Category:Resistance fighters killed by Nazi Germany[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, with no prejudice against a future deletion discussion. Courcelles 03:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: . "Resistance Fighters" could be interpreted as a loaded term. Either rename, or delete it entirely as an example of overcategorization. Gilliam (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think we should be sorting people by what army killed them.--TM 05:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there a clear understanding - who were "Resistance members"? Does a commando operating behind enemy lines qualify? East of Borschov 08:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "resistance fighters" is only a loaded term to those who seek to be excessively politically correct. A member of the French Resistence in WWII, arrested by the Gestapo and subsequently executed would fit the case precisely. There were also resistence movements in Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway, etc, most of whom will have had fighers killed either in battle or by execution. This propvides ample scope for subcategories. I would suggest that regular special forces, such as the Chindits or SAS or Long Range Desert Group do not fall into this category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom to match its category parents and siblings. And yes, killed in one way or another, not all executed. Hmains (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2010 (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, same condition as the above discussion. Courcelles 03:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Improve grammar. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom Correct English is correct WP Hmains (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. As the main article suggests, "any number" of insects might serve as beneficial to agriculture, as ecosystems are vastly complex and interlinked. Obvious cases such as bees are already appropriately categorized under Category:Pollinators. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2010 (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. Courcelles 03:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To start this off, Essex (disambiguation) makes this totally ambiguous. One could argue that being used as the name of the second largest county in the state of New Jersey, says that any use is not going to be any primary use. So rename and allow Category:Essex to become a disambiguation category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – neither of the renames will do as they suggest that Essex can be called 'County Essex' or 'Essex County'. 'Essex (English county)' might do, or 'UK county' per Georgia (U.S. state); or something more verbose. There is of course the counter-argument that the UK Essex predates the other upstarts by a couple of millennia (and is well-known, unlike Pickering, Cromer etc below). Occuli (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Predating does not confer primary usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Essex (originally the kingdom of the East Saxons) IS the original and hence primary usage. The dabpage cited says "Essex is the name of a county in England, named after the ancient Kingdom of Essex. A number of places and things have been named after it." The main article IS simply Essex, and starts with an "otheruses" dablink. This clearly indicates the primary usage. Georgia is a bad analogy, because Georgia (country) is probably the primary usage, but no necessarily the commonest among English speakers. In England, we never refer to County Essex or Essex County. Some English counties have the suffix -shire; others (including Essex) do not. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Totally agree with Peter. Also note that one of the articles (under a subcat) is Kingdom of Essex, with around 300 years of its own history. AllyD (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that's a very good reason not to use Essex, since there was a Kingdom by that name (which shouldn't be a subcategory anyways) 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter which usage came first; if a name is ambiguous it's ambiguous no matter who had it first or last or 52nd or 14th. Bearcat (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, ambiguous category names are a bad idea, and the Essex class carrier is a very likely meaning of this term to a WWII-buff, ship-fan or an American. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even an American WWII-buff and ship-fan would know that the name originally derived from an area in England. Cjc13 (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Essex the English county is the clear primary topic and this is reflected in the article title. Other uses of the word "Essex" generally contain a modifier when commonly used such as "Essex County" or "Essex-class". This is not the case with the English county which is universally "Essex". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2010 (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:Persons convicted of Holocaust denial offenses[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 as nominated. If anyone wants to discuss offence, they may do so at a new discussion without causing offense. Courcelles 03:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The US English spelling is perfectly alright, given that there is no category tree using the UK variant. Cgingold (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (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. Courcelles 03:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Current name is ambiguous. Not sure if the proposed name is correct based on the guidelines so feel free to correct it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Cromer is a well-known coastal town, while Cromer, Hertfordshire is a small and little-known hamlet. Cromer, Manitoba is a village and Cromer, New South Wales is a suburb of Sydney. Thus it seems reasonable for Cromer in Norfolk to be primary usage and there are no other people from Cromer categories. I have adjusted Cromer (disambiguation) to reflect the primary usage. Cjc13 (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A search of "Cromer" in google.com illustates the primary usage. Cjc13 (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2010 (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.
I'll agree that in this particular case, after doing a quick spin through the article's "What links here" list it doesn't look like there are many (or even really any at all) articles that can be added to this besides the head article itself, and so it probably should be merged. That said, I do want to stress that there isn't a population cutoff on whether a community qualifies for a dedicated category or not; a place with a population of 1,423 can have an eponymous category if we have enough related articles to warrant one. We just don't have that in this particular case. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2010 (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.
I'll agree that in this particular case, after doing a quick spin through the article's "What links here" list it doesn't look like there are many (or even really any at all) articles that can be added to this besides the head article itself, and so it probably should be merged. That said, I do want to stress that there isn't a population cutoff on whether a community qualifies for a dedicated category or not; a place with a population of 1,423 can have an eponymous category if we have enough related articles to warrant one. We just don't have that in this particular case. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2010 (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.
Category:College sports teams in the United States by college[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. Courcelles 03:03, 9 August 2010 (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 including subcategories. If categories of naturalised flora were created for all countries/regions it would make a mess of the category entries on some pages since some plants have naturalised in 100s of countries. The category is best served by a list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful and interesting category. I realise there is a trade-off between keeping useful categories and cluttering up the bottom of articles, but I don't see why it is always "thou shalt not clutter up the bottom of articles" that has to win out. Hesperian 10:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are one of the methods for readers to navigate around WP. If there are too many categories it makes it difficult to find the one of interest. Naturalised biota is best served by lists, which can then be annotated. (Here in NZ there are thousands of naturalised species, and increasing all the time.) If we added all the categories for all the countries where the House Sparrow and the Brown rat were naturalised there would be well over 100 categories added to the articles. Admittedly these two examples are the very extreme but it does raise the question of carrying out such a categorisation method. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator's conditional rationale is not a reason to delete. And just like flora and fauna that have large natural ranges, naturalized flora and fauna could utilize broader categories, e.g. Category:Flora naturalized in North America if the range is widespread enough. This is already what we do with ubiquitous species in their natural range, e.g. Category:Flora of Southern Africa. Rkitko(talk) 12:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per lengthy previous debate, which nominator should have linked to (and read as he apparently has not yet done so). The category already contains at least 2 lists. I repeat my previous caveat that the category should exclude species already in Category:Cosmopolitan species like Dog and Cat, as it seems to be doing; indeed all the fauna articles are very specifically Australian. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very useful category. A plant's naturalization in a region is extremely notable, and easily justifies using the category approach. First Light (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not believe a valid reason has been presented in support of deletion of this category. The category serves a useful function, is a natural and obvious grouping and even if such categories cause a long list of categories on a particular species page (eg cat) that is not a valid reason for the category not to exist. Are we trying to pretend that animals like feral cats are not a problem in Australia? Should we not categorise species because a few happen to be members of many categories? What a stupid idea. - Nick Thornetalk 00:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major environmental issue in Australia that requires both lists and categories for satisfactory navigation. Melburnian (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but such categories should only exist for Australia, New Zealand and a few other biologically isolated regions. I would suggest that it should not apply to domesticated animals or agricultural crops, unless feral speciments are a significant problem (e.g. camels and rabbits in Australia). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per remarks of Johnbod & Peterkingiron. Cgingold (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2010 (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. This the only category of its type for the US and as far as I can tell one of only two for the world. If categories of naturalised flora were created for all countries/regions it would make a mess of the categories on some pages since some plants have naturalised in 100s of countries. The category is best served by a list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See above. A conditional rationale is not a reason to delete. Broader categories are used when species are widespread and could be implemented for naturalized flora and fauna, eliminating the perceived problem of potential category clutter. Rkitko(talk) 12:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Alabama is not biologically isolated, so that categories such as this WILL mess up articles. Contrast my vote in the opposite direction on Australia (above). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per Peterkingiron. This sort of thing does need to be nipped in the bud. (I would note that, like Peterkingiron, I gave my support to the Australian category, above.) Cgingold (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I understand the two above delete !votes. Your argument is still conditional: if there are too many categories like this and if they are used improperly (e.g. a single article is put into all lower 48 state categories instead of a broader category like Category:Naturalized flora of the United States, then there will be category clutter (a sin!), which is reason to delete this category now! I don't buy the "biologically isolated" argument - so what? Naturalization of flora and fauna start somewhere and tend to spread. For example, kudzu would likely be in several state categories, or it could more broadly be categorized in Category:Naturalized flora of the Southeastern United States. But just like natural flora and fauna, distributions overlap state boundaries and are typically regional. Regions are usually ill-defined, though, and naturalizations are often described in terms of political boundaries. This is the reason we have the category hierarchy seen with Category:Flora of Alabama. If you have no problem with that category, you should have no problem with this one. Rkitko(talk) 23:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I disagree that it's category clutter and like I said, this can be alleviated by using larger-range categories for such species that merit it or that fit that region. I dislike region categories in general because they are ill-defined and not every species fits it exactly, which is why I think state categories like this are necessary since this is how flora are always defined. And we at WP:PLANTS definitely noticed the fauna category discussion and were very relieved to see no one notice the flora categories. We're all in agreement that they're useful, necessary, and not a problem. I don't think you can extend the arguments at that fauna category discussion to flora (and I would argue for bringing the fauna ones back). Rkitko(talk) 22:04, 7 August 2010 (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:Hybrid electric vehicle manufacturers[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:Merge. I'm not convinced that we need this extra level of navigation given that this is a quadruple intersection. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (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:do not rename. The result for some of the specific categories nominated below might be better classified as a "no consensus", since not everyone's opposition applied to all the categories. If any of those below are renominated, I suggest having a separate CFD for each individual category to avoid the problem of a user favouring one change but opposing another.Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is straightforward - follow the naming of the corresponding article for the place (apart from a very few exceptions). Heywood - change, Cromer - fine, Doncaster - fine, Epping - fine, Hexham - fine, Newstead - change, Maidstone - fine. If there is a real problem with people being put in the wrong Doncaster (as was happening with Birmingham) then the category has to be disambiguated even if the article is not. Eg Category:People from Tamworth (article Tamworth) should be disambiguated so that Australians are not put in it erroneously (there is at least one, a field hockey player). Occuli (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Unneccesary disambiguation in the current category name. The article needs moving to reflect WP:AT and to conform with the category. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. as others. Crusoe8181 (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Grafton is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all such above nominations. "People from [City], [State]" is a good convention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeall above nominations. That some ambiguous categories remain unfixed is a terrible rationale to break more of them. "People from City, State" is an excellent, unambiguous convention toward which all of these categories are moving. - Dravecky (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all where the place name does not match the category name – "People from City, State" is indeed an excellent, unambiguous convention and it is the ones which are not of this form which should be changed. (I have no objection myself to non-ambiguous place names being changed, followed after a decent pause for objections, by the category being name being changed.) Occuli (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. A country which has unambiguous states such as the U.S. or Australia should have all cities as "City, State".--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all these names are ambiguous, with many of them having much more prominent (or Primary) non-Australian usages. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose most -- Most of these places take their name from a place in England or Irleand. If the convention of keeping the state is not maintained, the category will collect the residents of the places in Englsand or Ireland from which they took their names. Mount Isa and Queanbeyan may be exceptions, as I suspect there may be no other (but I have not checked). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The convention for place article names should be stuck to for the sake of consistency. In the category system, consistency is even more important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course aware that the "convention for place article names" does not extend any further than the US, Canada and (for now) Australia and not even universally in them. The rest of the world, including the UK, India, etc. etc. cope just fine without it. The "convention" is also against the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia:Article titles, which is Wikipedia policy. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The onus then is on interested editors first to thrash out the place names one by one in article space, and then bring them to cfd, as happened with Canada. A great advantage of the 'city, state' format is that there is no need for individual scrutiny of thousands of names; and also that 'XXX, New South Wales' assists those who have never heard of XXX but have heard of NSW. Occuli (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How the world copes is not the issue here. It is giving up ambiguity and realizing the the first is not the same as primary use. Secondly disambiguations do occur for localities outside of the US, Canada and Australia. Clarity in place names is not wrong. It is a very nice feature. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2010 (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.
