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 for now.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Most volcanic events are categorised as natural disasters by country and by year/century. Guatemala is the only country with this category, and it has only one entry, see
Category:Volcanic eventsHugo999 (
talk) 22:17, 25 March 2011 (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:do not create.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 02:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Propose renaming a non-existant
Category:People of deaf parents : Since we have a large number of articles that reflect 'CODA' (children of deaf adults), a world-view term within the Deaf society. I am proposing a new subcategory
Category:Child of Deaf Adult that goes under
Category:Deaf people. Would this pass the Wiki community litimus-test regarding current Category naming convention? --
Egberts (
talk) 19:17, 25 March 2011 (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 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:Byzantine diplomacy
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:Rename to match the structure of similar categories. This is one of only two (see nomination below) categories which use the "Fooian diplomacy" pattern.
Pichpich (
talk) 15:06, 25 March 2011 (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:Ottoman diplomacy
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:Merge There are no "fooian diplomacy" categories. The standard structure is to place all relevant articles in the category "Foreign relations of foo".
Pichpich (
talk) 15:02, 25 March 2011 (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:Brazilian palaeontologists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy delete (
CSD G7: good-faith request for deletion by author and primary contributor). -- Black Falcon(
talk) 17:08, 26 March 2011 (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.
Arts & Crafts redux
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy rename. This is a clear case of matching an established naming convention to avoid ambiguity.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator rationale: Rename all to match parent category. After the parent category was
recently renamed to
Category:Arts & Crafts (record label), I nominated the subcategories for renaming so that they would match the name of the category and the name of the article
Arts & Crafts (record label). The speedy rename was opposed. (By a user who opposed the processed rename of the parent category, I would add.) Rather than argue about it at speedy rename, I'm bringing it here. These sorts of renames where subcategories are renamed to match the parent category for purposes of consistently are relatively routine, from what I have seen. In my opinion such renames do satisfy the speedy rename criterion C2B because they are bringing subcategories into naming conformity with their parent categories. I'm unclear on whether the opposer is opposing the use of the speedy process simply on the basis of a technical/process argument that C2B is not satisfied or because the user thinks the renames are a bad idea.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Object. It is not a renaming to enforce established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices. See
Category:EPs by record label.
Argolin (
talk) 02:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename all per nom. It is customary in cfd to support renaming all subcats in line with the article and the parent category; and it sounds as if
Category:Albums by record label needs some attention.
Occuli (
talk) 08:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename all per nominator. This renaming meets
speedy criteria C2B and C2C: C2B as disambiguation, and C2C as a convention established at
CfD March 15. I have no idea why the objector claims that these renamings do not meet the conventions of, for example
Category:Albums by record label: the convention of that category is "Label albums", and in this case the label is "Arts & Crafts (record label)". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 11:25, 25 March 2011 (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:American inventors of Russian descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The criterion for a category which intersects nationality, ethnicity and occupation is whether "
the combination is recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right"—i.e., whether "the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources". In general, each combination should be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is academically or culturally significant, and a combination's significance should be demonstrated, not assumed.
My search for coverage of this particular combination in reliable sources did not yield evidence of the combination's significance. The sources I found merely verified that there have been Russian-American inventors (e.g.
[1]), which says nothing about the recognition of the combination as a distinct topic of academic or popular interest. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 02:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Note: This nomination is a follow-up to the one of
25 February 2011. That discussion ended with "no consensus" in spite of significant opposition to the category because, in my opinion, it involved two categories (two separate combinations) and there was a split of "delete" and "upmerge" !votes. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 02:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge – per nom. Editors seem to delight in these endless intersections.
Occuli (
talk) 09:02, 25 March 2011 (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:American inventors of Ukrainian descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The criterion for a category which intersects nationality, ethnicity and occupation is whether "
the combination is recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right"—i.e., whether "the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources". In general, each combination should be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is academically or culturally significant, and a combination's significance should be demonstrated, not assumed.
My search for coverage of this particular combination in reliable sources did not yield evidence of the combination's significance. The sources I found merely verified that there have been Ukrainian-American inventors (e.g.
[2][3]), which says nothing about the recognition of the combination as a distinct topic of academic or popular interest. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 02:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Note: This nomination is a follow-up to the one of
25 February 2011. That discussion ended with "no consensus" in spite of significant opposition to the category because, in my opinion, it involved two categories (two separate combinations) and there was a split of "delete" and "upmerge" !votes. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 02:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. IMO many editors say 'delete' when they mean 'merge then delete'.
