Category:Former members of the United States Republican Party[edit]
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: By convention, we don't categorize people by "former" or "current" political party membership. In so doing, we attempt to make categories like this "timeless". But no need to merge anywhere, as far as I can see—two of those in the category are non-politicians and therefore probably don't need to be in any Republican Party category. The politician in the category is already appropriately categorized in Category:Iowa Republicans. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. We should only really categorizing political people by party and, if they were elected or prominent as a Republican, that category should remain even if their affiliation changed. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I came across this rather empty category because I'm watching George Will. He may have de-registered as a voter aligned with the Republican Party, but was he ever an active dues-paying, card-holding member? Who knows. Given that "membership" in any party is nebulous, I support deleting this even more nebulous category. – S. Rich (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a place in Wikipedia for listing former members of a particular political party. There are not any "conventional methods" used when it comes to listing one's former vs. present political affiliations.Davidbena (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). I forgot to mention that a category for former members of the U.S. Democratic Party was deleted in 2011: see the discussion here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created today. Unclear what a revisionist is, and what the inclusion criteria are. Whatever a revisionist is, it is likely not a distinguishing feature. I searched the 4 articles the creator of this category added to it so far, all Jewish sages, and only in one of them I found something to the effect that the person revised some text. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A "Revisionist" is defined as: "an advocate of revision, especially of some political or religious doctrine. 2. a reviser. 3. any advocate of doctrines, theories, or practices that depart from established authority or doctrine." "Revisionism" has been defined as: “A fundamental alteration of a theory, essentially usurping (though taking elements of) the former theory and replacing it with a new one. While the attributes of a theory are subject to change in accordance to changing historic circumstances, changing the fundamental basis of that theory is to nullify it in place of a new one.” In the articles posted under this category, they represent classic examples of people who were "revisionists," insofar that they changed common Jewish practices that had heretofore been practiced in Israel, or else advocated change (though, in some cases, not accepted by all Jewish communities). For example, in the case of Rabbeinu Gershom, he made an edict in Europe which restricted Jews from practicing polygamy for one-thousand years (a thing formerly permitted by them), and which edict among most Jews of Western countries is still enforced today; as for Yohanan ben Zakkai, most of his religious life was spent revising Jewish practices after the destruction of the Temple in 68 CE, a classic "revisionist" in order to accommodate the lack of a Temple and practices related thereto. For example, he made it compulsory for all Jews to carry the lulav (palm-frond) for the entire seven days of Sukkot which had formerly been done only in the Temple precincts, in memory of that practice in the Temple. And there are many, many more enactments (revisions) that he made subsequent to the Temple's destruction; as for Hillel II, he is generally regarded as being the creator of the modern fixed Hebrew calendar system, a major revision in Jewish practices, since formerly the sanctification of the new Hebrew lunar month was purely based upon eye-witness accounts of people who had seen the New Moon and who gave testimony in a court of Jewish law in Jerusalem; as for Judah ben Samuel of Regensburg, author of "Sefer Hasidim," he enacted amongst his protégées several new practices (in a revisionist spirit), where, for example, he prohibited a Jewish man from marrying his niece (either his brother's daughter or sister's daughter) which had formerly been acceptable practice amongst Jews, in accordance with teachings found in Jewish legal codes of law (Maimonides, Hil. Isurei Bi'ah 2:14; Rabbi Moshe Isserles, Shulhan Arukh Even ha'ezer 2:6). Wherefore, it is most right and fitting that this category be kept and expanded with more related articles. Not all articles, of course, will entail Jewish revisionists. There were also Christian and Islamic revisionists.Davidbena (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for the article Zeev Jabotinsky which is under this category, this requires an explanation. Although the main Zionist agenda is the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the land of Israel, there were, however, two factions of Zionists: First, conventional Zionists who are known as the Zionist Left (the secular Zionism inspired by Theodore Herzl), and whose only ambition was to work the land in Palestine; second, there are the Revisionists (started in 1925 by Zeev Jabotinsky). This group later embraced a more radical ideology in 1938 under Menahem Begin (who was still in Poland) and which included fighting for Israel's right to settle in Palestine, and defending itself against Arab aggression. Both, the Zionist Left and the Revisionists, as also the Irgun Tzevzai Leumi which became the heir of the Zionist Revisionists, have their rightful place in history, insofar that the British government in Palestine tried, at one point, to hinder Jewish immigration to Palestine, and had later prohibited Arabs from selling land unto Jews. It is, therefore, without question, that there is a rightful place for this new and aspiring category for helping Wikipedians search for related topics.Davidbena (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the title is far too vague. Revisionist is a redirect to a dab page with a variety of meanings for the term. Oculi (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but are you suggesting that there be more specific categories, such as "Jewish revisionists," and "Christian revisionists," and the like, or perhaps even more specific, such as "Jewish-religious revisionists"? By the way, people who are "revisionists" all have one thing in common.Davidbena (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is all too often a pejorative label given by opponents, and the current membership isn't consonant with the usual usage of the word. I could perhaps accept a category of "revisionist Zionists" assuming that its membership had been accepting of the term, but not an umbrella category. Seyasirt (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Rabbinic revisionists" or "Church revisionists", therefore, satisfy you, by removing it from the so-called "umbrella category"? I would agree to that assessment on the condition that we narrow the scope down to specific types of revisionists. As for your view that it is a "pejorative label," that is NOT necessarily the case, but would indeed apply to the term "Marxist revisionism."Davidbena (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Revisionist of what? I could maybe see this as a container parent category but, for loose biography articles, this is way too vague. