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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Extremely small, unlikely to grow. Seems a shout-out for one particular bank. Cybercobra (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this should be a subcat of the small Category:Ethical banks, which already contains the article. Occuli (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2009 (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:Ethnic enclaves in the United Kingdom[edit]
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. Maybe a rename? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Ethnic enclave" is a slippery concept and is too subjective to form the basis for a category. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something - 4 are in Category:Chinatowns in Europe already. Actually most of these are notable not so much for having large resident populations, but for being cultural & shopping centres to which people of a particular ethnicity come from further afield. Relatively few of the Chinese on the streets in Soho actually live there. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match other corresponding categories within the parent, for which we also don't have any trouble coming up with a definition. In addition to the various Chinatowns, most of these ethnic enclaves seem rather clear. Any issues with particular entries should be addressed at that level without disrupting a category that groups a clearly defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at ethnic enclave these all seem to match the definition in that very North-American centred article. But I think in the UK the term suggests a majority of the resident population, perhaps a high majority, which most of these don't have by a long stretch. I don't think these would often be so called in the UK, and we should not use US English for a UK category. Category:Ethnic commercial centres in the United Kingdom would be more accurate. Johnbod (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of a larger structure and because I do not agree with the argument of the nominator that this is "a slippery concept"[vague]. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The proposed category is unpopulated and less descriptive than the category it appears to duplicate. Alansohn (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "The title is misleading and not accurate. The order of genes on chromosomes can apply to any organism." ← Apparently renewed interest in this long-dormant proposal...procedural nom. DMacks (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Rename parent and children to append "(human)" The child categories appear to have parent articles such as Chromosome 1 (human). The logical parent article for the category under discussion is Human chromosome, which turns out to be a redirect to a section within the chromosome article. The children should be renamed, where appropriate, to match the parent articles which have "(human)" appended. The article under discussion here should have the same disambiguator to match the children. Alansohn (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with need for specification. Debresser (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. There is systematic bias in many biology articles and categories that implicitly assume humans are the only form of life. 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2009 (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:Metalsmiths and cleanup. Since most of what is in here is about metal, this means that the bots can do most of the work. No objection to Category:Smiths (trades), or is that Category:Smiths (trade), as a parent category and to hold what does not belong in the category as renamed. I did ask a question in the debate about how to deal with a few of the out of place articles, but I don't consider that as a disqualification from closing this debate. The fact that the main article was at metalsmith, was also a faction in the choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The new name broadens the category to include smiths and smithing related content (tools, techniques, etc.), which the category already includes. Wizard191 (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Metalsmiths which is clearer, and preserves it as a people category, as per all the parents. Or "Keep", but either way don't broaden. If a new parent Category:Metalsmithing is needed, which I doubt, that could be added above. But how would that be different from Category:Metalworking? The few articles like Slack tub should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: I've been meaning to change that modifier to (metalworking), because that's the common modifier used for the project, so if you want to follow precident the cat would be Category:Smiths (metalworking). Wizard191 (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some sort of rename would be useful, as my initial thought, on reading the first line of this, was that this would be about people with the name Smith ! thisisace (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to any appropriate name determined by consensus. The current name obviously doesn't work, since in addition to ThisIsAce's interpretation it could also be taken to mean Morrissey and Johnny Marr. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Smithing per nom; the problem with Smiths is that people try to include individuals with the last name "Smith" per ThisIsAce. "Metalsmithing" is substantially more specific than "Metalworking", Johnbod, as smithing refers directly to hitting with a hammer and related processes, whereas metalworking can include any number of other processes such as machining, casting, welding, etc. I do not see the need to preserve a people category, when a slightly broader category can provide users with a more comprehensive set of related articles. Bryancpark (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People categories are always grouped in their own parent in these cases, so that they can be included in people trees. For the sake of a very few articles your suggestion would mess this up. Several of the techniques you mention are practiced by goldsmiths etc, who come under this category. Johnbod (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to any new category name about the people only. Note that while "Metalsmithing" is more specific than "Metalworking" it is not more specific than "Smiths (metalwork)" Carlaude:Talk 03:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further - any of the more specific "people" names are ok with me. Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Metalsmiths to make it clearer. It could be a subcat of a Category:Metalsmithing, but still needs to exist as a cat for the people who do the job. Since "metalsmith" is a perfectly acceptable English word, I fail to see why we need some laboured construct such as "Smiths (metalwork)". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't see anything either, which doesn't mean it isn't there somewhere. I'll add a bit to WP:COP. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a redirect, and the article doesn't even mention the term. I guess it should go. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to moving it to Category:Metalsmiths, however if that move is make I think that the locksmith article and gunsmith category will have to go, because they aren't "metalsmiths". According to Merriam-Webster (the only online dictionary definition I could find for "metalsmith") a metalsmith is "a person skilled in metalworking". As such, I propose renaming it to something along the lines of Category:Smiths (profession). This is an all-inclusive naming that takes care of the outliers and keeps it a "persons" category. Wizard191 (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Locksmiths, gunsmiths, & for that matter clocksmiths clearly are "skilled in metalworking", or were in the periods when they were likely to be notable - I don't see the problem. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or more to Category:Smiths (trades). According to the strict definition of the term it is not a profession. Gunsmith and locksmith today are not metalsmiths, but they were originally: a gunsmith made guns and a locksmith made locks and keys, but since at least the 18th century most gunsmiths have merely assembeled guns from components that they bought. I do not see the point of excluding them, despite modern usage. I see no point in making a change to metalsmith: the collective nown for all of them is "smith". If the concern is confusion with those bearing the most common English surname, add a capnote to deal with the problem. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support to follow convention. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2009 (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.