Occuli (
talk) 09:26, 25 March 2011 (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:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts
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 to keep; as this is a product of deletion review, default to delete.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 17:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per previous decision. Not really any sort of defining characteristic like an FRS or FBA for instance, which actually mean something. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 12:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Neutral for now. I agree with Necrothesp that fellowship of the RSA is not a great achievement, because there are
27,000 fellows, who each pay
£150 a year for the privilege of membership; from the blurb on the RSA website, it seems that the net is cast quite wide. That's quite a contrast to Fellowships of
learned societies, such as
Fellows of the Royal Society, who are elected for having made "a substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge". However, the reason I'm holding off for now from saying "delete" is that RSA Fellowship appears to have some degree of importance as a social network, and that this might be significant enough to consider keeping the category. Any thoughts on that? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete (Changing my !vote from my initial "neutral for now"). Per my comment above, an RSA fellowship is not of itself either an achievement or evidence of professional excellence. I was open to considering any evidence that a FRSA was significant as membership of a sovcail network, but no such evidence has been offered, so the category should be deleted. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 09:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Category is meaningless, as previous two editors have explained. Like joining (in the US) the Parent-Teachers Association, except not quite so useful and a lot more expensive! :) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Student7 (
talk •
contribs) 18:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. Fellowship of the Royal Society of Arts is considered as an award and an honour by many or not most Fellows (see some example references under
FRSA of notable people who consider it so publicly). More could easily be added. While it is possible to apply, Fellows are also invited and in any case must demonstrate achievement (or less often potential) in the area of arts, manufactures and commerce. I believe it is considered a defining characteristic by most Fellows. It is certainly nothing like the
Parent-Teachers Association in the US and is not "meaningless". It also allows the use of post-nominals like
FRS and
FBA. It is less prestigious than these, but still carries not insignificant prestige and is the nearest equivalent in the arts. It is an important part of the fabric of British society. For example, the 250th anniversary celebrations in 2004 included a party for Fellows in the grounds at
Buckingham Palace, hosted by the
Queen and the
Duke of Edinburgh, who has been associated with the RSA
[4]. There is certainly a networking aspect to the Society but there are also academic/educational aspects (talks by well-known speakers, support for an Academy School opened by the Duke of Edinburgh, etc.) —
Jonathan Bowen (
talk) 22:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. Many institutions authorise postnominal initials indicating membership. Membership of most of these is not, and shouldn't be, notable enough to be categorised. The fact the RSA has postnoms is neither here nor there - it certainly doesn't mean it's notable. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)reply
They are considered as "Fellows" rather than members. We have categories for Fellows of many other societies on Wikipedia; e.g., FRS, FBA, FBCS, FIEEE, FACM, etc. —
Jonathan Bowen (
talk) 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Note: membership of professional and learned societies is also included as categories on Wikipedia elsewhere. I believe that FRSA is at least on a par with this. —
Jonathan Bowen (
talk) 09:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. That's just the point, you see, they aren't at all notable. I could join this society tomorrow. There are no criteria. If this can be listed, so can any meaningless society that let's anyone join. They are not elected on the basis of any notability as are these other societies. Fellow means something there. An elected member has credentials on a par with other distinguished members. Not here, though.
Student7 (
talk) 02:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)reply
There are criteria. You could not join this society tomorrow. There is an election procedure with proposers, checking, etc. See general criteria on the RSA website
here. —
Jonathan Bowen (
talk) 08:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Look at how many Wikipedia articles exist for their members.
List of Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts. This is something notable that connects them, and thus a category for them should exist. News mention of notable people getting in, listed in that article, proves it is something notable.
DreamFocus 23:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. They may have members who were already notable and whose presence graces their organization. But even they weren't truly elected. It's as if Stephen Hawking were in the same organization as I was. His presence would not make us both distinguished by osmosis! Apparently that is exactly the affect here in some editors minds!
Student7 (
talk) 02:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)reply
A person has to be "notable" in RSA terms to become a Fellow (see criteria above). A significant number of these are "notable" in Wikipedia terms too. —
Jonathan Bowen (
talk) 08:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, there are 27,000 "notable" people in the organization. This is doubtless more "notable" fellows than any of the next ten most highly populated organizations put together. There is a reason for that. The reason is that the "election" committee judges everyone who applies "notable," including some who were before joining. They have no idea and could care less.
Student7 (
talk) 18:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. I am not convinced by the discussion that this award is defining and as such it should be deleted. Also since this was recreated due to an alleged lack of input on the previous
discussion, that result should be the decision here unless there is a clear and convincing case made to keep. A no consensus here really supports the previous deletion decision.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:19, 1 April 2011 (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.
Abbreviated Canadian legislators
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:Rename. I think that for these top-level categories, it is appropriate to expand to use the non-abbreviated name for these legislators. I understand the attraction of using the abbreviated version in subcategories, and I think that is OK, but usually for legislators at least the top level one uses a non-abbreviated form. For example:
And so forth. I believe this would be conforming these categories to the usual standard for legislator categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename all. Looks much better. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 12:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)reply
rename, non-abbreviated form is much clearer.
sonia♫ 08:25, 26 March 2011 (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.