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A container parent category is also very good to have, with several sub-categories related to the parent, as I have suggested above. Perhaps we can identify revisionists by countries, such as "Israeli revisionists," "Chinese revisionists," "German revisionists," and so forth. Again, it is only fair to point out that all revisionists have one thing in common, namely: that he/she advocates a fundamental alteration of a theory, practice or doctrine that essentially usurps (though taking elements of) the former theory, practice or doctrine and replacing it with a new one. Mao Zedong and Martin Luther are both, well-known revisionists, although their specific interests differed.Davidbena (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike some other editors, I don't see "revisionist" is derogatory so I'm open to the idea. But the category I'm looking at now has no subcategories so purging it of loose articles would empty it. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current article is way too vague as it could apply to practitioners of historical revisionism (the re-interpretation of the historical record), practitioners of historical revisionism/negationism (the illegitimate distortion of the historical record), supporters of Revisionist Zionism (a Zionist faction with expansionist views, which wanted Jewish sovereignty over the whole Land of Israel), supposed adherents of Revisionism (a Marxist pejorative term for Marxist factions which have supposedly abandoned or revised fundamental elements of Marxism), and practitioners of Revisionism (a literary and fiction-writing technique where you "retell" or reuse a familiar story while changing the perspectives, themes, or characterizations of the earlier versions). Based on the current name this category could include anyone from professional historians such as Allan Nevins and Alfred D. Chandler Jr. (whose works challenged and revised previously established historical narratives), non-fiction authors such as Mildred Lewis Rutherford and Diana Johnstone (who have been accused of rewriting history to match their ideological biases), political leaders such as Ze'ev Jabotinsky and Menachem Begin (who were prominent leaders of Revisionist Zionism), Marxist leaders such as Joseph Stalin and Josip Broz Tito (who have been accused of straying far from the Marxist orthodoxy), and fiction writers such as Marion Zimmer Bradley and Philip José Farmer (who both gained fame by revising familiar tales and characters into new, distinct, and often innovative versions).Dimadick (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Existing pages, like those listed at Revisionism (disambiguation), and categories like Category:Revisionist Zionism, are already sufficient for grouping people associated with these various topics, and in much more meaningful ways than this vaguely defined category. The criteria for category membership are not clear: any person who has generated an original critical thought could be described as a revisionist, so what's the cutoff? Ibadibam (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, any person who has initiated a new "idea" can be dubbed a "theorist," yet we have a category for theorists by country. Here, the the criterion is having actually made a drastic change in conventional theory, doctrine or practice - such as Mao Zedong and Martin Luther, and the others listed in this category. Still, since we are an encyclopedia that works on the basis of cordial collaborative editing, and since there is a growing consensus to narrow the scope of this category, I submit that the category be narrowed down to country, such as "American revisionists," German revisionists," "Chinese revisionists," etc.Davidbena (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no clear inclusion criteria, and a look at the entries now in the category -- such as the bizarrely odd couple of Hillel II and Mao Zedong -- shows a clear lack of coherence. Alansohn (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2016 (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:Clothing industry and Category:Garment industry[edit]
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:relistedhere. ~ Rob13Talk 19:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Initializing thoughts and rationale (discussion) can be found here [Link]. CN1 (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed Response:I agree that a merger of the two categories makes sense. However, I disagree with the idea of renaming it 'Clothing industry' or the underlying reasoning that the term is "used more often", because I believe that to be incorrect. People in the garment industry call it the garment industry. It may be an antiquated or less used term by the general public, but that is not the point. People in the industry also use the term haberdasher, milliner, etc. I also think the categories themselves support this. As is stated, the category clothing industry was only started some months ago, and garment industry category is 10 years old. The clothing industry category only has 3 subcategories and 7 pages, whereas garment industry has 8 subcategories and 41 pages. Centerone (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CN1, could you please tag the two categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2016 (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:Parks of the West Coast of the United States[edit]
