From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 1 March 3 >

March 2

Category:17th-century executions by Germany

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Option B, due to the Italy states issue, C2C, etc. No prejudice against a followup nom to propose splitting all the HRE cats to german states/italian states/etc. - jc37 22:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Option A:
Rename per precedent in this earlier discussion.
Option B:
Rename to Holy Roman Empire, since German states is anachronistic until the establishment of the German Confederation in 1815. Option B is a matter of WP:C2C matching Category:16th century in the Holy Roman Empire etc. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Why not both? Option B then becomes the parent of Option A for those states of the HRE not in German states. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • There wasn't anything like "German states" within the Holy Roman Empire. For example, Bohemia and the Southern Netherlands did not have a separate status as non-German. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Option B WP:C2C — the previous nomination was a historical mistake, as the parent is Category:People executed by Germany. Germany (and German states) did not yet formally exist.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Option A -- "Germany" is a convenient term for the HRE (in full: "the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation") and was one in common use at the time. Any reference to what the Emperor did would be limited to lands under his direct rule, including Austria and Bohemia. What is now Belgium was a Spanish possession in 17th century and Austrian doe most of 18th. These can be dealt with in sub- or sibling categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • In the Middle Ages the Holy Roman Empire came into existance as the merger of the Kingdom of Germany, the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Burgundy. But here we are talking about the early modern period when a large part of Italy is still part of the HRE while the medieval kingdoms were no longer distinguished. Calling Italian states German states is quite awkward. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2021 (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:Inventions invented through American science and technology

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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Most world's inventions are through science and technology. Apparently, for that reason there's no wider "Inventions invented through science and technology by country" categorization scheme. Only one article and three subcats inside. Brandmeister talk 23:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Science and technology do not stop at national borders. I note that we have a list of multiple discoveries — by which anything based on the electrical telegraph, for instance, involves both British and American technology. The sole article, Esky, does not mention the United States except in passing in a reference about the American company who acquired the brand. And brands are not inventions. 16:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see any scope-definition in the category, and I have no idea what the heck is "American science". Dimadick ( talk) 10:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- a wholly unnecessary category. The one article is about an Australian device, America not being mentioned. One of the categories concerns a video game or related device, but that and MS Windows can go into American inventions. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete inventions can be international collaborations. This category will just lead to needless clutter. We should categorize inventors by nationality (as we do) not inventions, because inventions are often collaborative. Also, to make things even more complex, something like radio or television went through multiple stages of development, so the work of Marconi or Philo Farnsworth is not the sum total of creating even the earliest applications of the given product in ways we would recognize under the term. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:19, 9 March 2021 (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.

I-Kiribati non-people categories

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. - jc37 02:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: "I-Kiribati" is only an adjective that is used for people from Kiribati. This was just overzealous application. ( On my part, really.) "Kiribati" is an acceptable adjective for non-people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2021 (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:S.W.A.T.

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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: S.W.A.T. redirects to SWAT, which is about the real-life special weapons and tactics teams. This category is for TV series and films in the S.W.A.T. franchise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2021 (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:Anglican priests

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: Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: In the Anglican churches these are pretty much synonymous as I understand it, except that deacons are counted as clergy but not as priests. If this is agreed a load of subcategories to follow. NB the merge could be the other way around, but I think clergy is the commoner term among Anglicans, and though we have very few articles about deacons it seems sensible to have a supercategory which includes them. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - clergy is a general term. A bishop has moved on from being a priest, a deacon is not a priest. https://www.tonyhj.ca/Priest/glossary_of_titles.html Oculi ( talk) 01:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it's hierarchical. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • If it's really treated as heirarchical clergy becomes a container category? Its not possible for a person to be just a clergyperson with no other office? NB having looked at the articles about deacons I doubt if any of them are notable as deacons. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I withdraw this. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:04, 4 March 2021 (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:Harry Potter organizations

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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: All Harry Potter-related pages should be in British English. — El Millo ( talk) 21:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Series by a British writer, so British English makes sense. Dimadick ( talk) 10:33, 5 March 2021 (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.

