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.
Nominator's rationale In wikipedia we categorize things by what they are, not what they are named. In general these are articles on things that happen to have names with the given origin. To make things worse if you take the heading for the Norwegian category literally you could include an article on a thing that was developed in Norway but has a non-Norwegian name. The whole plan is not well thought out. We would be best off just listifying the contents. Lists are the best way to deal with properties that do not actually relate to the thing described in the article. The fact that looting is plundering, but which word we choses changes which of these categories it might fit in shows this is a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very ambiguously named categories, showing no indication if this is a loanword in X or a loanword in Y from X. The various different category descriptions make it even worse, since some of them are not even about these two forms, but WP:BIAS forms of loanword from X in English. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBrandy illustrates another problem with these categories. Brandy is not a word in Dutch, it is a short form of Brandywine, derived from the Dutch brandywijn. In a list we could list both the form of the word after borrowing and the pre-borrowing form of the word.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. The purpose of categories should be to facilitate navigation between articles on similar topics but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that users who read the article on brandy are looking for Dutch loanwords. Moreover the origin of a name is not always discussed in the article which shows that we're categorizing according to a somewhat trivial characteristic of the name of the subject rather than a significant characteristic of the subject itself. It also leads to some OR problems since one could quibble with some of the entries. (For instance the only use in English of the word Budweiser is as a surname of a brand. That's not a loanword. A number of entries in the category are calques rather than loanwords. This is the kind of issue that a well-designed list will be able to address) Pichpich (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added the French and Old French categories, alter realizing that Calque was in one of those categories. Somehow I don't think Bayonet and Bistro are things that should be grouped together. Calque is an action or a word about words, like run, walk and sing, not a loanword. The term for the thing is a loanword.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify what can be sourced, delete the category. In addition to the problems with these sorts of categories heretofore mentioned is the additional one of whether the word is even a "loanword" at all. Words attested earlier in a non-English language aren't always the source of English words; moreover, "English" is always evolving, so do we start "Old English loanwords" and "Middle English loanwords" since those are different languages and how alike must the word be to the original to be a loanword? Take Gin, an article about the alcoholic beverage, which states that it may come from French genièvre or Dutch jenever - and thusly plunked in the category Dutch loanwords. Our word telephone derives from the Greek (so says our article), so Aristotle not Bell is to be credited? Phooooooey. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LIstify some -- "Iranian" is inappropriate: the target should be Persian or Farsi. So many English words dreive from Anglo-Saxon, a Germanic language, that I do not think that could be a useful category; similarly French/Old French: too common. Some of the others might possibly be legitimate. Even the French and German ones, if limited to recent loan words -- ones that arrived after the language became reasonably fixed, possibly introductions since 1700, though the probelm is that the choice of date will probably be arbitrary. Delete all categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2013 (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. I see no strong reason for listification here. All of the relatively meager contents of these categories have categories about their assassinations {e.g, Boutros Ghali's Category:Assassinated Egyptian politicians) and categories about their dates of death (e.g., his Category:1910 deaths). There's no clear support for uniting the two concepts in eitehr category or list form. However, if someone wants to make a bunch of lists, that's fine by me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The biggest reason to do this is with the names these should contain articles on the assasinations. In fact they contain articles on people who were assasinated except the 1963 category. None of these categories even have six articles, and only two or the articles fit the name. It would be a lot more useful to create lists for each year, this way noted assasinations of people who lack articles could be included and we would not have the possible confusion of splitting the deaths by year cat, which we do not split. We do not have Category:People executed in 1909. The murder categories are supposed to be for articles on murders, not articles on people who happened to be murdered. There is no precdent for splitting type of death categories by year, and there are not enough stand alone articles on assasinations to justify splitting to this level. It would make sense to not split assasination categories by year either. We can also not upmerge these to the crimes by year cats because 1-there is a strong feeling that some assasinations should not be classed as crimes, 