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: In line with other categories Rathfelder (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose: if anything it should be "on the West Coast", and some of the other "West Coast" categories, almost all of which use "of", should be changed to "on" as well. "In the West Coast" is just bad usage. Seyasirt (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How does grouping 3 of the 50 state level park categories aid navigation? I want to go from California to Oregon but I only want 3 choices, not 50? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current category should be left just as it is, without changing. It speaks for itself, and will definitely aid in navigation to articles on this subject.Davidbena (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Answer:@RevelationDirect:, if the category is simply "Parks of the West Coast of the United States," it not only includes parks on the ocean-front itself, but also parks a little ways inland of the ocean, since the word "West Coast" is used in American jargon (parlance) for ALL of California, Oregon and Washington State; meaning, as States go, since they border along the Pacific Ocean they are States that are generally acknowledged as being along the West Coast. When we think of the West Coast, we think of States in general in that hemisphere. The category, therefore, is appropriate for the articles contained under its name.Davidbena (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without moving – As our own West Coast of the United States article explains, "West Coast" can the entire region comprising Washington, Oregon and California. The child categories of Category:West Coast of the United States (which all use of, not in) use this broad definition. If there is a desire to change this, then consensus should be sought for that entire subcategory tree. Ibadibam (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since "West Coast" is merely used here as the sum of the three states it doesn't add any value to categorize it separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there does exist Category:West Coast of the United States, that doesn't mean everything related to the West Coast belongs there. For instance, should we create Category:People from the West Coast of the United States and populate it with a large series of sub-categories just to lead to the three state categories for this region? Obviously, no. The same applies here. The marginal benefit of this category tree is grouping articles that relate to the whole region, not grouping articles merely because the subjects relate to a part of the region. ~ Rob13Talk 19:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a three-state region, and I'm not quarreling with that. I'm saying we don't need to categorize everything by a three-state region. We only need to categorize those things which are characteristic of the region as a whole. There is a distinct culture shared by the West Coast, which is why we have Category:Culture of the West Coast of the United States. There's also a shared history, so we have Category:History of the West Coast of the United States. These parks aren't shared by the West Coast. In other words, they aren't defined by being on the West Coast as a region rather than just being in a state that happens to be part of the West Coast. It's the same reason why we wouldn't set up a category called Category:Politicians from the West Coast of the United States; none of the politicians are defined by being in the West Coast. They just happen to be politicians from a state on the West Coast. ~ Rob13Talk 23:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. ~ Rob13Talk 18:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with most Park categories Rathfelder (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. ~ Rob13Talk 18:39, 15 July 2016 (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:Parks and open spaces in Albertslund Municipality[edit]
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. There were strong arguments for renaming as per SUBJECTIVECAT and the existing category tree, and they went unrefuted. Follow-up nominations for other categories in the tree will likely be helpful. ~ Rob13Talk 19:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most Park categories take the form "Parks in Foo". other similar categories to be brought into line. Rathfelder (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Municipalities being the geographically most specific class of categories in Denmark, I think it should not only comprise parks proper but also cemeteries, public gardens, semi-natural areas (that often serve as parks, especially in suburban areas) etc. The current naming practive will also prevent pointless discussions about terminology (is something a park or something else and do it thus belong in the category?). My intention with the categories is to provide an overview of all covered greenspaces by municipality, you won't get that anywhere by limiting it to parks. More specific categories ("Parks in...", "Cemeteries in...") are of course welcome for municipalities where the number makes it relevant. Compare also Category:Parks and open spaces in England by county.Ramblersen (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT> Understand Ramblersen intends this to mean "park-like" spaces but this phrase could mean parking lots, vacant lots, farms and is too subjective. (I would also favor renaming the English county categories.) RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: Could we then also include the English categories in the discussion to make it more general? I think it is very usefull with a category that includes all "open spaces" like the ones I mentioned above. It is true that it could also cover parking lots and empty lots but I doubt that any of them will need coverage on wikiepdia and if they do, I think it will most often be because they serve as temporary parkland (empty lots) or other functions as well (parking lots). Tehn I see no problem that they feature in the category.Ramblersen (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to to @Rathfelder: on whether to expand their nomination. I have no specific concern with this location vs. England vs. anywhere else. Thank you for elaborating on your perspective! RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see consistency across all the geographical categories. I'm afraid I don't know how to add them all (and there are a lot) into this discussion. Maybe "parks and open spaces" are the best words. Some categories mention woodlands and the like. I don't regard cemeteries as the same sort of place, but I would want to include public playgrounds and recreation areas.Rathfelder (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that consistency in naming of categories should be a priority and that is why I copied the English naming practice. Category:Parks and open spaces in London have the subcategories "Cemeteries...", "Common land...", "Country parks...""Forests and woodlands...", "Gardens...", "Marshland...", "Royal parks..." and "Squares...". When it comes to Copenhagen (Albertslund which you have tagged is a suburb of Copenhagen), it will very much make sense to have a category that comprises all these typologies/"habitats". Many woodlands in suburban Copenhagen are technically "state forrests" but are used as parks. Many squares (increasingly) include "park elements" in their desgins but to list them in a narrow "parks in..."