The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename ones in England as nominated; no action on rest. (Note: w.r.t. Peterkingiron's comment, please re-nominate Winchester for reversion to the original name if it's determined that this is indeed an inappropriate name for this one.) I'm closing the rest as a purely technical close because of the difficult of discussing them all together. In other words, this close is without any prejudice to future discussions on them. Clearly, these need to be discussed individually on a by-county (or at least by-region) basis, so re-nomination on this basis is encouraged. Rather than me relisting them all, I think things would go smoother if users research the usage in a particular area and then decide whether or not to re-nominate for a name change. Because of the nature of the close, no notation recording this nomination will be placed on the category talk pages. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. More accurate name, and consistent with other "civil parishes in" categories. The word "in" is preferred in Wikipedia category names. (See also this discussion.) --Carlaude(talk)20:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a broad assumption, not all of these are actually civil Parishes. E.g. Barbados doesn't have actual local government at the Parish level any longer and thus they are not Civil Parishes any longer. Civil Parishes historical went hand in hand with the Vestry system (e.g. with a Parish Church etc.) but I think many smaller islands in the Caribbean have abolished this form of local governance because they are so small there's hardly a need to have a whole lower tier of government. Jamaica I believe still has Civil Parish style governance but I can't imagine for example Montserrat still having Civil Parishes with all kinds of elected officials when they only have something like 3 parishes to cover their whole island. Nevis is small too, and would need tons of elected people to cover such a small island. About Civil ParishesCaribDigita (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:These are not assumptions-- these are actually civil parishes. Please read the articles before making these Oppose votes.
Reading Parishes of Barbados will show that "The country of Barbados is currently subdivided into administrative sub-regions known as parishes." These articles are about civil parishes -- not a church parishes nor parish churches. But if you think that there is a better word that "civil" let us know.
Reply:"Actually Barbados, Montserrat, Jamaica etc. and others are based on the British system. As are most of the other English Speaking islands. Source. All I'm merely saying is that a "Civil parish" system of government has been removed long ago. They are now just simple Parish areas. But if you want to name them Civil parishes which is totally a horse of a different colour and different meaning. Go ahead, I was merely trying to inform the wikipedian community that a Civil parish is something completely different.
Reply about "administrative sub-regions: Furthermore "administrative sub-regions" was yet another vote taken on Wikipedia during a mass rename. That is a clear example of what happens when misinformation is peddled during mass rename votes. It cascades on into the future. The Barbados government says the Parishes system in Barbados are not "administrative sub-regions" but I left this mis-information alone because it was by vote. I just did a quick search and found one site which still has this note from the Government of Barbados to the United States government regarding this misinformation. [1]CaribDigita (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have stated this much clearer now, and while I still disagree, you also seem to have no objections to cite for the parish systems in Asia, Europe, South America, and the rest of North America. --Carlaude(talk)16:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Techical closure is needed. This nomination is much too broad, and needs to be dealt with in a series of separate discussions. The original English system was of ecclesiatical parishes that took on civil fucntions. In the 1890s, church vestries were deprived of their civil powers, which were conferred on Parish Councils. I therefore Support all nominations relating to England (except Winchester - which proably refers to the diocese). I Oppose the nominations for Wales, where the target should be "communities". For Louisiana, Parishes are the equivalent of counties in the other states, and so should be retained unchanged. In countries where the parish is a mere geographical designation, the plain "Parish" should probably be retained. For the rest, Oppose: there should be a no consensus or otehr technical closure, as I think that most of us discussing this do not have the requisite knowledge. From the discussion above, it is clear that the West Indies need separate discussion, as do those in the rest of Asia, Europe, South America, and the rest of North America. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one category, one template, and one article. The latter two are up for deletion as well for being empty. Sceptre(talk)18:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category is ill-defined: what does it means by "losing"? It seems to exclude those who won the presidency but then lost a re-election bid (e.g. Carter, GHWB) and also excludes those who lost an election but then later won (e.g. Nixon). It seems to only look at Democrats and Republicans, and ignore past major parties (e.g. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney the Federalist, Hugh Lawson White the Whig). It seems to exclude third-party candidates got a large vote and had a major effect (e.g. Perot in 1992). The category is thus not useful in understanding U.S. presidential elections. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Consider Rename It appears to me that this category is intended to include people who came in second (and not better) while running for President of the United States. Coming in second in the race for President of the United States is a pretty strong defining characteristic, and for most of the individuals listed in this category it is their most defining characteristic. I've heard of this John McCain guy and I knew about what George McGovern and Walter Mondale did other than run for President, but most people couldn't describe Al Smith, Adlai Stevenson, Samuel J. Tilden or Wendell Willkie other than that guy who lost the Presidency (if there's any recognition) and I'd probably say the same for Michael Dukakis. This is a US category, and the country should be mentioned, and I agree that there is no reason that this should be limited to Republicans and Democrats (or why those categories should be in this category at all) and exclude Whigs and Federalists. I have no issue with excluding winning candidates and excluding candidates from most third parties. I agree that some wording should reflect candidates such as John B. Anderson, George Wallace and Ross Perot, exemplars of third-party candidates who made significant impacts on their presidential races, though I'm not sure how that can be included without setting an arbitrary cutoff. While I agree with many of the issues raised in the nomination, this is still a defining and useful category even if a better name and definition would improve it. Alansohn (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary if any implementable definition could even be set. To limit it to the person who finished with the second-highest number of electoral college votes would be arbitrary, and also relatively "modernist", since the habit of only two candidates winning electoral votes is a new one that has not even been adhered to fairly recently (George Wallace). If we instead chose to limit this to candidates who won a certain percentage of the popular vote (so as to incorporate Perot and Anderson, for example), the selection of the cut-off percentage would again be arbitrary, and it would also pose problems again for the early presidential elections when electoral votes were not determined by popular vote totals in all states, and there are some elections for which popular vote totals are not even available. The suggestion to limit it to second-place finishers and "third-party candidates who made significant impacts on their presidential races", is, of course, inherently problematic for definitional problems, as acknowledged. I think, in the end, the concept that this category is trying to capture is well-covered by the well-organized and fairly comprehensive subcategories of Category:United States presidential candidates (arranged by election year and party), so there's no significant data being lost here. Good Ol’factory(talk)20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
renameCategory:Losing major party US presidential candidates. "US" must be included as many other countries have elective predidential systems. It is difficult to know what to do about people like George Wallace and Ross Perot. They gave the two major party candidates a serious challenge. I suspect the answer may be to include them but define the category more precisely in a headnote on the category page, possibly that the candidate needs to be been on the ballot paper in at least 30 states (I am neutral as to the precise number). This will exclude the hopeless and joke candidates. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is everyone who could be listed defined by losing? If not, this would be OCAT. Is dropping out of the nomination process before the first primary losing? The category parents imply that it is for republican and democrats only, were there no other major parties? Has abritary inclusion criteria. Presidential elections already has an ample categorization scheme. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per numerous comments above and as inferior to the existing candidates scheme. It can be deduced that any presidential candidate who is not also in Category:Presidents of the United States is a losing candidate and it is potentially confusing to have one-term presidents like Jimmy Carter categorized both as a president and as a losing candidate. Otto4711 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete Based on the category introduction, this would include just about every corporation. It is not a defining enough characteristic for it to be mentioned in affected company articles. Is open to POV issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many people are angry when they find out that some company or other received a tax break or incentive that seems hard to understand or justify. But one would be hardpressed to find any company that has a Wikipedia article that has not received some sort of government Corporate welfare grant or benefit, thus making this characteristic not defining. Category:Corporate welfare non-recipients would be a far more interesting category. Alansohn (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Yep, that's a better merge. But I would argue that categorisation is the wrong approach for this kind of thing even if they were floristically distinct areas. Hesperian02:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... With respect to flora distribution categories, a very large part of the solution would seem to be to follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, a categorisation scheme created by real botanists in the real world. The Flora of Australasia category tree already follows it, and I am very slowing bringing more and more categories into line with it. Hesperian03:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle These flora categories (and those for fauna) do not fit neatly into the political divisions that we use for other purposes. On the pther hand if the paretn category becomes too big, it may be useful to split off those that ONLY occur in one desertinot seoparate categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Is there a potential other category by the name of Misfits? Because otherwise I don't think any disambiguation is necessary. Category titles don't have to match the article title by necessity, as there is generally much less need for disambiguation between category names than there is between article names. As for "The Misfits" category, it should just be depopulated and all articles moved into this cat. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep - Wow, that was fast -- I should have started a betting pool on how long it would take! (of course, I would have lost -- I mean, 1 hour, 53 minutes??) Well, Good Ol’factory beat me to the punch. He's quite right about the recent DRV, which unanimously restored all sub-categories of Category:African American sportspeople -- which had been deleted en masse last year in a CFD that was closed against concensus for keeping. The only reason Category:African American figure skaters wasn't among them is because it had already been picked off a few months before. As the US Supreme Court would say, the penumbra of the recent DRV should be construed to extend to other closely related categories. Cgingold (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what "rationale" was needed, other than the fact that this is a defining characteristic and one in which numerous reliable and verifiable sources support the definingness of African American participation in the sport. Famous African American Figure Skaters at About.com provides a decent overview. "Obituaries; Mabel Fairbanks, 85; Black Ice Skater", a 2001 obituary from the Los Angeles Times covers Mabel Fairbanks, who was literally kept off of the ice because of her race. "Adding Color to Red, White and Blue" from The Washington Post in 2006 discusses the growth of minority athletes in winter sports, mentioning how Debi Thomas's bronze in Calgary in 1988 made her the first black person to win an Olympic medal. I have no idea what objective criteria are being used to determine why this category was nominated for deletion, and I wish that one day we would get something far better than the obligatory WP:OCAT, but if I read WP:CAT correctly -- that categories help users navigate through Wikipedia via multiple taxonomies and are for defining characteristics that are specific, neutral and inclusive -- then this is exactly what categories are for. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I hadn't been aware of the DRV regarding a similar issue. I only saw an old deleted cat being recreated without any reason for re-creation of deleted content. :) Kolindigo (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/delete/upmerge per the following. The problem with this one is that it is a subcategory of Category:American figure skaters, which only has other subcategories for figure skating coaches and for olympic skaters. Many of the articles included in Category:African American figure skaters will therefore have no other category linking their profession to their nationality (contrast with Category:African American ice hockey players, whose entries are also categorized by nationality/profession through team position categories). So those articles could be categorized only by Category:African American figure skaters, which segregates those entries from American figure skaters generally, presenting some kind of message that their race defines the capacity in which they are figure skaters. Or they could be categorized by both Category:African American figure skaters and Category:American figure skaters, which is redundant, and as such will have the instability of editors adding and removing Category:American figure skaters. This all leads me to conclude that this particular category is overly narrow because it does not function within the category structure, and such information should instead be documented through a list. Postdlf (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through all of the articles to make sure they're all included in both categories -- and I added the following "invisible note" for editors: "Please leave in both of the following categories." Cgingold (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Please consider this as a "test case". Right now, the subcategories of Category:International border crossings mostly use the form "Fooian border crossings". To conform, this one would be Category:Montenegrin border crossings. I find the current usage of "fooian" kind of weird; Category:Border crossings of Montenegro would make more sense to me. They are all subcategories of the categories "Geography of Foo", not "Fooian geography". Subcategories of these categories that intersect two countries' borders use "Foo-Goo border crossings", not "Fooian-Gooian border crossings". So here I'm tentatively suggesting a rename to the "Border crossings of Foo" format for all of the subcategories of Category:International border crossings. If there is consensus here for that change, then I will nominate all of them after this nomination has closed. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:17, 16 December 2008 (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:People of mixed Asian-Black African-European ethnicity
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Holy cow—what a category! There's no doubt about this being a fairly pure example of a "triple intersection". These are not prohibited in an inherent way, but are generally discouraged because they are usually quite narrow. Right now Tiger Woods is the only article in the category; perhaps it was created especially for him? Good Ol’factory(talk)01:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, s/he left one out... perhaps it should be renamed to "People of mixed Asian-Black African-Native American-European ethnicity. (heh heh) Cgingold (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - holy cow, indeed. (Looks like being 'Americans of mixed Asian-Black African-European ethnicity' which is arguably a quadruple intersection. Also Asian-Black African-European doesn't parse elegantly.) Occuli (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2008 (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 was no opposition and the caps need fixing so renaming makes sense. As to the 'é', generally there has been support to avoid the use of these characters so it is reasonable to make this change, again, given the lack of opposition. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I tried once to get a consensus to spell "Monégasque" correctly in category names, but failed, so this category should conform to the diacritic-less spelling. The caps also needs fixed. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the previous discussion there was some mention of using that approach (using "of Monaco", mind you, since that's the name of the country). It's a good idea I think and perhaps an idea that someone could propose in a nomination. But then (ominous music), once this format was accepted for one country, we might run into trouble of how to decide that a country's adjective is weird enough to convert to the "Foo of ..." usage. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. We generally use "Dominican Republic" as the adjective for that country due to the super-ambiguity of "Dominican". Much precedent for this. (Just imagine—a volleyball club for Dominican friars and nuns!) Good Ol’factory(talk)00:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