2-it makes no sense to put an article on someone who happened to have been shot to death in the "crimes" category, when they should be in a crime victims category, but we do not have Category:Victims of crimes in 1909 and that would be even worse than these categories. If we were to listify we could also include assasination attempts where the intended victim was only wonded or where the only person actually killed was not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note. These categories were nominated within 4 hours of the closure (by me) of two CFDs which discussed the same set of articles: CFD Feb 2 and CFD Feb 7. The second nomination was made by the nominator of this discussion. It is generally considered acceptable to bring a category back to CFD more quickly after a no consensus closure than after a keep closure ... but 4 hours is unusually quick. It may be acceptable if the nominator wants to raise issues missed in the previous discussion, but if so those issues should be set out. In this case the nominator does not even mention the previous discussions, let alone link to them. That's very poor practice; at best it misleads other editors, and at worst it amounts to a form of forum-shopping. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These categories are inherently problematic. There is no reason to split by year in this way. The closing mentioned that listifying was never brought up, so I brought it up. Also, I still think that closing was unfairly critical in complaining about a split nomination when in fact the nomination was only split because most of the categories were created after the initial category was nominated for deletion. I still think it is very bad for to be putting these articles in the crimes categories in the way we are. Also, there was next to no participation in the last discussion. These are overly small categories not likely to grow and keeping them in existence is just inviting a split of the death by year categories. The renames would make that even more likely and we do not want that to happen. The closing of the last discussion suggested listifying, so I follow that suggestion and made it here. It seemed perfectly reasonable. I also went through the trouble of nominating the whole tree, something that people complain about when you don't do it but never appreciate when you do. We should clearly resolve this issue now before it grows into a truly unruly mess. Assassinations by year is something that is much better treated with lists than categories, and there is no reason to wait to fix the problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2013 (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:no consensus. The lack of consensus is mostly mine here. There are 19 other categories of this type, and deleting one making no sense. But if they are all nominated, this discussion can serve as a supporting argument.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale With fictional people ancestry only exists if it is stated. However even when it is stated somewhere in the extensive backstory of a character, does not mean it is defining. Ansestry functions differently for fictional people, and I really do not think that for fictional people this is a defining trait. It may be for some ancestries, but I do not think it is for Dutch, except maybe Rip Van Winkle, but it would seem odd to have a category for one person. At one point Lucy van Pelt was in here merely on the assumption her last name forced such even though her ancestry was never discussed anywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale This was an accidental misspelling on my part when creating the category. However I decided to take this here to see if people think this or Category:German male ballet dancers is a better name. Category:Danseurs is supposed to be for male ballet dancers, but I am not sure that the name is well known enough and understood in that meaning enough to be used. I found one female who seemed from the article to mainly be involved in modern dance in the category, and that was from seperating out Category:American dancers by gender, not from reviewing the category itself. Danseur itself redirects to Ballet dancer, where the article says this is a French term under "gendered titles", suggesting it might not be a widely used English term. What is clear is this category has to be renamed, probably as proposed for now, although the whole tree might need renaming.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a case of categorisation by shared naming characteristic. The category groups a variety of United Kingdom defense programs that were named under the "Rainbow Code" scheme (color+random word), that range from nuclear bombs to space launch vehicles and radar sets. While it is true that categories and lists are often complimentary, this category is wholly redundant to List of Rainbow Codes and should be deleted. The BushrangerOne ping only08:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Or else delete every category on WP. It's a triviality that all categories could be replaced by static lists, the question is whether that's a good idea or not.
This is a category with excellent defining characteristics. The group it identifies, "Cold War military projects of the UK", is a substantial and significant one (although note that not all "projects" were major enough to have rainbow codenames). Conditions for their inclusion are clear. There is also a benefit, as usual, to using annotational markup on an article to push an article into its category than to maintain a list that pulls them in. That said, the list also has value as an annotated overall description of them – particularly as many were renamed over time.