-category would not make sense. It may depend on the country/tradition wheather cemeteries are or are not "the same sort of place" as you write but in Denmark's case they quite obviously are (cf. the articles on Vestre Cemetery or Assistens Cemetery (Copenahgen)]]). My best alternative name for the category would be "Puvlic spaces in..." or "Public realm..." but I went with "Parks and open spaces..." to ensure consistency. And some gardens that are open to the public and serve as parks are not really "public" but private. Wouldn't it be possible to place the same template as is now seen on the Category: Parks and open spaces in Albertslund Municipality page on Category:Parks and open spaces in England by county to ensure that more people will take part in the discussion? Afterall those categories have been around for much longer and far more people are active there. If we agree that consistency is important, it just doesn't make sense to take this discussion specifically for a small and anonymous suburban municipality in a country with few active Wikipedia contributers.Ramblersen (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2016 (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.
Can someone more technically capable than me bring all the categories of the form "Parks and gardens in Foo" and "Parks and open spaces in Foo" into the discussion please?Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: A follow-up nomination would be better than repeating this. There's no "simple" way to do a multi-category nomination. Just create a nomination for one category, copy-paste the CfD notice from the first category onto all others, and then copy-paste the line in the nomination that says "Propose renaming" and manually change all of the category names to match what you want to nominate. Nothing fancy; just brute force. Does that make sense? ~ Rob13Talk 19:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Photos uploaded by Nepali keto62 in Commons[edit]
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 had been emptied already). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorisation by actions of a specific user is not useful to the project,. Furthermore, uploads to commons don't exist on the English Wikipedia unless duplicated here so this category would remain unpopulated. Whpq (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't of use to the project. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis isn't of use to the project.--Varun☎ 11:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. No use here. Ayub407talk 17:45, 14 July 2016 (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:Parks and gardens in Aichi Prefecture[edit]
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. ~ Rob13Talk 19:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the categories take the form "Parks in Foo". Large number of similar categories to be treated similarly. Rathfelder (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Note: This category is already in a Parks parent category so (if articles are already correctly categorised) this shouldn't cause any incorrect categorization, however a check of the contents is advisable. DexDor(talk) 07:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. ~ Rob13Talk 18:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the categories take the form "Parks in Foo" Rathfelder (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Note: This category is already in Parks parent categories so (if articles are already correctly categorised) this shouldn't cause any incorrect categorization, however a check of the contents is advisable. DexDor(talk) 07:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. A follow-up nomination of all "Parishes of X" to "Parishes in X" is likely a good idea. ~ Rob13Talk 18:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Majority of parish categories take that form. If agreed we should rename all of them in line, but I'm afraid I don't know how to list them here. There is no superior category. Rathfelder (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – where is the evidence that 'of' is preferable to 'in'? Category:Civil parishes in England uses 'in'. 'XXX is a parish in England' sounds to me more usual than 'XXX is a parish of England'. Oculi (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here, in this case, the current wording is preferable over the suggested change.Davidbena (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't superior. I'd be quite happy to call them all "Parishes of Foo". But consistency is helpful. Rathfelder (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Note also that Category:Architects is a subcategory of Category:Designers and the entire category tree is built around this. If you disagree with that categorization scheme, a much broader nomination would be needed. ~ Rob13Talk 18:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty apart from a subcategory which doesn't belong Rathfelder (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sigh. It contains Category:Paraguayan architects. Architect: "An architect is a person who plans, designs, and oversees the construction of buildings" (emphasis added by me). So the architects do belong, as a v simple check would have shown. Secondly, per WP:SMALLCAT, this is part of an established series Category:Designers by nationality. There will be other entries in the category as coverage expands. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – of course an architect is a designer. Oculi (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2016 (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:Rivers and streams of Teton County, Wyoming[edit]