This category is not a nationality and is fundamentally racist.[edit]
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. Beganlocal (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A debate on this just closed a couple of weeks ago. Please check other peoples noms for the correct format here. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categorization is based on articles sharing a defining characteristic, and we are not limited to nationality as a basis for such grouping. The previous CfD provided ample reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating that Jewish chess players are group on this defining characteristic in multiple books covering the topic, as well as in newspaper and magazine articles. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Johnbod and Alansohn and my comments in the previous very recent debate (which only closed on 28 June, as a no-consensus-keep). Occuli (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-established category along with many other similar categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:USELESS for what, according to WP Policy, are inappropriate arguments for keeps and deletes. Please bear in mind also that the purpose is for discussion - we are not voting, we are advocating. Beganlocal (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Johnbod, Alansohn, Occuli, Necrothesp, and my comments in the previous very recent debate (which closed as a no-consensus-keep).--Epeefleche (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Naah, I don't see a problem with this as long as the religion is properly sourced in the article. I think that the greater issue is not the categories but rather the overuse of religious/ethnic labeling, particularly in leads. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2009 (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.
This category is not an occupation and should be deleted. There is no need to categorise criminals by nationality or affinity.[edit]
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. Beganlocal (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that 'criminal' is not generally an occupation so the supercat should be removed from the occupation tree. Otherwise these noms seem connected in some pointy way to the retention/deletion of Jewish categories, a quite different matter. Occuli (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some people chose as their career some form of illegal activity - that seems to me to be 'occupation' in its broader sense. If these people live in America then the category Category:American criminals seems to be perfectly legitimate. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Twiceuponatime. I see no problem with it being an occuipation either. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the subcats. I contend that eg 'attempted murder' is not much of an occupation. Occuli (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A professional would do the job right, you think? Maybe so. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Occuli. I am hesitant to define a profession or occupation as merely what you do to make an income. If I steal to support myself I am not a professional thief and the property I steal cannot be considered my "earnings". I am against defining illegal acts as occupations. If I were an Iraqi and I decided to engage in acts of war against the American troops in a "professional" way - that is to say I do this full time and am involved with receiving funds and purchasing arms etc, does that make me a "soldier" and should I be categorised by occupation as a soldier? No.
Keep We have no obligation to categorize anything. We categorize defining characteristics, such as being a criminal, regardless of their status as occupations, nor does there appear to be anything wrong with including this in a structure by occupation. This is a defining characteristic properly grouped by nationality. Alansohn (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another good point. In my view people are approaching this from the wrong viewpoint. Sbsolutely everything on wikipedia should be subject to deletion if it cannot be shown that it belongs here. See "What Wikipedia is Not". We are not a travel guide or a telephone directory for example. The categories exist for various reasons, and each category ought to meet a minimum test in order to be worthy of inclusion. We do not see "Politicians with Brown Hair" as a category for a very good reason. Please see WP:USELESS. Beganlocal (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Statement of fact. Seems like the nominator is attempting to make some sort of point here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, as would adding the British Prime Minister to a category of "Politicians with Brown Hair". Do you think it belongs in Wikipedia? No. What does having brown hair have to do with how you conduct your politics? About as much as being British, Italian, Irish, or Jewish has to do with how you commit crime! Beganlocal (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No problem here at all. Re the last comment: the nominator is a new user and I've corresponded with him on our respective talk pages. I think he has a good faith issue with overuse of labeling.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2009 (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.