I fail to even understand why the nominator would wish to delete this category. It's not merely a justifiable category, it's a good example of why they're useful and appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The reason I nominated it was, as I said, that this appears to be categorisation by shared name/naming characteristic. I'm quite happy to listen to arguments otherwise, but hyperbolic "delete noting or everything" comments don't help build or maintain the encyclopedia. - The BushrangerOne ping only14:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, that's absolutely not how things work, as you should very well know. "Notability" has nothing to do with this category's nomination. It's because we don't categorise by shared name. The topic is extremely notable - for an article. Having a category that groups radars, nuclear bombs, missiles, etc. that have their only shared characteristic as their naming pattern, though, is not what the category system is for. - The BushrangerOne ping only04:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have lots of lists of things by their name, so having a shared name is at times notable. However I do not think in this case anything beyond their name creates a clear unity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not convinced this is the same thing as the shared name categories usually deleted here. The list article does not make it clear - Was "Rainbow codes" an official term used by the military for the contents of {{UKColdWarProjects}}? Should this be renamed to some sort of "Cold War projects of the UK"? At the very least, I notice some of the articles lack any other position in the category tree of Category:Cold War military equipment of the United Kingdom, so it should be an upmerge not delete. --Qetuth (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might wish to rephrase your statement to reflect the facts. At no point have I stated I wish to delete "all date-related military categories". Weapons by conflict is not defining, but weapons by era is, and as I've said elsewhere the Cold War categories are just fine as by era instead of by conflict. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:29, 18 February 2013 (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. I do not think it would be appropriate to make categories for one architect's works by city. – FayenaticLondon20:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge to the parent category. These categories do have a certain appeal but there's a significant downside to splitting Category:Le Corbusier buildings in small country-specific categories because one loses the overview. This can make it harder for readers to find what they're looking for and probably explains why I was unable to find any buildings-by-architect category that was split in this way. Note that articles in Category:Le Corbusier buildings in India already sit in Category:Modernist architecture in India so part of the country specific information is salvaged. There is also a List of Le Corbusier buildings which contains a table that can be sorted by country. Pichpich (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - I would rather have all pages in the parent category split up by country. The List of Le Corbusier buildings can be used to get a one page overview. In my opinion seeing a list of subcategories by country, with the number of pages that each contains, gives a clearer overview than one large parent category with all the page titles, all countries mixed up, just ordered alphabetically. Wiki-uk (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Prematurely created stub category. Upmerge template, delete category. No prejudice against recreating once sufficient articles found. Dawynn (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the nice things about stub categories is that we can upmerge them temporarily, and subsequently see how many stubs would be there and recreate quickly once there are enough. We can do this because we use stub tags to categorize. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu11:24, 28 February 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale:"Croatia" did not exist during WWII, the name of the (puppet) state that ruled both modern-day "Croatia" and modern-day "Bosnia and Herzegovina" was the Independent State of Croatia. Per Jpl comment at the bottom, it is most logical to use the pre-war boundaries for such things, since any changes during the war were not internationally recognized. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree re above two proposals. We don’t usually use the full official title of a country for categories; otherwise we would have “Sport in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”, “Transport in the Islamic Republic of Iran” or Sport in the Commonwealth of Australia”. Sometimes for history subcategories eg ROC/PRC, or when the short title America or Micronesia is a region hence “United States of America” or “Federated States of Micronesia”. And “United Kingdom” usually means in full the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Hugo999 (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should have added that using "Croatia" instead of "Independent State of Croatia" is incredibly offensive to Croatians as this four year period represents an aberration in the continuity of Croatian statehood. To address your concern about the use of the "official" name, another option might be Category:The Holocaust in the NDH (NDH is the official and commonly used initialisation of the full name in Croatian, Nezavisna Država Hrvatska). The other problem with the above is that the division is ahistorical, neither existed in anything like its current borders in 1941–45 (they were essentially combined into the NDH). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree We have categories called "The Holocaust in France" and "The Holocaust in Germany", although Germans aren’t proud of Nazi Germany. Many countries have changed in area over their history particularly India and Poland, plus the eastward/westward expansion of Russia and the United States over the centuries. Hugo999 (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that even though Bosnia and Herzegovina didn't exist as a nation until the 1990's, we should still have a category for it because it exists now? Perhaps we should keep the Croatia category and merge the B&H one with it and note in the scope of the Croatia one that it covers the territory of the NDH? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having elections in 1910 does not mean the place existed in the 1940s. The most logical standard with categories that cover events in a specific time period in a specific place is to use the names of the places when the events occured, and follow the international boundaries that existed at the time. Otherwise we will need Category:Alexander the Greats campaigns in Turkey. Things happening in 1810 in Santa Fe, New Mexico were not occuring in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 February 12 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: We do have a Category:Independent State of Croatia, of which this is already a sub-category. Is that a deciding factor in the naming of this category? It seems to me that this discussion was a little sidetracked by the question of whether or not people in the successor states would find this offensive. Please can editors leave that aside, and consider this as an unspecified topic "X", which occurred a state which no longer exists. Should the category relate only to that former strate, or also to the successor states which now cover the same territory?