People of Chaoshanese 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, we do not categorize people by the region where their ancestors have been living. In this case Chaoshan is a region in the province Guangdong. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion, this earlier discussion and this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my usual objections to "descent" categories (including subjectivity, remoteness, verifiability, and whether people of one "descent" do things differently than those of other "descent")' see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support While being from Chaozhou is defining and we accordingly have Category:People from Chaozhou, it's not clear in the article that being descended from such people is defining. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support I dont think we should have descent categories for regions unless we have an article establishing the notability of the intersection. NB there are some similar categories in Italy. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:CATNAME#Heritage: Heritage categories should not be created by former city, province, region, or territory.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Merge per nom. This is a whole mess. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:20, 9 March 2021 (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:Burials at Union Cemetery, (Steubenville, Ohio)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Burials at Union Cemetery-Beatty Park. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Nobody intentionally puts a comma before parentheses like this; it's obviously a typo. However, there's no real standard for disambiguation in this kind of situation; we might use "Union Cemetery, Steubenville", or "Union Cemetery, Steubenville, Ohio", or "Union Cemetery (Steubenville, Ohio)". Thus I'm coming here instead of CFDS — should it be Category:Burials at Union Cemetery (Steubenville, Ohio) or Category:Burials at Union Cemetery, Steubenville, Ohio or Category:Burials at Union Cemetery, Steubenville? Nyttend ( talk) 19:47, 2 March 2021 (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:Mike McGear songs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Category:Mike McGear songs

Former administrative divisions by continent

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/merge/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C, trying to reduce this overly convoluted structure.
Each of the parents has only one child, merge the child into the parents. (Oceania currently has only one country in it, and does not have the subcategory, but can remain for possible future expansion.)
The parent Category:Administrative divisions by continent has each continent containing all the country subcategories, without an intermediary "by country".
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 29#Category:Country subdivisions by continent.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 13:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - it would be fairly standard to have a 'by country' subcat scheme for Category:Administrative divisions in Europe as divisions which are not country (eg the EU is an 'administrative division', there's EFTA, Schengen etc) get lost in a slew of countries. Of course it was 'Country subdivisions', a more specific phrase. I prefer it when there is also a 'by something else' scheme. Oculi ( talk) 14:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge redundant empty category layer and rename to administrative division per numerous recent precedent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:38, 2 March 2021 (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:Judges who died in office

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining. Many judges are appointed for life, so virtually all of those will die in office. I seem to recall a semi-recent discussion about this or a similar category but I can't find the link. User:Namiba 13:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the recent outcome of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 5#Category:People who died in office, which is likely the discussion to which the nominator refers. The outcome of the discussion was to subdivide Category:People who died in office, of which judges are one of the major subdivisions. The nominator is incorrect in stating that "virtually all" judges with lifetime appointments will die in office. In fact, the vast majority of those retire or resign point prior to death. Of the 50+ Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who have left office in the past century, for example, only twelve died in office. The reason we imagine judges dying in office more frequently than that is because it is so newsworthy when they do, which is precisely what makes it defining. BD2412 T 16:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nothing you've said describes how it is defining. an event being reported in the news doesn't make it defining. Can you explain how it passes Wikipedia guidelines for categories?-- User:Namiba 17:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
First, most judges in the United States are elected or appointed for terms rather than being appointed for life. Those who are appointed for life may retire or resign from office on a schedule of their choosing, thereby controlling, to a degree, the appointment of their own successors. Judges who die in office are deprived of that control, which can therefore lead to substantial and demonstrable political consequences. BD2412 T 18:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Those aren't the standard set at WP:NONDEF.-- User:Namiba 20:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree with User:BD2412 that this is a defining trait. Dimadick ( talk) 17:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
No judge is notable for dying in office. Judges are notable for what they do in office, not whether or not they hold office when they die. Their deaths are usually trivial, except in cases when they are killed for being a judge.-- User:Namiba 17:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Clueless or bad faith nomination. The nominator here was the nominator of the recent discussion, which concluded to the contrary: there was consensus in favour of such a category existing, but the nominator either pretends to be unfamiliar with the details, or has somehow totally forgotten them, even though he was the one who created it, and even though it's not hard to find. Don't try to overturn recent consensus by pretending that it doesn't exist or by refusing to look for it. Nyttend ( talk) 19:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
There is no recent consensus. This category did not even exist when that nomination began AND that nomination did not seek to delete any category, just to rename it. User:Nyttend seems to be either clueless or responding in bad faith. I don't want to assume which it is.-- User:Namiba 20:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
I have read the close; it is in line with BD2412's arguments, and at variance with yours. If you continue these arguments, I will request sanctions. Nyttend ( talk) 20:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
I have no idea why you are being so hostile, but you are free to request anything you'd like. Try not to disrupt this discussion.-- User:Namiba 20:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: Category:U.S. state supreme court justices who died in office, Category:United States federal judges who died in office, and Category:Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States who died in office have been created since this nomination. I am tagging them for deletion under this discussion as well, since logically if the parent is deleted, so too should be the children. If anyone besides the creator of the categories objects, I will remove them and we can have a separate discussion if this is deleted.-- User:Namiba 13:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: since Category:People who died in office exists and has recently survived a CfD nomination, and judges are people, it follows that if these categories are deleted, all of the articles will be recategorized under that category. BD2412 T 16:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
If the consensus is to delete, then they should not be merged.-- User:Namiba 17:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • They should not be merged, the parent category should be containerized instead. It now contains a few civil servants and a chair of the Mexican Stock Exchange for whom dying in office is trivial. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • There has already been a discussion on Category:People who died in office which resulted in that category being kept and subcategories established. It is therefore clearly not possible to prohibit the addition to that category of any subjects in the encyclopedia who were a) people, and b) in office at the time of their death. Absent an overturn of the previous consensus on that category, upmerging these articles into it would be automatic upon deletion of the subcategories. BD2412 T 21:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-defining. In the cases above, the judges are appointed for life or until they retire, so dying while holding office is one way to leave it. In elected positions, that's different, and it is unusual and recognized when an elected official dies during their term. -- Masem ( t) 16:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Masem: what about elected judges? BD2412 T 21:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
      • A category "Elected officials who died in office" may be more appropriate for that. Whether they were judges, legislators, executive/presidents, or the like, that would come from cross categorization. -- Masem ( t) 21:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-defining. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is not just about modern US judges. Historically speaking most people and most judges died in office. Dying is, so far, universal, and hardly ever defining for occupation. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- but merge the two supreme court categories, which ought to be duplicates. People can retire and in some jurisdictions there is an age limit on sitting as a judge. We decided to keep the parent but it needs containerising, which a deletion here would disrupt. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The two categories are not duplicates, one is for federal judges and the other for state judges. About containerization, that would limit the use of this category to American judges only, it is not clear what the benefit of that would be. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete since in the US federal judges are appointed for life this is inherently a non-defining issue. True, some retire before death, but death in office is not rare enough to be categorized by. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Johnpacklambert: Is your !vote contingent on the category containing United States federal judges? It also contains several hundred elected state court judges. Incidentally, it also contains Article I federal judges who were appointed for a term of years. BD2412 T 21:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
      • If it contains several hundred state court judges this is clearly not a defining enough thing to categorize by. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
        • @ Johnpacklambert: I actually overestimated the number. It is fewer than 200, so not "several hundred"; my apologies for that. I am curious what proportion of elected judges you think that represents. BD2412 T 02:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I note that a large number of !votes in this discussion appear to be contingent upon a miscommunication about what this category actually contains. BD2412 T 21:19, 9 March 2021 (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:Engish Anglican priests

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:English Anglican priests, where it seems to more naturally fit as far as category names go. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: only content is Category:English Anglican clergy stubs Rathfelder ( talk) 11:38, 2 March 2021 (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:Executive branch of the Government of Afghanistan

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Lowercase "government". Per recent decision in the case of the Republic of Artsakh. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 09:27, 2 March 2021 (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:Valdez–Cordova Census Area, Alaska geography stubs

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: split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The census area was split in 2019, but this category was never modified for some reason. Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 08:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – The "some reason" is very simple: WikiProject Stub sorting wishes to exert jurisdiction over this type of content. Thus far, they've chosen to drop the ball on it; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Valdez–Cordova Census Area, Alaska geography stubs. Perhaps either these editors should do the job they signed up for or the community should be questioning why this project exists. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not really sure how "waiting to hear back from the person organising the permcats" — i.e., you RadioKAOS — is "dropping the ball". Once you tell WPSS that the permcats are sorted it'll be easy to assess the stub split. Have you finished it yet? Grutness... wha? 00:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • What Grutness said. The discussion at WPSS:Proposals has not been closed, mainly because its resolution has not been determined. Contrary to the uncomplimentary view expressed by OP, stub sorters are "doing their job", busily enough that the assistance of other editors is greatly appreciated...when given. Her Pegship ( ?) 18:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • This discussion has a related TFD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_2#Template:ValdezCordovaAK-geo-stub that I have closed procedurally given the timeline of openings and the more-correct place to file a request for change. The closer may wish to review those. -- Izno ( talk) 18:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • RadioKAOS expressed concern at that TfD discussion that they did not "see any notice of either XFD at WP Stub Sorting". The WP procedure for changes and deletions of stub templates and categories was transferred several years ago to this venue and TfD. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Article alerts just listed this alert on March 2, and it's possible that stub sorters like myself did not see the alert until today. (P.S. RadioKAOS did post a note on the WPSS talk page implying that something should be done, as they were too busy and uninterested to "do the work", but without making clear what they thought should be done.) Her Pegship ( ?) 18:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
I have re-listed this proposal at WPSS for discussion, as it might go unnoticed over here. Her Pegship ( ?) 18:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Support split per Molandfreak, in case I wasn't clear. Her Pegship ( ?) 03:17, 16 March 2021 (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:B'Tselem

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT Editor2020 ( talk) 04:53, 2 March 2021 (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:Worst United States Supreme Court decisions

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is overly subjective, as critics originating from different viewpoints will have very different lists of which Supreme Court decisions are the "worst". BD2412 T 04:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Its funny how the same decisions keep making external "worst lists". There seems to be a fair amount of convergence on what the top 10 or 20 are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Even the far less subjective (but still subjective) landmark decisions is put to a list for sourcing purposes - see List of landmark court decisions in the United States. This is extremely subjective and no way appropriate for a category. -- Masem ( t) 04:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support It is a useful way to find offensive decisions by the US Supreme Court, like Dred Scott v. Sandford and Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. If someone feels a decision does not belong on the list, then that is a different matter. Jeffrey Walton ( talk) 04:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Offensive to whom? If CPAC, the ACLU, and the Chamber of Commerce each list the decisions they find most offensive, you'll get three very different lists. BD2412 T 04:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This belongs in Category:Worst Wikipedia categories. Unless there is an objective way to decide what is and what is not in a category, it becomes stalking horse for POV pushing. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no objective way to assess this. While a few (Dred Scott, Korematsu, Plessy) are almost universally reviled, most of the rest are subject to reasoned dispute. A sizable number of academics (and Justices) believe Bush v. Gore reached the correct outcome. Ditto for Citizens United and Bowers. And I just the other day read a principled defense of the Lochner decision. We have no business picking the worst cases when there is no scholarly consensus about which ones they are. See also this AfD. (For what it's worth, these categories serve as decent substitutes for this one.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This category smacks of POV. What objective standard was used to make the list of cases in that category? It appears to be simply Nolader's opinion was the standard. That's not a legitimate standard. SMP0328. ( talk) 05:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — while I'm in agreement about the current content, this is better as an annotated list. I'm sure we already have a prohibition on creating these categories. Wikipedia:Categorization#General conventions "avoid descriptive adjectives such as famous, important, or notable in category titles."
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 06:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Categories are not supposed to reflect criticism or praise for their content. Dimadick ( talk) 06:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Surprised this lasted ten seconds. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While G10 is not technically subject-specific, this will have to go the long way because it's not disparaging the subject, per se. But I've seen something a lot like this: Category:Worst films of all time. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Far too subjective and unencyclopedic in nature.   White Whirlwind  21:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all the above and I think it's time for an early close because it's WP:SNOWing. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:07, 2 March 2021 (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:Anglican bishops by diocese in Ireland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Church of Ireland bishops by diocese. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with Category:Church of Ireland bishops and the other episcopal denomination on the island, Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Together with parent.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson ( talk) 00:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I stand by my suggestion. The Church of Ireland is the manifestation of the Anglican Communion in Ireland. It does not operate anywhere else. Its missionaries in other countries would serve under the local Anglican hierarchy. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Church of Ireland ... Rathfelder ( talk) 00:03, 10 March 2021 (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:Irish Anglican priests

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate category Rathfelder ( talk) 17:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • That is a fair objection. But if I understand correctly there was also a Church of Ireland until the Acts of Union 1800. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    • The Church of Ireland article says it was form in 433. Surely disestablishment is the termination of the formal linking of a church and state not the dissolution of the state church and the creation of an independent one? Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Churches like to emphasise their historical continuity. I think Church of Ireland is the most satisfactory compromise available. Rathfelder ( talk) 00:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we routinely, perhaps inaccurately, categorize people who belonged to a prior naming of the institution with the present naming (e.g., Category:Stanford Cardinal football players includes many players who played for the the Stanford Indians football team). Is this different somehow? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Football teams dont extend over centuries as churches do, and there isnt usually much controversy when they change their names. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose It is unclear whether these people were in fact affiliated with the Church of Ireland. For part of its history, this church was merged into the Church of England. Dimadick ( talk) 07:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment @ Dimadick: The Church of Ireland article makes it very clear that these people were affiliated with the Church of Ireland: "In 1536, the Irish Parliament followed their English colleagues by accepting Henry VIII of England as head of the church, rather than the Pope. This marks the founding of the reformed Church of Ireland, confirmed when Henry became King of Ireland in 1541. ". Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • (Changed vote) -- I think on the whole the best solution is for WP to apply the precedent of alumni categories, where the alumni of a renamed or merged or merged institution are deemed to have attended the successor. In this case, the pre-reformation and post-reformation Anglican bishops in Ireland would appear under Church of Ireland container categories. There may be a case for using 1869 as a split date for priests (only) as this must be a very large category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Splitting would be a mess. Many articles on both sides of the divides. Rathfelder ( talk) 00:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Whether right or wrong, there is already a split between pre- and post-Reformation because there is also a Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in Ireland‎ so we do not need to discuss here that at all. With respect to a 1869 split, I agree with Rathfelder that this would become messy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:26, 12 March 2021 (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:Recipients of the Ludwig Order

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD & WP:OVERLAPCAT) and, for the parent category, WP:C2F
The German Grand Duchy of Hesse established the Ludwig Order (German: Ludwigsorden) and intended it to be for "meritorious soldiers and civilians". Either the award wasn't used that way or such recipients aren't notable because these categories consist almost entirely of foreign officials like Nicholas I of Russia, Prince George of Prussia, and Napoleon III who tend to mention the award in passing with other honours. (I'm not sure if this served as a diplomatic award or dynastic order though since the recipients were often distantly related.)
Some Hessian nobility also received the award but those articles tend not to even mention the award, like with Ernest Louis, Grand Duke of Hesse, Frederick William, Elector of Hesse, and Prince William of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld, and these articles are already somewhere under Category:House of Hesse anyway. There wasn't a list so I created a collapsible one at the bottom of the main article for any reader interested in the topic. (The parent category contains only the eponymous main article with no growth potential.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:30, 2 March 2021 (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:Grand Crosses of the National Order of San Lorenzo

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD, WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:PERFCAT)
The National Order of San Lorenzo is an Ecuadorian award that has had multiple uses:
1: During the unsuccessful 1809 revolt against Spain, it was automatically given to all members of the Revolutionary Council.
2: Later it became an award for diplomatic visits like with Albert II of Belgium and Queen Sofía of Spain
3: The President of Ecuador is automatically given "Grand Collar" class of the award as the head of the order.
Currently the categories only have 2 articles total but there's not a WP:SMALLCAT concern since other recipients are already listified right here in the main article. None of these three groups seem especially defined by the award though. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_2&oldid=1019697912"