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:no consensus. On the numbers, this discussion was fairly-evenly balanced. But, BIG BUT ... Note that one effect of this merger would be to remove all 13 articles from Category:Landforms of Teton County, Wyoming, because this category is an intersection of Category:Landforms of Teton County, Wyoming and Category:Rivers and streams of Wyoming, and the proposal is for deletion rather than merger to both parents. This removal of all the articles from any category relating to this county was not notified or explained by the nominator (although BU Rob13 did note in a comment that it is an intersection category), and nor was it spotted by any of the participants in the discussion. Since the discussion did not even consider any arguments in support of the biggest effect of the proposal, the discussion would have been closed as "no consensus" even if everyone had supported deletion. I hope that future nominations will avoid these un-notfied effects. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These precednets, I believe, are based on the assum,ption that the parent category needs splitting - which isn't the case with Wyoming. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 20:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Along with Parent CategoryWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not sufficient grounds to keep a category. Wyoming has a limited number of river and stream articles that don't need diffusion and grouping them by multiple county subcategories wouldn't aid navigation in this particular case. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 13 pages content is more than enough justification for the category. Gjs238 (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This category's existance mustt be justified not only by having population, but also by its parent needing to be split. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 20:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, the parent contains the "all included" template, so in a sense it would never be split. For convenience, all rivers and streams in Wyoming should be included in this category. This includes all the rivers and streams that can also be found in the subcategories.Gjs238 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep The minimum number of articles to justify a category is usually 5 to 7, but there is no fixed rule. And WP:DIFFUSE on the diffusion of categories simply states "It is possible for a category to be only partially diffused—some members are placed in subcategories, while others remain in the main category." The deletion argument is not following MOS where nothing is said 'need to split' criteria. Hmains (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hmains argument...Jokulhlaup (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All arguments for this category are focusing on SMALLCAT, which is usually interpreted to mean at least 5 articles (or thereabouts). That's looking at this the wrong way. SMALLCAT isn't the rationale for deleting here; WP:NARROWCAT is. This category is an intersection of Category:Landforms of Teton County, Wyoming and Category:Rivers and streams of Wyoming. NARROWCAT states "In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories." We all agree similar intersections can not be made, so that already fails, but also the categories being intersected are clearly not "very large". This is a common mistake at CfD; SMALLCAT is not the only guideline to when we should create categories. ~ Rob13Talk 20:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wyoming does not have enough rivers to justify splitting to the county level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2016 (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:Military Units that fought in the Peninsular War[edit]
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. ~ Rob13Talk 16:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty clearly redundant, unless the creator's intention was to distinguish between units that participated in combat and those that served in support roles. Ibadibam (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2016 (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:Senators of Legislature VII of the Kingdom of Sardinia[edit]
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:relistedhere. ~ Rob13Talk 16:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listify - Given that there's no article on the government of the Kingdom of Sardinia or its various branches, a list of members by sitting might be a good first step toward an eventual article. Ibadibam (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibadibam: Just make a list of four names? Or do we you know of a source that could be used to make a better list? Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read up on this at Statuto Albertino (which incidentally is the article on the government of Sardinia), and apparently Sardinian senators were appointed for life, so it doesn't really make sense to divide them by term. I also find it strange that this category is for the seventh legislature, and the categories for the Italian legislature start at the eighth. I would love to hear from Zee money, who created all those categories, to understand what's going on here. Ibadibam (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Kingdom of Italy was the legal successor state to the Kingdom of Sardinia, so the 7th legislature of Sardinia was succeeded by the 8th legislature in the Kingdom of Italy. But yes, if they were lifetime positions in Sardinia, we really don't need to divide it by legislature. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ibadibam and Good Olfactory, this is Zee money. I am right now translating articles from the Italian wikipedia, and I have noticed large numbers of Italian-language articles without any English-language materials. The Italian wiki divides the Senate and Chamber of Deputies by term, for the Kingdom of Sardinia, Kingdom of Italy and republican eras, thus I will organize according to how it is done on the Italian wiki. I will be creating a number of articles from the Italian (and other European nations) wikis in the next few weeks. Please leave it for now so it will not disrupt my organizing. The categories will expand as things develop. Thank you. Zee money (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category has been checked with its Italian-language equivalent, it is up to 14 articles. Zee money (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zee money, thanks for your explanation, and for the work you're doing to bring new content from our sister project! Two questions:
Why should the senators be divided by legislative session? As I understand it, they were appointed for life, not for individual sessions.
Whoops! Sorry for missing that. Ibadibam (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2016 (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.
