingiron. I think this is a more straightforward case than Category:43 BC in Italy, largely for the reason noted by Fram: Botswana is the direct and immediate historical and territorial successor of Bechuanaland Protectore, but the same cannot be said of Italy and the Roman Republic. Even in that case, I support a change; however, that's a more complicated case that should be considered in another discussion. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. The fact that Category:43 BC establishments in Italy exists is not an issue here since other stuff existing is not an accepted argument here. If that category is a problem, it can be nominated and discussed on its merits. For me historical accuracy is more important then getting it wrong in order to keep it simple which in the end ends up being the most confusing option. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:56, 5 July 2012 (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:Kemetic Orthodox Wikipedians

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Kemetic Orthodoxy is a branch of Kemetism. This category was created in 2007 but remains empty of users; the parent, Category:Kemetic Wikipedians, contains only six users. It is safe to say, I think, that this split is not needed at this time. To upmerge, remove the relevant category code from {{ User:Esimal/Orthodox Kemetism}}. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 06:02, 28 June 2012 (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:Caucasian Wikipedians

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category appears under Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality but is actually a racial category. Grouping users by race does not facilitate encyclopedic coordination and collaboration but it does have the potential to be divisive or otherwise disruptive. We eschew categorization by race, except in a few circumstances where the intersection of race and nationality produces an 'ethnic' identity (e.g. African Americans), and I see no reason to reverse our long-standing position on this matter. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - forced to say "per nom" - well-written. - jc37 05:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Limits on usercategories are generally too restrictive, but I have to agree on this one. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we do not categorize by race. On the other hand this might be refering to people from Armenia and neighboring countries, but I doubt it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    That occurred to me, too, but the initial edit contained a link to Caucasian race. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete vague. Many people in the world at large would object to having the full spectrum of caucasian be classified as caucasian (ie. people from the Caucuses, Indian subcontinent, of semetic/arabic origins are frequently not called caucasian by more restrictive definitions, that also sometimes reject Slavic peoples) -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if we keep this we should also have Category:Negroid wikipedians and Category:Mongoloid wikipedians. If we are going to have part of the discredited racial scheme, we should have all of it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:38, 3 July 2012 (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:English independent ministers of the Rebellion period

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:English independent ministers of the Interregnum and Category:English presbyterian ministers of the Interregnum.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 11:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Copy of discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy
Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing from WP:CFD/S, since neither one is a topic category eligible for renaming under criterion C2.D. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Not too sure about "Independent" vs "Presbyterian"; these are not the same people. Johnbod ( talk) 22:49, 2 July 2012 (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:1960s Radical Activists

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Hopelessly vague. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 03:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Too broad. Appears redundant to better categories. No parent article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The point of creating this category is that there was none for the radical element of activism. There were plenty of "negative" activist categories -- American anti–Vietnam War activists, American anti-war activists, Anti-poverty advocates, Anti-racism activists, etc. But nothing which properly captured the radical element within activism. Alternately, this category could also be a sub-category under Category: American activists, i.e. American Radical Activists, if the objection is not having a link to a Parent category (article). -- 10stone5 ( talk) 22:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Subjective and POV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- The problems with this are multiple: did they only become radicals after 1959 and cease to be radicals in 1970? We have deleted "conservative" and "liberal" categories (save for membership of parties using the word), becaue they are too vague and a person may be liberal in one area and conservative in another. WE maight possibly have "Radical Activists" as a parent-only container category for more specific forms of activism, but this is at present far too woolly. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am not sure we can come up with a NPOV definition of "radical" in this context. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:39, 3 July 2012 (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:Trinity College, Hartford

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 (C2D). The Bushranger One ping only 17:56, 2 July 2012 (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:Armoured fighting vehicles of Australia in active service

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: "In active service"/"Current"/"Modern" categories are not something that is encouraged, and consensus at CfD has been that they should be eliminated. Here's more of them, with the same reasons as always for their removal: that 'in active service' is something subject to change, and, in some cases, the removal from active status is something difficult to verify (and also hard to define - is the reserves 'active service' when they can be called up in short order?). The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 28 June 2012 (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.

Modern military vehicles

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: More nebulously-defined "modern" category, of the sort that is frowned upon greatly. How, exactly, is 'modern' defined? It's a subjective and non-defining definition that changes over time; therefore these categories should be deleted or upmerged. need to be renamed to clearly define their scope and avoid the "modern" trap. The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia rollbackers open to recall

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: It has only had one person in it since it was created in December 2011, and doesn't seem to serve any purpose...I could not find any explanation of the category's purpose. — JmaJeremy TALK CONTRIBS 01:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
How do you know the history of the membership? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the rollbacker user group is not adminship, and is gained through a different process. This category serves little use. - jc37 01:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and jc37. The recall process does not apply to rollbackers, in part because the rollback user access level can both be given and removed relatively easily. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Absolutely no harm, and of symbolic purpose to the member. If you want to persuade him otherwise, do so with reasoning, not by deletion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    Even if your assumption is correct, the user is in no way discouraged or prevented from reaching this "symbolic purpose" by declaring (via text or a userbox) on his or her user page that he or she is open to recall. Such a declaration does not require the use of category code or the creation of a separate page—a category. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    That's a discussion to have with the member, not with me. My position is that if one user has a valid use for a category, then don't delete it without at least talking to him. User categories do not need the same restrictive use rules as do mainspace visible categories. That said, if deleted, it should be upmerged. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    Ay, there's the rub. :) My contention, and I suspect the others' as well, is that this case does not constitute a "valid use [of] a [user] category". Indeed, the purpose of a CFD is to determine whether a certain category is valid or not; we should not simply presuppose validity.
    Nonetheless, I agree wholeheartedly that one should talk to a categorized user when it is practical to do so. A case such as this one, in particular, is suited to such an approach since the category contains only one member. That being said, I must stress again that this approach is not always practical – for example, the user in this case is semi-retired and last edited on 3 June. Still, I commend the nom for notifying the user of this nomination so that he or she might be able to join the discussion. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    User:Thebirdlover is already in Category:Wikipedia rollbackers, so the redundant Category:Wikipedia rollbackers open to recall can be simply deleted. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I don't think I've ever seen a rollbacker "recalled" before. I would guess that it is pretty clear when a rollbacker is abusing the tool, and it is easy for an admin to remove the right if that is the case, without some weird recall process. Besides, I see no reason to treat the rollbacking right as if it were something important. It's not. Twinkle gives you nearly the same thing, plus a bunch of extra tools, and I'll laugh when I see the category Twinkle users open to recall :-) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 22:05, 28 June 2012 (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/2012_June_28&oldid=1074809291"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE