Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 1

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. In case anyone thinks about putting this forward again, the target has been renamed to Category:Religion and law. – Fayenatic London 18:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Church and state law to Category:Religion-related legal issues

Nominator's rationale: Not about "Church and state" laws, but about laws which affect religion. Editor2020, Talk 23:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Previously discussed here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This area of law is most commonly referred to by lawyers and academics as "church and state law", regardless of the religion involved or whether they can be described as "churches". And yes, the content is about the area of law known as "church and state law". The proposed target is itself being nominated here for renaming, but this topic would be a valid subcategory of it under either name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Good Ol’factory, could you define the criteria for inclusion on the category page? If so, I'll withdraw the nomination.Editor2020, Talk 00:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The category carries a definition now, but it's probably not a great one now given the contents of the category. Probably something more like "topics related to law governing the relationship between religion and the state" would be appropriate. I do think that some of the contents would indeed be better off moved to the parent category, as you've proposed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. But I would like to see a better definition. Editor2020, Talk 00:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with nominator that the difference between Category:Church and state law and Category:Religion-related legal issues isn't very clear, so I wonder if the nominated merge wouldn't be a good idea after all. At the very least both categories need a definition that clearly highlights the difference between them. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would interpret the target category as being fairly broader than the nominated category. For instance, the target category would include anything to do with religious organizations being involved in civil (ie, non-criminal) legal cases that don't involve the state as one of the parties. The nominated category is limited to legal issues where both a religious organization and the state are involved in a major way. This could include criminal prosecutions of religious organizations but probably most significantly, legislation relating to the practice or regulation of religion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I think that currently all content of both categories is related to state involvement, except Center for the Study of Law and Religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A subcategory of the target, Category:Scientology and the legal system, contains quite a bit of material that relates to religion-related legal issues but not church and state law. The same applies to another subcat, Category:Law related to Mormonism—eg, Temple Lot Case, Kirtland Temple Suit, Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. do not fit within church and state law. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let's then have an appropriate header for Category:Religion-related legal issues as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one is kind of self-explanatory: it will contain articles about legal issues that are related to religion. It's been proposed to rename it "Religion and law", which I think would not really change the scope much. I realize that that it's a very general category, which is why subcategories can exist for more specific groupings, such as church and state law, Christianity and law, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a header nevertheless and would be perfectly okay to have this CfD closed as withdrawn. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why "law"? Why not just Category:Church and State? Or do you wish to limit the category only to legal issues? Editor2020, Talk 14:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominated category is a child category of Category:Religion and government which is sort of similar to Category:Church and State, so the nominated category would indeed limit itself to legal issues. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- "church and state" is a term derived from the US constitution and does not necessarily apply in other countries. On the other hand much of the content is not about that. It may well be that there are other categories that can be merged in, but that is a discussion for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "church and state" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. You might be thinking about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:50, 18 March 2015 (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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Religion in Nazi Germany to Category:Nazi Germany and Christianity

Nominator's rationale: Rename per actual content of the category. After renaming, I would also suggest creating Category:Nazi Germany and religion as a container category for this Christian category, for a similar Jewish category and for Category:Nazism and occultism. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Religion in Nazi Germany, Create Category:Christianity in Nazi Germany and transfer the appropriate articles, Editor2020, Talk 00:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Editor2020's suggestion. It's best to gather content at a higher level before narrowing down. It's plainly wrong to assume that the only dynamic between Nazi Germany and religion is Christianity. SFB 21:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't my intention to suggest anything like that, I just noticed that everything currently in this category (except child Category:Nazism and occultism) is about Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Subcategorize per Editor2020, as it already parents the occultism category ; create any other subcategories as needed, like for Judaism, Atheism, folk religion -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Nazis treated Jews as a racial group, and dealt with them as such, not a religious group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2015 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Snapshotinfoboxes for law enforcement agencies to Category:Law infobox templates

Nominator's rationale: The main article for this categoy is a redlink. I can't find any info about what a snapshotinfobox is supposed to be (Wikipedia:Snapshots appears to be about something different). DexDor (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Unclear naming. SFB 21:43, 2 March 2015 (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 to Category:1st century BC in Judea, Category:1st-century BC establishments in Judea. There is no consensus to move the millennium categories, or create additional ones with names that match shorter periods. I am not also merging to category:Herodian dynasty as that contains biographies, but will add a "see also" link. – Fayenatic London 15:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1st century BC in Israel to Category:1st century BC in the Herodian Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Contemporary entities should be used for historic dates, same as the Syrian category case and US case. GreyShark (dibra) 20:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1st-century BC establishments in Israel to Category:1st-century BC establishments in the Herodian Kingdom

Category:1st-millennium BC establishments in Israel to Category:1st-millennium BC establishments in the Herodian Kingdom

Category:1st millennium BC in Israel to Category:1st millennium BC in the Herodian Kingdom

• Comment Erm. Re the term "Herodian Kingdom": is that the best descriptor for 100 years of history? Our articles imply that for 2/3 of that century, the term Hasmonean dynasty (or perhaps Hasmonean kingdom) would be better. --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the existing categories are referring to the Herodian period (last decades of 1st century BCE); for the pre-39 BCE period we can create Hasmonean Kingdom categories if required.GreyShark (dibra) 21:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd title a century's worth of history with a title accurate for 39 of those years? And in the case of Category:1st-millennium BC establishments in Israel, you'd use a title for 1000 years accurate for 39? Sounds like you're ditching a misleading name for a very misleading name. --Dweller (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Israel exists since 1948, so category:2nd millennium in Israel and category:20th century in Israel are utilized for just 52 years, and there is no problem with that. Similarly, category:2nd millennium in Syria and category:20th century in Syria are utilized for 56 years of Syrian independent existence. In any case, existing before-common-era Israeli categories (or Syrian or other modern) should either be renamed to Judean Kingdom, Hasmonean Kingdom, Herodian Kingdom or Kingdom of Israel or deleted.GreyShark (dibra) 16:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Don't fix something that's wrong with something that's actually more wrong, it's a pointless exercise. --Dweller (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The general decision has been to name categories based on the name of the place at the time categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Johnpacklambert, sorry if my comments are confusing, but the nomination suggests renaming to a name that is not reflective of the majority (in one case) and the vast majority (in the other) of the time categorised. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If renamed, it should use "Herodian kingdom" since the article is at Herodian kingdom. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Asian parent categories, neither Israel is right (per nom), nor Heriodian Kingdom (per Dweller, countries that exist for less than a century shouldn't be subcategorized by century.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Hasmonean Kingdom existed 140 BC–37 BC, 103 years :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, too short to subcategorize by century anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not call it Judaea? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Adar 5775 13:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the commonname was Herodian Kingdom.GreyShark (dibra) 22:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom, Greyshark09? We're talking about a region, not a short-lived polity, however important it was while it was around. In fact, if we go by that thinking of using polity names, Hasmonean kingdom would have a stronger case than Herodian Kingdom as it was around for a longer part of that century (as I see DWeller said up top). The article you linked even calls it the Herodian Kingdom of Israel. Going by the Judaea article, either Israel or Judaea would be appropriate as they are both names for the region. Palestine also works. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775 04:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are using "Year in Foo" only for polities or exceptionally for continents. Never for regions.GreyShark (dibra) 17:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the term "Year in Foo" and only found something about the Foo Fighters when I looked it up. Could you please use a less obscure term? Who is we? We're talking about the history of an area over various centuries from the looks of it, and so it seems sensible to use the name of the area rather than switching through names of short-lived polities in the cats. Otherwise it might just get unnecessarily confusing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 1 Nisan 5775 20:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The Herodian Kingdom was the name of a polity that existed for only 1/3 of the relevant Century. Israel (as in the land of Israel, not the modern state) or Judaea is more appropriate. Also, everything else I've said here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775 04:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we do utilize category:20th century in Iraqi Kurdistan (existed only 9 years), category:20th century in Mandatory Syria (only 24 years) and more; i do not see the problem.GreyShark (dibra) 17:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure saying we is appropriate when you created both of those categories. [1] [2] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 1 Nisan 5775 20:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If the kingdom existed from 140 till 37 means you can not say the whole 1st century period is related to that kingdom. I will check in here later, but for the time being I think that upmerging is the best solution. Second choice would be leave as it. Debresser (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: we also have category:20th century in Mandatory Palestine and category:20th century in Mandatory Syria - what is the problem (it doesnt mean that the whole century was mandatory)?GreyShark (dibra) 22:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it has that name doesn't mean that it should have it as per WP:OTHERCATSEXIST (which is more forgiving than OTHERSTUFF), but it does make sense if there's so much stuff under 20th Century in Palestine (which would not be in the slightest bit shocking) for there to be a subcategory for the Mandate period. The Mandate of Syria cat which you created looks very sparse on the other hand and is broken down into many subcats (most of which you created) that have other subcats (many of which you created) and which seem to have a small number of entries each (though 1918 and 1919 have about 10). Many of these could arguably be merged, but that's for another discussion. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 1 Nisan 5775 20:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification The Herodian Kingdom existed for 41 years (37 BCE–4 BCE). The Hasmonean Kingdom lasted 103 (140 BCE–37 BCE). --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Judaea, per User:Flinders Petrie, which was the name for the place, rather than the ruling dynasty, in most of the Roman period. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the principle to name the category after Judea but mind the spelling: it should become Category:1st century BC in Judea per article Judea, i.e. not Judaea which refers to the Roman province. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Category:1st century BC in Judea. This is a reasonably neutral term. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - strongly oppose the target change, as we never use "year in foo" for regions (except continents like "Year in Asia" and "Year in Europe"). From the point of regional definition Land of Israel is also a region, so changing it to Judea is not a fix. Hasmonean Kingdom, Herodian Kingdom and Herodian Tetrarchy were polities in 1st century BCE; Judea at the time doesn't represent a polity, but a geographic definition, and hence it cannot be "Year in Judea".GreyShark (dibra) 17:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a very theoretical argument, as we don't have years categories by country for this ancient era. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we do - how about Category:1st century BC in the Roman Republic, Category:1st century BC in the Roman Empire?GreyShark (dibra) 19:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rome is a special case as their territory covered the entire Mediterranean world and then some for a substantial period of time. Also, the second category is one you created. Though I agree with it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 1 Nisan 5775 20:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Important Observation. I would like to point out that many of the categories Greyshark09 has cited to make his argument were categories created by him. [3] [4] [5] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 1 Nisan 5775 20:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We have five choices, it seems:

1. Leave the name as it is, which is misleading.
2. Rename to a political name that makes no sense whatsoever (Herodian).
3. Rename to a political name that makes some sense (Hasmonean).
4. Rename to a name reflective of a place (Judaea) but we mostly don't categorise by that, except sometimes we do.
5. Throw up our hands at this headache and upmerge to a broader cat, which is less helpful for people interested in researching using specific Categories (which is what Categories are mostly for)

It does seem to point to option 4. --Dweller (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree on number four, minus an "a" (Judea instead Judaea). It's a fair solution in a politically relatively unstable region. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also agree on number 4. Discussing the a is a bit trivial as it could be spelled as Judea, Judaea, or Judæa and it would all be the same place. Though in this case we should have it be Judea so as to match with the article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Nisan 5775 18:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative proposal - delete Category:1st century BC in Israel and the millennia categories, categorizing instead with category:Hasmonean dynasty and category:Herodian dynasty (similar to proposed below with Lebanese categories).GreyShark (dibra) 17:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this is an alternative in the sense that we must choose between either this proposal or one of the 5 others, I rather think the proposals are complementary. Articles may be classified in Category:1st century BC in Judea and/or category:Hasmonean dynasty or category:Herodian dynasty, dependent on the exact content of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with User:Marcocapelle. And I like User:Greyshark09's idea of the two new categories. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to ... Judea, without the Latinistic aea...that covers the vast majority of the timescale. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The fact that GreyShark has created categories somewhat related to this shows that he has given thought to the issue of the intersection of historic regions and what happened in them. It should be seen as making his observations on this issue as more informed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:1st-century BC establishments in present-day Israel and then have the Herodian Kingdom as a category for the relevant years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2015 (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: merge to Category:County of Tripoli. All this structure currently exists for only one page, Balamand Monastery, so I'll add it to Category:12th-century establishments in Asia and Category:1157 establishments. – Fayenatic London 18:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1157 establishments in Lebanon‎ to Category:1157 establishments in the County of Tripoli

Nominator's rationale: Anachronistic categories, which should be changed to contemporary entities; similar to Syrian categories. GreyShark (dibra) 19:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1150s establishments in Lebanon‎ to Category:1150s establishments in the County of Tripoli

Category:1150s in Lebanon‎ to Category:1150s in the County of Tripoli

Category:1157 in Lebanon‎ to Category:1157 in the County of Tripoli

Category:Years of the 12th century in Lebanon‎ to Category:Years of the 12th century in the County of Tripoli

Category:12th century in Lebanon‎ to Category:12th century in the County of Tripoli

Category:12th-century establishments in Lebanon‎ to Category:12th-century establishments in the County of Tripoli

• Rename all per nom. We should avoid such anachronism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As the term Lebanon for the area has been around since the 3rd Millennium B.C. and so there's no reason to change it to a more obscure name if we have a better name available. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775
• Support the principle -- We categorise by the polities of the time. However, most of these categories are unlikely ever to get substantially populated. I think that almost all of them could usefully be merged into Category:12th century in the County of Tripoli or even to Category:County of Tripoli,which did not endure long enough to need a split by period.

• Support alternative to merge to Category:County of Tripoli per previous editor. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support County of Tripoli that's what was definable at that time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When we use the term Lebanon we invoke the idea of the modern country, which has boundaries created about 1920. To use the modern name before that implies that these boundaries existed earlier than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2015 (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. – Fayenatic London 18:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Air Force Systems Command (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category has only one entry. ...William 15:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and add and upmerge for Category:Air Force Systems Command radar stations to the bargain. It isn't clear how this could be populated further. Happy to withdraw if someone can prove otherwise. SFB 21:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the main article Air Force Systems Command is not currently in the category, but I have added all the nominated category's parent categories to the article. – Fayenatic London 16:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People with social media presence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: (For a notable person, e.g. Ellen DeGeneres) having a social media presence is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic (and may become even less defining in the future). DexDor (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion against: Reference no24 in Ellen DeGeneres is about social media (Twitter); retrieved 3 March 2014.SoSivr (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that EDG doesn't use social media; the point is that just about every celebrity uses social media these days - i.e. it's not defining. DexDor (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person, and hence isn't appropriate or useful as a point of categorization. Even more importantly, the use of social media is so widespread these days that this category, if properly and comprehensively applied, would include very nearly every single actor, musician, writer, politician, business figure, YouTuber or journalist who's currently active at all — thus making it an unmaintainable, massively unbrowsable megacategory. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Editor2020, Talk 23:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not an obviously defining element of modern media personalities (a great portion of whom have some form of social media presence). SFB 21:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entirely trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are lots and lots of notable people with social media presence. Some people even gain their notability from such. At the rate we are going, almost everyone living by 2030 will have had social media presence at least part of their lives.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • here is an article from last May (http://ldsliving.com/story/75749-apostles-uchtdorf-holland-eyring-and-others-join-twitter) about two people we have articles on sending their first tweets. I am sure we could find much else on that, and that is just one of many social media platforms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2015 (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 to Category:Companies formerly listed on the Athens Stock Exchange as that has precedents within Category:Companies by stock exchange, and both member pages are defunct. – Fayenatic London 18:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Companies under suspension on the Athens Stock Exchange to Category:Companies listed on the Athens Stock Exchange

Nominator's rationale: This appears to be categorizing by current status rather than by a permanent characteristic. This is the only "Companies under suspension ..." category in en wp. DexDor (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is like many other categories, including some created by bots The categorizing characteristic is of similar permanence to Category:Bundesliga players and numerous other categories. We create categories having browsed many existing categories. The latter category was created by a bot (Cydebot), so it probably fulfils the permanence criteria.SoSivr (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bundesliga players category is for anyone who is (notable as) a Bundesliga player - whether they still are a player or not. In contrast "under suspension" (not "suspended") indicates current status. Fyi the Bundesliga players category was created by a rename from "Category:Fußball-Bundesliga players" following a discussion at WP:CFDS. Please also see WP:OTHERSTUFF. DexDor (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the clarification that the category in question "is about companies that are or have been under suspension on the Athens Stock Exchange."SoSivr (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the purpose of the category then if kept it should be renamed to something like "Companies suspended on the Athens Stock Exchange". However, in the long term this is probably a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of a company. DexDor (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A temporary sub-status type category is not useful by definition, as it is too fleeting. Happy to rename to Category:Companies formerly listed on the Athens Stock Exchange if that is the intention. SFB 21:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Companies delisted from the Athens Stock Exchange or as SFB suggests. It is useful to distinguish companies now listed on an exchange from those that used to be. I do not think it is useful to have a category for companies whose listing is (temporarily) suspended, but which theoretically might get it back. I checked one of the articles which was on a bank that had failed a stress test in 2011 and had sold its good bit to another bank, probably leaving a bad bank, which might well be insolvent but for government guarantees. I am guessing its status and may be wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge per nom. Only 2 articles, neither of which appear to even note the suspension, even without getting into whether we should be categorising companies by suspension from an exchange, which of course: we shouldn't. - jc37 03:23, 31 March 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional alumni of University of London

Nominator's rationale: This categorization structure currently contains one article. Where a fictional character was educated is generally a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. This is the only "fictional alumni" category in en wp. DexDor (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion against: There is at least one more "fictional alumni" category in en wp: Category:Fictional Harvard University people. The latter category does not contain the word "alumni" but it means alumni; it is a subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by occupation, while in my opinion it could be positioned/added to Category:Fictional characters by education (thus that category should not be deleted). If en wp prefers the title "Fictional ... people" then Category:Fictional alumni of University of London could be renamed Fictional University of London people and possibly added as a subcategory to Category:Fictional characters by occupation . SoSivr (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-defining characteristic. Editor2020, Talk 23:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The institution of education is very rarely, if ever, a central aspect explored through a character in fiction. It is almost always an incidental feature (i.e. author wishes to create an academic character and connects them to a known institution for character biography). I support expansion of this nomination to include the Harvard category, which is made on the same basis. SFB 21:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete anyone can write a character to have gone to any number of schools, that doesn't define the character. Moreover, the author can change her/his mind and the next book can assert that the supposed education at Foo U was merely a fiction within the fiction. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the creator of the fictional Harvard University people category, I have to say it does not mean alumni. It includes at least one fictional Harvard professor, and was meant to include any fictional person with a defining link to Harvard, be they president, alumni, professor, coach or janitor. I have deliberately not commented on the merits of this nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There are several problems with this category as currently constituted:

1. There is circular categorization with Category:Set categories.

2. It contains Category:Set categories and Category:Container categories which do (and should) contain articles (in their subcats).

3. It is very incomplete as there are many other categories that should not contain articles (e.g. Category:WikiProjects, Category:Portals).

4. It places many pages under Category:Wikipedia categorization (and hence under Category:Wikipedia administration) that are not wp admin pages.

5. This is the only "should not contain" category in en wp. If this category scheme grew ("categories that should not contain talk pages", "categories that should not contain user pages" etc) it would cause some categories to have many parents.

It might be possible to fix the individual problems, but IMO it would better to delete this category. For info: there is a list at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles. Note: It should be obvious that, for example, Category:Wikipedians shouldn't contain articles and if it isn't obvious it should be explained in the category text. DexDor (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Editor2020, Talk 23:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fundamentally opposed to the deletion rationale here, but I do want to express the caution that CFD decisions on maintenance categories frequently cause unintended side effects — for instance, the result of this discussion singlehandedly kludged a critical maintenance tool for a completely unacceptable four full months, because that tool was programmed to depend on the category being located at its existing name. Accordingly, CFD needs to handle maintenance categories with a very special degree of caution to ensure that they're not futzing critical project tools in the process. So I'm not opposed to deletion here, but we need to take extreme care to ensure that no critical project tasks are depending on it. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should really have a template which denotes that a specific category is part of a hard-coded feed for a tool. I don't think that's an unreasonable requirement for tool makers. SFB 21:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have one - see {{Bot use warning}}; for an eample of its use, see CAT:CSD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I have resolved the circular categorisation. It makes sense to me that its immediate sub-cats should contain no articles, only further sub-cats, and its name is not contradicted by the fact that some of those sub-cats may themselves contain articles. There are many places in the category hierarchy where the nature of the contents change from one level to another. – Fayenatic London 19:15, 7 May 2015 (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: merge. MER-C 12:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Wikipedians from Germany to Category:German Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Based on the text of the header, this category seems to differentiate itself from the parent category by requiring that someone is born in Germany. But that would merely lead to enormous overlap with the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clear overlap with little benefit. SFB 21:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think both are badly named, it is for citizens of Germany Category:Wikipedians who are Germany citizens would match the nominal scope as stated in the category description. You can live in Germany without being a citizen, you can be an expatriate German with some other citizenship, you can be an ethnic German (and we have a different tree for German-speakers), all of which can be used for Wikipedia collaboration. If we wish to encompass ethnic Germans, former Germans and residents of Germany, then Category:German Wikipedians is the better name, but the category description will need to be stricken. If it is for only citizens, then Category:Wikipedians who are Germany citizens should be used. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is part of the nationality tree so I think we should rather change the text of the header. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. I would however suggest the slightly less precise term "nationals" over citizens.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Buddhist deities, bodhisattvas, and demons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category:Bodhisattvas, Category:Buddhist deities and Category:Buddhist demons. Deities may be also classified as demons due to the redirect. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Editor2020, Talk 05:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: can't it be useful to keep as a container category? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: the nominated category was left behind by Editor2020 after splitting the category by moving it to Category:Buddhist demons out of process. Wrong process, right result! I don't see it being useful as a container category. – Fayenatic London 16:38, 3 March 2015 (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. --slakr^\ talk / 05:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Criminals from Suffolk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Problematic category, WP:BLP people are not often described as harry the criminal from Suffolk Govindaharihari (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Govindaharihari (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Problematic category and it is libelous to describe them as criminals. Hajme 06:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many biographies on Wikipedia and elsewhere describe the subjects as criminals. We have many categories based on this and it is common to categorise criminals based on where they are from, eg. Category:French criminals, Category:Criminals from California. It would only be libellous if unconvicted living people were described as criminals, which is not the case. The person who remains in this cat is a convicted rapist. Jim Michael (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You created these categories, and added living people with minor convictions, you must be able to see the problem? You added people that were not notable at all as a criminal. There are notable murderers but not notable criminals. It's a subjective thing, the problem is you added a person with a minor conviction, he is a criminal in that he has been convicted of a crime but he is never described as a criminal in reliable sources.Govindaharihari (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many criminals, notable criminals do you think are ever going to be from Suffolk? It's a useless never to be populated problematic creation, delete on sight and please stop creating such troublesome categories. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I don't follow the deletion rationale and have no reason to believe that Suffolk is incapable of producing criminals. Oculi (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Populated with persons for whom "criminal" is not a primary defining characteristic. Wikipedia is not well seved by small categories - absent a reasonable population for a category, it ought not be used . Collect (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, we have no end of such categories, despite guidelines to the contrary, see beekeepers, activists, and people of fooian descent. When we think of some singer, murder, or movie star, do we really think of them in terms of their hobbies, political causes, or "presumed" (assuming no bastardy in the tree) long-dead ancestors? WP does. It's wrong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in my bag of swag This is my category now and you can all keep your mitts off. The Suffolk Swindler (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillyfolkboy (talk • contribs)

• Delete. The people are more specifically categorised by crime e.g. Category:English people convicted of rape, and by century e.g. Category:21st-century English criminals. The only potential benefit I can see from also categorising English criminals by county is to put them within the categories for crime by county, e.g. Category:Crime in Suffolk, but people's crimes were not necessarily committed in the county that they come from. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment are there so many English criminals that we need to divide them by county? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but only for people who are notable as a criminal and are from Suffolk). If editors think that categorizing English criminals by county is wrong then start a separate discussion about Category:English criminals by location of origin and all its subcats. DexDor (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but a headnote should make it clear that it is limited to convicted criminals. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some folks' claim to fame is crime - some of those folks are from Suffolk, unless it's a secret crime-free utopia... Seems to break up criminals by county in England is no different than doing so by state in the US of A. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fayenatic London. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2015 (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. --slakr^\ talk / 05:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Criminals from Derbyshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Problematic category in regards to living people . It is also empty now , I removed the only two people from it for WP:BLP concerns. Crime in Derbyshire was a much better categorisation and without problems. People are not usually in my experience described as harry the criminal from here or there Govindaharihari (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Govindaharihari (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both the people who were removed have been convicted of crimes. One of them, Mick Philpott, has been convicted of many crimes including manslaughter and attempted murder. Any description of Philpott without stating his long criminal history would be severely deficient. He is in a high-security prison for killing some of his children. The only reason that I haven't reinstated him to this cat is because the article does not say where he is from. Jim Michael (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

he is a child murderer from wherever he is from, you are calling him a criminal from wherever he is from, don't you see that? Please link me to a report stating "the criminal Mick Philpott" Govindaharihari (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to be a (convicted) child murderer, but not be a criminal ? DexDor (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Repopulate and keep – Mick Philpott is evidently both (a) a criminal and (b) from Derbyshire (as he was living with his vast family in Derby when the house burned down). There is no requirement that sources should use the exact wording ("criminal from Derbyshire") about him. Oculi (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, it is subjective then? no sources are referring to him as a criminal but you think it's ok? This is problematic, labeling people as criminals for minor convictions, I had to remove a living person with a minor conviction. This category is never going to be populated and it should never have been created Govindaharihari (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A criminal is someone convicted of a crime: nothing subjective about it. Why are you not objecting to the vast Category:Criminals? Oculi (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Populated with persons for whom "criminal" is not a primary defining characteristic. Wikipedia is not well seved by small categories - absent a reasonable population for a category, it ought not be used. And labeling persons for whom "criminal" is not a primary defining characteristic is contrary to reasonable behaviour. Collect (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is an objection to the vast Category:Criminals rather than this mere subcat. How is "criminal" not defining for Philpott? Oculi (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any category with only one or two entries is useless. And since there is a broader category you can place him in, use it. Collect (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you would support an upmerge to Category:English criminals? Oculi (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is no longer needed, as I have added other more specific sibling categories within that one. – Fayenatic London 17:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is my territory and I do the deals round here, so get lost or face the consequences. The Dastardly Derbyshire Drug Dealer (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillyfolkboy (talk • contribs)

• Delete after manual merge to English criminal categories by century and by crime, as for Suffolk above. I have just added the required categories for the current member page Robert Hendy-Freegard. I suggest that the remainder of Category:English criminals by location of origin be nominated for manual merging likewise. – Fayenatic London 17:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my argment in the Suffolk CFD above. DexDor (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but a headnote should make it clear that it is limited to convicted criminals. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my statement in the Suffolk version above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fayenatic London. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2015 (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. There is no consensus to delete, but some agreement on tightening the criteria. Making no change would leave it inconsistent with the subcat which has already been renamed, see below. – Fayenatic London 19:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Software written in assembly language to Category:Software primarily written in assembly language

Nominator's rationale: The criteria for inclusion in this category is unclear and, depending on its purpose, probably overly unselective. I propose renaming to clarify its purpose. —EncMstr (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any other categories that have got similar names? Hajme 06:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. All I did was try to decide whether an article actually belongs in this category after an editor added it. I couldn't decide, so I suggested renaming it. —EncMstr (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: At first sight, adding "primarily" to the title makes the category less rather than more selective and I don't see how it adds to the clarity of purpose. Please can you link to the article which prompted you to raise this issue and explain what was unclear about its inclusion? Are there in your opinion any articles which are currently miscategorised as a result of the current title? --Mirokado (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: no further information provided, insufficient rationale. I see no need for this change. --Mirokado (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I looked at a sample of articles in this category and came to the conclusion that this isn't a WP:DEFINING characteristic (e.g. it isn't generally mentioned prominently in the article ledes - see, for example Crystal_Dream_2#Trivia). Hence, delete. If kept it should be restricted (using category text and possibly a rename) to software written exclusively or primarily (i.e. at least half) in assembler. DexDor ^(talk) 19:57, 30 March 2015 (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. MER-C 12:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Free software programmed in assembly to Category:Free software primarily written in assembly language

Nominator's rationale: The criteria for inclusion in this category is unclear and, depending on its purpose, probably overly unselective. I propose renaming to clarify its purpose. —EncMstr (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support changing the title to make it consistent with whatever Category:Software written in assembly language ends up being called, for consistency. Please see the other discussion. --Mirokado (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2015 (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.