Intersection of British and Fraudster not a matter of encyclopaedic interest and is fundamentally racist.[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I have read Categorisation of People by Occupation and Categorisation of People by Ethnicity, Gender, Religion and Sexuality. Without opining on the general legitimacy of the Category:People by occupation, I would point out that this is not an occupation and could be considered racist. There is no need to categorise the British by crimes, especially the crime of fraud. Beganlocal (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what about a category "Jewish Fraudsters"? If British Fraudsters is permitted... My point is that categorising criminals by ethnicity or by nationality (or even religion, sexual orientation, etc), is likely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Please read WP:CATEGRS - note that "'Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic.". Given that criminal or fraudster is not an occupation, why can we not just have "category:fraudsters" and "category:criminals" and stop labelling people. The fact that a criminal is ethnically Jewish (or British, American, Turkish, etc) has no bearing whatsoever. Beganlocal (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. This is no more racist against Brits than Category:Canadian award winners is racist in favour of Canadians, even if you call 'Brit' and 'Canadian' races. Besides racism the only argument given is 'there's no need', which by itself is not very persuasive. I think, Beganlocal, you'd be better off starting some sort of centralised discussion about what things should and shouldn't be categorised by nationality than CfDing a load of individual ones like this. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, interesting point, but Canadian award winners are grouped because as people who are awarded for cultural contributions it is likely relevant to include them alongside other members of the same culture who have also made a contribution. That is very different from grouping criminals by race or nationality. What if I were to start categories about Criminals of Pakistani Heritage in England, or Jamacian Youth Crime? Inappropriate, yes? So why American Fraudsters, British Criminals, etc. Beganlocal (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These categories are generally not categorising by ethnicity, but by nationality, which is different. There's nothing racist in categorising anyone by their nationality - it's merely a statement of fact. Pretty much everybody on Wikipedia is categorised by their nationality, so nominating a handful of such categories (out of thousands) for deletion seems to be in contravention of WP:POINT. You would be better off discussing than CfDing. And is "criminal" not an occupation? What other occupation did John Dillinger or Al Capone, for example, have? It's how they made their living, ergo it was their occupation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. see comment above. Can we somehow group these four together for discussion?. The Jewish one needs to be dealt with separately. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Twiceuponatime. I see no problem with it being an occuipation either. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have no obligation to categorize anything. We categorize defining characteristics, such as being a criminal, regardless of their status as occupations, nor does there appear to be anything wrong with including this in a structure by occupation. This is a defining characteristic properly grouped by nationality. Alansohn (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not racist in any way. Statement of fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2009 (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.
Intersection of Scottish and Fraudster not a matter of encyclopaedic interest and is fundamentally racist.[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I have read Categorisation of People by Occupation and Categorisation of People by Ethnicity, Gender, Religion and Sexuality. Without opining on the general legitimacy of the Category:People by occupation, I would point out that this is not an occupation and could be considered racist. There is no need to categorise Scots by crime. I am not given to understand that the Scots are notable for fraud. Beganlocal (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Scottish people encompass those of disparate ethnicities, genders, Religions and orientations, so the nom is misguided. Occuli (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which case what is the point in grouping them for the purposes of criminal activity? You make my argument better than I can sir, I salute you! Beganlocal (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. see comment above. Can we somehow group these four together for discussion?. The Jewish one needs to be dealt with separately. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Twiceuponatime. I see no problem with it being an occuipation either. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have no obligation to categorize anything. We categorize defining characteristics, such as being a criminal, regardless of their status as occupations, nor does there appear to be anything wrong with including this in a structure by occupation. This is a defining characteristic properly grouped by nationality. Alansohn (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not racist in any way. Statement of fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No issue here. Nominator should avoid inflammatory titles in CfDs.("intersection of....")--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2009 (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.
Intersection of Italian and Fraudster not a matter of encyclopaedic interest and is fundamentally racist.[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I have read Categorisation of People by Occupation and Categorisation of People by Ethnicity, Gender, Religion and Sexuality. Without opining on the general legitimacy of the Category:People by occupation, I would point out that this is not an occupation and could be considered racist. There is no need to categorise Italians by crime. Beganlocal (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per my remarks in similar noms above. Occuli (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. see comment above. Can we somehow group these four together for discussion?. The Jewish one needs to be dealt with separately. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Twiceuponatime. I see no problem with it being an occuipation either. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have no obligation to categorize anything. We categorize defining characteristics, such as being a criminal, regardless of their status as occupations, nor does there appear to be anything wrong with including this in a structure by occupation. This is a defining characteristic properly grouped by nationality. Alansohn (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not racist in any way. Statement of fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I'd suggest snow-closing these CfDs.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I can't see the advantage of having this category, since all it does is categorizes the article BRIC as well as the four countries that make up BRIC: Brazil, Russia, India, and China. With nothing else to categorize, this category is doing nothing that BRIC doesn't already achieve by listing the countries there. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nominator. Comming years might see a Category:BRIC, but not now. Debresser (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete alliances such as these come and go and we cannot tie up each country's cat collection with each of them; all 4 articles are linked at BRIC. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom. unless this was an organization like NATO, with the potential of new memberships, which it is not. any new "members" would change the name of the org. so this category is fully covered in article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Duplicate categories; merge to standard naming format of Category:Political parties by country. (I thought at first there might be a distinction—one for parties in the GDR and one for contemporary parties that focus on "East German" issues in the reunited Germany—but no. They are all GDR parties.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge, clearly duplicates. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nomination. Debresser (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2009 (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 as nominated, noting that this seems to be the standard form of the subcategories of Category:United States case law by topic. A reformatting of these per Alansohn's suggestion could be proposed in a broader proposal. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:20, 27 July 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Per convention not to subcategorize politicians and rulers into "current" or "former" categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and convention. Occuli (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge please into Category:21st-century national presidents instead, since I have finished removing all the non-presidents from this category already. I created this category but had planned I getting rid of it for a while but had not gotten around to it yet. Carlaude:Talk 09:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now why would you do that, and where did you move them?? In general it is not accepted to start working on a category while it is still under discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved one into Category:21st-century rulers and the rest (about 6 or 7) into Category:21st-century prime ministers. I did this because I was already doing this before Olfactory nominated the category. It was also not going to empty the category or effect the "debate." As I said above, I also had planned on asking for category's deletion, once I was done with it. Carlaude:Talk 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should still not anticipate the outcome of the debate. Unlike an article edit, the rest of us cannot see what was there after contnets have been removed. Empyting a category is bad form and should result in discipliniary action. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of this, however I did not consider removing 15% of the articles akin to "empyting" a category. Carlaude:Talk 03:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scrach that-- Dimadick has done the moving we need already-- but please just delete the category, as these articles are still not needed in Category:21st-century rulers. Whatever you do, please close this CfD soon. Thanks. Carlaude:Talk 14:55, 22 July 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Expanding the abbreviation ECRG (which is actually incorrect, as it's ECR, but whatever) and replacing the hyphen with a dash. 'MEPs' could also be expanded, but I'm pretty sure that 'MEP' is actually used more often than 'Member of the European Parliament' in normal discourse, so it's probably unnecessary. Bastin 02:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
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:Departments and Government of Billings, Montana[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match other categories in parent. Alansohn (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom, to follow convention. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there are no other categories that use the construction "Civil rights cases". The suggested rename does not address the vagueness of "involving". Otto4711 (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Legal cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses per nominator (agree that "cases" is ambiguous while "legal cases" is unambiguous). 1. Not all the cases involve "civil rights" or "rights" per say; past (and likely future) matters have also related to process and equal application. What are "Jehovah's Witness rights"? They have no special legal rights, but rely upon courts to interpret existing civil rights, religious rights, free speech rights, assembly rights, employment rights, etc. 2. "Jehovah's Witnesses" is well-understood as the name of the religion; if the category specifically intended to refer to individuals who happened to be JWs the category would be Category:Legal cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses adherents or Category:Legal cases involving Jehovah's Witness individuals (both unlikely categories). --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with 2. In the UK at least, we can describe a person as being a Jehovah's Witness. thisisace (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, but that doesn't contradict the fact that "Jehovah's Witnesses" is also well-understood as the name of the religion. --AuthorityTam (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we need to exclude any cases involving the religion itself? What about class-action suits of many JW people-- do you want to exclude that also? Carlaude:Talk 04:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both the existing name and nominator's suggestion would allow this category to be applied to an article concerning any legal case where the JW faith of some participant(s) was notable, and rightly so. Of course, attaching this category implies that religion was fundamental to the legal case, but future editors can consider each application on a case-by-case basis. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination for sake of disambiguation. I prefer the nominator's proposal to the others. Debresser (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Legal cases involving the Jehovah's Witnesses with the "the" which doesn't mean that when a JW sues a Baptist after a traffic wreck goes the supreme court for some fine legal point of the motor vehicle code it gets categorized here as "involving" a JW. These are legal cases involving the JW religion, its teachings and how courts have to struggle through whether kids get blood transfusions and whether JW's must attend school or recite the pledge of allegiance... etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This option seems to exclude any cases that do not involving the religion (as a body) itself. One or two JWs are not "the" Jehovah's Witnesses, even if it is over JW ideas, like blood transfusion. Carlaude:Talk 05:06, 18 July 2009 (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.