Basically, yes. It might be best to illustrate this by example. Let's say we have an article "Xtown massacre", about a holocaust event in Xtown. Xtown was then in the Independent State of Croatia, and is now in Serbia.
I have to oppose that scheme totally. It does not work. Events in 1943 in what is now Kalingrad do not belong in the hisotry of Russia. We should classify historical events by where they occured, not where the place they occured is now. The Crusades are not part of the history of Israel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. We have recently had people objecting to categories like "1909 in Syria", becasue Syria was then part of the Ottoman Empire. We should operate on the principle that we categorise things according to their contemporary status at the time in question, not their present one. We may need to engage in cross-referencing to the present position, but it is anachronistic to categorise these things according to their present boundaries. Independent State of Croatia is something of a mouthful and to non-specialists it will not be apparent that this is not just the present Croatia. Category:The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia is even more of a mouthful. I wonder whether the solution is not to adopt a different name for this polity, whose whole name is a misnomer since it was clearly not truly independent. I would suggest Croatia (WWII State), in which case the category should be Category:The Holocaust in Croatia (WWII State). Peterkingiron (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why are Germany and Italy “really bad examples”? They are countries with categories back to the Middle Ages, although they were only unified in the 19th century. But re the Holocaust, are we going to split Category:The Holocaust in Poland into several subcategories for the “General Government” area and ??. The original question related to using the “long-form” name ie “Independent State of Croatia” instead of “Croatia” though category names usually use the simple “short-form” name like “Croatia” (NDH is rather cryptic for most of us). Hugo999 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There really seems to be two completely different philosophies regarding categorisation of historical events here. I think that the most appropriate thing may be to get rid of all the ahistorical categories and just have one category "The Holocaust in Yugoslavia". That was the name of the country that was invaded and partitioned by the Axis, and it remained Yugoslavia when it was reconstituted after the war by Tito. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Germany and Italy are bad examples because they were recognized as places before they were unified, Pakistan was not recognized as existing, in fact the word had not been invented yet, at the time of some of the Pakistan categories we have. The more I think about it, the more I think merging all of this to the Yugoslavia category would probably be the best.
True. I think the problem is that for too long we have allowed attempts to agrandize certain places by treating people and events as if they existed in the modern nation of x, when in fact they existed in the now defunct nation y. I think we would be better off if from 1918 until 1990 we had only Yugoslavia by year cats and got rid of the sub-divisons of Yugoslavia by year cats during that time period. However since we have not even managed to get rid Category:1865 establishments in Pakistan when Ali Jinnah, the "founder of Pakistan", was not even born until 1876. Even better, Muhammad Iqbal, the man who first publicly proposed a seperate Muslim state be cut out of India was not born until 1877. I think I am going to have another go at that. I tried getting comment on this at the village pump and then at the talk page on wikipedia categorization, but no one has ever said anything. I am going to try reopening the issue again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I should start another CfD about merging them all into Category:The Holocaust in Yugoslavia? Because currently there are separate "The Holocaust in..." categories for Croatia, the Independent State of Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia and Serbia..., all of which were part of Yugoslavia before and after WWII. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:16, 9 March 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Undersized stub category. Keep template, but upmerge to Portugal category. No prejudice against recreating category once sufficient articles found. Dawynn (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge until 60 stubs for this category can be found. Keep the template to make it simple to keep track of the number of stubs, and to recreate once there are enough. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu11:26, 28 February 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete I believe that the consensus is that primary school attendance is not a sufficiently defining characteristic to be the basis of a category. A list of notable alumni can be added to the article on the school. Pichpich (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User's rationale: Keep City and Country alumni frequently write that their time at C&C was their most defining and meaningful educational experience--even those who went on to notable high schools, universities and graduate programs. Because the C&C Blocks and Jobs Program--among others at the school--are so unique, and the school consistently graduates students that share the same qualities, the category of Alumni is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.17.2 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Frequently write"? I'm not sure you can quantify this and in any case I hate to burst your bubble but it's not unusual for people to say that their primary school years were a very meaningful experience. Moreover there's no evidence that C&C is so exceptional that it justifies being the only primary school alumni category in our system. (Is there even any evidence that the school produces better outcomes than other NYC primary schools with high tuition and strict admissions criteria?) Pichpich (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify This may be a worthwhile thing to connect to the school article or have as a seperate list, but I think that keeping this category will set bad precedents that we do not want to deal with. I think we should limit alumni categories to places that have at least high-school level instruction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but listify -- This school provides education to the age of 13. It is therefore not a "high school", but a junior and middle school. We do not normally allow categfories for such schools. The category should be converted to a list which should be included in the school article. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2013 (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.
