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:People murdered by Westies (criminal organization). Consensus is that the current name is not the best. While there was a discussion about deleting, I did not see a consensus for deletion. Since the parent category is not nominated, it can not be renamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, though I feel a case could be made for renaming the article (see Westie). My initial thought was that these people had been murdered by West Aucklanders (who are known as Westies). Grutness...wha? 22:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article The Westies uses 'the Westies' almost throughout. Occuli (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed two of them, and now that is all cases (except for where it is used as the proper name of a book). Debresser (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move the article instead. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done - but to the wrong title! I doubt you'll find that this crime syndicate is the main use of the term "Westies". I'd have moved the article (and analogously moved the category) to Westies (crime association). If ghits are anything to go by, "Westies" primarily means West Highland white terriers. For US-only ghits, the terriers account for 17 of the top 20 hits - compared with only one for the crime family and (surprisingly) two for people from West Auckland. Even searching for "Westies + Manhattan" turns up sites for the dogs before ones for the crime organization! I'd like to propose rename to Category:People murdered by the Westies (crime association), with equivalent rename of the article. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 5 November 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. — ξxplicit 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As there is more than one musically-oriented person named Tony Martin, renaming to match the parent article Tony Martin (songwriter) should be in order. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 4 November 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. — ξxplicit 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per prior consensus of similar "Foo-associated bands" categories that were previously deleted (example 1 and example 2). Also see similar discussion on this page for Black Flag related bands. Lugnuts (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per arguments made in all the others. We can't set up band family trees using categories. (Ultimately, they would probably all be connected to each other through the six-degrees of separation "rule" anyway.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:57, 4 November 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. — ξxplicit 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. TO coincide with parent category, Category:Indie pop groups, and its other child categories. Wolfer68 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match standard of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 22:24, 3 November 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:People of the Polish–Teutonic War 1519–1521[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:Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merging. Differing between the opponents (my side, your side) is a most curious category, not to be found again under Category:16th-century people by conflict. What if people switched sides? What if their stance was ambiguous? What if they played an active part in the conflict (by mediating for instance), but remained neutral? What if Polish and German are altogether unhistorical categories in a pre-national age? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging Neither category was tagged - done now. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, though couldn't there be a category and then a sub-category?radek (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? One would just move the problem to a lower category level. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:47, 3 November 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:No consensus. There may be consensus for some type of a split, but that can be done without coming to CfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Wrocław is an anachronistic, unhistorical name for the time period before 1945. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)# General guidelines (point 3) which makes it clear that "Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400". Calling Breslau and by extension people from Breslau before 1945 as "People from Wrocław" is just as unhistorical as calling ancient Greek people of Byzantium citizens of Istanbul before 1453.
Tagging category was not tagged - done now. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cited naming convention applies to a city with distinctive historical periods thousands of years apart, and is not really analogous to Wroclaw/Breslau. Where cities have been renamed in modern times, the current name tends to be used: People from Edo are listed in Category:People from Tokyo, people from Danzig in Category:People from Gdańsk, Aix-la-Chapelle in Category:People from Aachen, Petrograd & Leningrad/St. Petersburg, Saigon/Ho Chi Minh City, New Amsterdam/New York City, Sverdlovsk/Yekaterinburg, etc. etc.- choster 07:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of years ago? There is a distinct Category:Historical people of Istanbul, even though Constantinople was officially renamed to Istanbul as late as 1930. The other examples of yours are a bit misleading: Aachen was never locally called Aix-la-Chapelle, and the other name changes such as Edo to Tokyo were not accompanied by a complete rupture of the city's history as was the case with Danzig (Gdańsk) and Breslau (Wrocław). Last time I checked we did not subsume Aztec emperors under People of Mexico City, either. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)# General guidelines (point 3) remains just as valid for categories. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Silesia was a duchy of medieval Poland, but came under German dominion for many centuries until the Polish state was shifted westwards in 1945. Wroclaw and Breslau are in fact cognate Polish and German versions of the same name. I suspect that there was a substantial German population before 1945, who became Displaced Persons at the end of the war. I would suggest that we Keep both but define them by means of a head note as being for people after and before 1945 respectively. On the other hand, for alumni categories, graduates of a merged college are treated as graduates of its successor. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This proposal makes sense of course, but it would create also a dangerous precedent. ALL cities and towns in Central and Eastern Europe changed frequently their names, as they were falling under administration of different states. The logic presented in the nomination would mean splitting all of them, thus creating complete chaos. And I don't even talk about towns in borderlands, which were "transfered" from one state to another as much as five times during last 150 years. - Darwinek (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with choster and Darwinek. We don't really need a Category:People from Danzig (although eventually it would be nice to have some sort of smart category system which would recognize the right name to use in category, per usage in the main article). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose division of categories based on name changes (with the possible exception of differentiating ancient cities from modern). A city, with a continous history, is one city in spite of name changes. --Soman (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Continuous history" does not apply to the history of Breslau/Wroclaw, which suffered a major change in 1945. -- Matthead Discuß 13:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Split The city was almost 100% German Breslau until 1945, and following the expulsions of Germans in 1945, the destroyed and emptied city became Wroclaw in the Stalinist Polish People's Republic. A very "distinctive historical period" ended in 1945, there is no continuation. Yet, the Category:People from Wrocław currently contains well over 90% Germans born there before 1946. They should be assigned to Category:People from Breslau accordingly, as listing them under Wroclaw is ahistoric, just like calling Hannibal a Tunisian. It is odd that Poles, who took possession of the town and land, renamed it and expelled the Germans, still try to usurp the city's pre-1945 German history and its famous persons anyway. -- Matthead Discuß 13:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Soman. Splitting of this kind should affect only ancient/modern type of historical cleavage. - Darwinek (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose the city is known as Wrocław, it had other names in the past but so had most other cities anyway. If we start to create categories for different names of cities the situation will be chaotic very soon. Loosmark (talk) 10:42, 10 November 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. — ξxplicit 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Very nice. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 4 November 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.
Rename. For clarity. — ξxplicit 22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 4 November 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per main article/category —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:56, 4 November 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. — ξxplicit 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is an inappropriate categorization first—because it's meaning is somewhat vague. Secondly, it's categorizing bands by one (sometimes two) participants' previous participation in another band. It would quickly become a real headache to try to establish such "band family trees" in categories, and almost invariably the article about the bands in question will mention that one its members, so-and-so, was previously a member of Black Flag, etc., so there's really no need for such a category to link the two topics together. See where similar "Foo-associated bands" categories were deleted here and here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Also, I knew I'd seen a similar category, as as much as it pains me to do so, I've listed it for CfD on this page. Lugnuts (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Templatise. Surely Black Flag's a big enough band to have a navbox, which this could all be included in. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 3 November 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:Religious organisations in Singapore[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. — ξxplicit 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Singapore, like most other Commonwealth countries, uses British English officially. If other Commonwealth countries have their categories named using American spelling, then they too should be renamed.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename based on amended rename proposal.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Nominator is requesting addition of based to match the category naming scheme not that organisations be altered to organizations. Strike comment as I didn't realise nominator had modified proposal. Rename per nom. This could be a #4 speedy. Tassedethe (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per criterion #4. Debresser (talk) 14:56, 4 November 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. — ξxplicit 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename That was a bad reason for a rename. Such organisations can be in a separate category. There definitely should be a category called "Religious organisations" on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename and the non-religious organizations that are nonetheless about religion, like academic groups that are now in this category I feel would be better placed in a category called something like Category:Religious studies organizations. --Devin Murphy (talk) 21:18, 7 November 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:Unitarian Universalists by nationality[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.
Makes sense, unless someone knows of a bunch of articles that should be populating the Belgian/British/Canadian subcats, delete them. We definitely should keep the American UU cat. LadyofShalott 07:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Unitarian Universalists. "by nationality" is an unnecessary level of categorisation. The subcategories will do very well in its parent. I do not think this is a large religious body, so that it probably never will expand much. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Peterkingiron. --Devin Murphy (talk) 20:57, 7 November 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 all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The official name of the university includes an accent, but every secondary source omits it, indicating that the most common name is unaccented, San Jose State University. The article and subarticles have been moved a week after an announcement on the talk page. (Most links were to the unaccented name). This finishes the job. Will Bebacktalk 02:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sub categories have not been tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I've tagged them and added some sub-subcategories that I missed before. Will Bebacktalk 19:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 4 November 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:Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Basically, the individual is going through Wikipedia creating ever smaller sub-categories and this one is certainly not needed. There are three colleges in Delaware with football stadiums, one doesn't have a page, one is a stub, and there's no need for a sub-category for a single stadium. If you go to the users page who created this, there are numerous useless categories and several times he has had them nominated for deletion. Superman7515 (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Superman, you should probably focus more on the content that the user who created as Eureaka points out it is part of a larger scheme.--Levineps (talk) 20:01, 4 November 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:Delaware Fighting Blue Hens football culture and lore[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:Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. See above.Superman7515 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 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:Delaware State Hornets football culture and lore[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:Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. See above. Superman7515 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 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:Delaware Fighting Blue Hens basketball venues[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:Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There's only one basketball venue. There is no need for a sub-category that only lists 1 structure in the entire universe. Superman7515 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 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.
Done. Debresser (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