Comment would it not suffice to place a note on the scope to say that only some of those in the 4th-century will be ante-Nicene. When you think about it, many of those in the 1st-century cat were not born in the 1st-century. That would include most of the Apostles! And we'd hardly exclude them from the 1st-century list would we? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we allow people to be in any century cat that they clearly met the requirements for. This works well with writers, actors and such. It is a bit trickier for Christians, do we put someone born in 290 in Category:3rd-century Christians, or do we focus on when they were notable as such? Of course if they were not baptized until 312 the answer should be no.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. While there may be some problems following the rename, they can be fixed. Also how many of those problems would have been avoided by a category with a clearer scope in the first place? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom -- The alternative suggestion is unnecessarily complex and the issue of where the boundary should be is better dealt with in a headnote. Clearly a person not converted until after 300 cannot be a 3rd century Christian. By cenutry categories should focus on the period when the subject was notable. Except where people are notable as children, this measn the century when they were adults. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearly not being followed since some people born in 1799 have been put in 18th-century people categories, people who were clearly not notable before the age of 5.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2013 (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.
Keep. Well, Not most, but I went after the example of Category:Capitol Records. Broadly speaking, I believe many labels can benefit from this kind of bridge, especially if they have rich output and multi-artist albums. Note that eponymous cats aren't a no-no, many persons have them (e.g. Category:John Zorn),and that goes to highly abstract containers too. I went for it after applying Zorn's cat to the albums' one, but that didn't feel quite right. trespassers william (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference on the eponymous categories for Capitol Records and John Zorn is they have multiple articles that relate to them in addition to standard album categories. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me19:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this is more common for labels in Category:American independent record labels, but am not sure why. They aren't densely populated, but can/are used to spotlight the active spirits behind the companies, i.e. founders, producers, people straddle both artisthood and staffhood. They could alo contain legally related entities, historical predecessors or successors, session players, showcase albums, campaigns and events, releases of their recordings by other companies. trespassers william (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I would be of the mind to definitely keep any "Category:X Records" if we had categories for X Records albums, X Records artists, and X Records singles, but this record label will probably not release a lot of singles. Adding a main article and X Records discography make it a solid keep and you can throw in other directly relevant biography articles or recording studios, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯23:36, 6 March 2013 (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.
Keep -- This is a question of WP:ENGVAR. In UK English we have governments of Prime Ministers; In US you have administrations of Presidents. As a u successor state of the British Empire, I would expect ther British convention to be followed, but will bow to the superior knowledge of any Pakistani WPans who participate. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, and if kept then oppose renaming to "administration". Per Peterkingiron, the imposition of the American terminology is wrong, unless there is evidence that that is term more widely used in Pakistan. By comparison in the UK, topics such as this are grouped under Category:British ministries, but there do not appear to be categories for each govt. I am wary of creating any such category unless it can be tied very tightly to the government concerned. A category such as this risks becoming a magnet for any events which occurred during the lifetime of the govt concerned, such as 1947 Korangi Creek crash (which AFAICS is nothing to do with Khan's govt). That's an extreme example of irrelevancy, but a more pernicious example is Anderson Bridge massacre, which was ordered by a provincial govt (rather than Liaquat Ali Khan's central govt). Placing it in the current category seems to be simply a way of linking the central govt to a nasty event, and even I can't see any viable way of defining the inclusion criteria to allow some such events but not others. The only pages which should be a category such as this are articles which are about the govt: chronologies, lists of minsters, articles on controversies etc; but the current category contains no such pages, so it is pointless. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We use this same term in the case of India, the Engvar claims are ignoring that we have a clear neighboring precedent that they have not addressed. Just because Pakistan was at one point subjucgated by the British does not mean they still use English in the same way. The India example is the neighboring country and the most logical precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale: The current name is a bit vague. Renaming this category would connect it cohesively with its respective article; Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. (Note that I am not suggesting Category:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures films, because WDSMP is a distribution company, not a studio - it only distributes films) ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 February 17 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Question. I know that we usually align the category names with the head article, but is the verbosity of the new name really needed? Are there any films distributed by other companies called Disney? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there is a specific division of the company responsible for distribution. Leaving it as "Disney" could lead an unfamiliar reader to generalize that the company as a whole is managing the distribution, instead of the one division. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis, I oppose the renaming as unnecessary disambiguation. What matters here is that the films are distributed by part of the Disney empire, and we don't need to disambiguate it from any other Disney distribution business. The precise naming of that part of the company is a point of detail which can be explained on the category page. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. It would be clear that a specific unit or units (Touchstone used to be a distribution unit instead of its current label) that would handle distribution as the accounting department sure would not be doing it. Spshu (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete It's not particularly meaningful to separate sports injuries that occur in specific organs from sports injuries that don't. It's even less meaningful if one confuses "specific place in the body" with "specific organ" as seems to be the case currently. A tendon, while part of the muscular system, is not usually considered as an organ so golfer's elbow, tennis elbow and Achilles tendon shouldn't be included. (And Achilles' heel should definitely not be in there as it's an article on a metaphor.) I'm also quite sure that the nail matrix is not commonly considered to be an organ and one could argue that it's not even a specific place in the body so subungual hematoma should be removed. Last but not least, the butt crack is not an organ so runner's rump shouldn't be in there. Pichpich (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an interesting way of visualizing information and I created this category because I wanted to map all the mythical and popular associations with injuries and different parts of the human body. I am open to renaming the category but would like it if it wasn't deleted. Do you have more articulate naming suggestions? Thanks. Noopur28 (talk)
Injuries and diseases are typically categorized by region of the body affected. Intersecting this with the notion of "sports injuries" doesn't work and as Beeswaxcandle points out below, even a category for sports injuries would be problematic. Pichpich (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete—while I understand the desire to group sports injuries together, none of the contents of this category pertain solely to sport. For example, subungual haematoma can result from hammering one's thumb instead of the nail. Also, the majority are not injuries such as fractures, burns, or open wounds, rather they are overuse musculoskeletal disorders (not of organs). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment—"Sports injury" is at least a triple intersection between site or type of injury, external cause of injury and activity at the time of injury. For example, the diagnostic statment "a sprain of the knee from a tackle while playing rugby league" has four items of information: 1) the type of injury (sprain); 2) the site of the injury (knee); 3) the external cause of the injury (collision with another person); and 4) the activity at the time of injury (playing rubgy league). The category structure would only cope with this level of detail through categories such as Category:Knee injuries sustained in rugby league tackles. The granularity would be just too fine and would potentially add a huge number of categories to injury articles. I can't think of a single injury (as categorised in ICD-10) that can only be caused in a sporting context. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2013 (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 all using "of". There are good arguments for using "in" at the top level, but the nominator has explained why using "of" is also acceptable; most contributors seem satisfied with that, and it will look more sensible for it to be consistent with the sub-cats. – FayenaticLondon19:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good excuse. Yes, there are other cats that could, and probably should, be renamed (it does seem that we have a case of Over-Consistency in these related categories). However, those other cats are not under discussion at the moment... we can deal with them on a case by case basis, if and when someone proposes changing them. Since Category:State parks in the United Statesis currently under discussion, let's focus on getting that one right. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be extremely hesitant to say "Commons does it this way" as a reason to do something regarding categorisation here. In fact I'd be seriously tempted to say the exact opposite based on what I've seen there. The horror, the horror... - The BushrangerOne ping only05:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the states, oppose the rename of the category overall. The state parks are of the individual states, they are in the United States but not of it. Of implies an ownership connection which does not exist in the Federal system with these. These are state, not federal, and thus not of the United States. In is a much better name. In fact, I would actually support in for all the cats, but can live with of by state, but not at the federal level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2013 (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.
Delete because it's not entirely clear to me that people using that userbox want to be labeled scientists. (In any case, this will most likely affect a single user and he can choose the user categories he wants to be in) This seems overly narrow yet quite vague and I don't think it can be helpful for collaboration. The userbox itself is obviously fine. Pichpich (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2013 (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.
