Category:Murdered Roman Catholic priests in Guatemala[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:Rename. They were murdered in Guatemala; how it's phrased now is a bit awkward—it sounds like they are "Murdered Roman Catholic priests" who are now in Guatemala, which of course would not make sense. If renamed, this would mirror Category:People murdered in Guatemala. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per User:Occuli's comment Mayumashu (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). Upmerge to parents is fine with me as well, for reasons given by Occuli. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:35, 14 May 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 both. — ξxplicit 01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Proposed name will probably be clearer to many Wiki users. Davshul (talk) 08:06, 14 May 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:delete. — ξxplicit 01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale:Delete. Extremely nonsensical, subjective and probably intended to be pejorative. Sir Richardson (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment how exactly is this pejorative: "A Europhile (or europhilia) is a person who is fond of, admires, or even loves European culture, society, history, food, etc" (from Europhile) even if wrongly applied? Hmains (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it plainly usually is used in that sense - see the articles. There was a hatnote referring to political Pro-Europeanism, which I have now included in the text. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too subjective - what a strange bunch are collected here! Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 15 May 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:Split?. The main page, Sainsbury is a dab page. The category introduction is a disambiguation statement. This is for anything somehow connected to the Sainsbury. It may be possible to split this into several categories that have new names. Failing that, Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename The articles included appear to be related to Sainsbury's (the supermarket) so should be renamed to Category:Sainsbury's to match that article. Although I am not sure that we need a category that is dealing with the wider aspects of the Sainsbury family. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either split to related categories for the Sainsbury family and Sainsbury's, the company they founded & still largely own, or delete, as those articles have all the linking necessary. More articles could be added to a family category, which currently doesn't have spouses like Shaun Woodward and Anya Linden; maybe just that one is needed. I'm neutral between those options, leaning to keeping, especially the family. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 15 May 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:keep. — ξxplicit 01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Oxymoronic, subjective and of dubious utility. [email protected] (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as one myself. Seriously, the description of the category as "oxymoronic" implies that one has to be god-fearing and religious to be culturally and ethnically Jewish, which I know not to be the case, and so must oppose on that basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. If being a Jew did necessitate believing in god, then every biographical article in Category:Jews would need a source attesting to their spiritual views, which obviously we do not insist on, nor should we. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Jewish converts to Atheism. Agree with the nominator that this is oxymoronic, that being a Jew requires practicing Judaism (or otherwise one is of Jewish descent). And disagree with those who say that one cannot convert to atheism (or agnosticism). Mayumashu (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mayumashu, once again I find myself disagreeing with you. Even if a Jew ceases to be a practising or believing Jew, that person is still a Jew (even putting aside your questionable general clain that people can "convert" to atheism). Your proposed rename implies, (although it does not state so specifically) that a Jewish atheist is no longer a Jew, and that all Jewish atheist were at one time believing Jews, neither of which are correct. Davshul (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is debatable, and certainly some if not many share you view, it seems, that there 'Jewish atheism' exists/can exist. But I think to do so is to misunderstand what 'ethnicity' denotes, fundamentally. Ethnicity is sharing a common identity and when that identity is significantly, likely most significantly, based on belonging to a religion and one does not follow that religion, it is precarious to say that one who of is of that ethnicity. If both of your parents are Jewish and you are atheist or of another set of spirtual beliefs of practice(s), then I am less inclined to disagree with you, as Jews do share other aspects of common identity besides belief in Judaism, so of course one can argue as you do. Essentially ethnicity has degrees of - lines are necessarily drawn with categorising in boxes, artificially often. As for my suggested rename, I d favour, of course, making sure that atheists listing here did indeed convert - we don t need to cat those of Jewish descent or are also atheist who have not converted. Mayumashu (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the basis that there is a vibrant secular Jewish culture that is separate from actual belief in a deity. Also oppose the renaming suggestion as there is no formal process in becoming a non-believer, and conversion implies a switch from one belief to another.McMuff (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Who is a Jew? hints that there's no real-life consensus. Wikipedia should not represent just one point of view when we know that is contested in RL. East of Borschov (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose - nomination seems subjective, arguements made appear clear. Not sure that renaming would help.195.137.63.170 (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per East of Borschov and Davshul. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 09:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why aren't there categories such as Catholic atheists, Protestant atheists, Muslim atheists, etc. [email protected] (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Holy smokes, I didn't see that. I've added it as a catmore1 to the category page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 16 May 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. — ξxplicit 01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match the lead article and the name of the company. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. Makes sense. -- Ϫ 03:29, 20 May 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. — ξxplicit 01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename to match the main article and the name of the company. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Proposed name is considerably clearer. Mangoe (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's considerably clearer, since Kraft makes food, and the new name implies it contains only food products, were you to not know Wikipedia's policies on capitalization. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:27, 14 May 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:Aviation accidents and incidents in Australia by year[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: The low number of pages being categorised, and the patchy coverage in terms of years, makes categorising Australian aviation incidents by year in this way, redundant. The only other category apparently doing this appears to be the USA, although that at least involves multiple pages and consistent years. MickMacNee (talk) 17:35, 13 May 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:Former Native American settlements in the United States[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 01:23, 21 May 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:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories[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 all. — ξxplicit 01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I looked at some of the previous discussion in the nominator's links, and I agree with the consensus there. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:36, 13 May 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'm not so sure in this situation.. look at the other articles in the category, we have Wrigley Building, Wrigley Field, Wrigley Square, Wrigley Family.. maybe a simple 2-word category name that follows this consistent pattern would be better.. Also I'm kinda iffy about punctuation in Category names for some reason.. -- Ϫ 03:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are named after the company and as a general rule match the name of the company unless that name is ambiguous. Clearly in this case the name is not ambiguous. Categories gather articles about the name of the category, in this case the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company. If we were to follow your suggestion, then a category like Category:Sports in the Las Vegas metropolitan area would be renamed to Category:Sports in Las Vegas. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 20 May 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. — ξxplicit 01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, per article name. Occuli (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, categories should preferably match article names. jonkerz♠ 14:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. My first thought was of chess players. Disambiguation is all.--195.137.63.170 (talk) 08:39, 14 May 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. — ξxplicit 01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The main article is Bree BBC, Euphony Bree is just a sponsorship name. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, per article name. Occuli (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and the other similar renames. jonkerz♠ 14:51, 13 May 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. — ξxplicit 01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, per article name. Occuli (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and the other similar renames. jonkerz♠ 14:51, 13 May 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. — ξxplicit 01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The main article is Skyliners Frankfurt. The club also doesn't have any other departments, so the additional "basketball" in the category's name is not necessary. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, per article name. Occuli (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and the other similar renames. jonkerz♠ 14:51, 13 May 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 all. — ξxplicit 01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this nomination includes only thise countries where the parent national category has already been renamed. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:00, 13 May 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:Keep -FASTILY(TALK) 06:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete: This user, Mimzy1990 (talk+·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log) ·investigate·cuwiki), (who was later blocked as a possible sockpuppet of a user making disruptive edits) created a number of categories last year related to slang. Most of them contain very few articles, and the articles that are in them appear to have been tagged in a pejorative way. It may also be rather difficult to reliably verify that any given article is about "slang". (I originally came across these categories because Y'all was tagged with a number of them.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep al the ones that are Words Coined in X... As for the others, I'm not so sure. I guess there's a bit of WP:OR in them. Lugnuts (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Regarding language development the categories by decade are useful in an encyclopedic way. As for the others I see no reason to delete them; given time they will be populated with more articles. jonkerz♠ 15:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a spot-check on a couple of the "Words coined in X" categories, and they appear to have under 5 articles each (usually more like one to three), and most of those articles are themselves of dubious quality, relevance, or notability. These categories were created a year ago. How much time should they be given before they are actually populated with useful content? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that the categories in connection to the early 20th century not are densely populated, it's hard to say the same for the later decades. Copy-paste for reference:
Words coined in the 1920s (1 P)
Words coined in the 1950s (2 P)
Words coined in the 1960s (7 P)
Words coined in the 1970s (4 P)
Words coined in the 1980s (21 P)
Words coined in the 1990s (39 P)
Words coined in the 2000s (53 P)
When categorizing articles by decade there will always be a difference in population density. If the later ones are kept, I would argue for keeping the early ones too, for consistency. Of course this doesn't matter if you think the categories should be deleted for any other reason, which brings us back to square one. Lack of notability and verifiability are two other reasons you mentioned, but that is an issue for individual words, not whole categories. jonkerz♠ 20:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that I think about it, don't these categories violate WP:DICT? I mean, if they were used as it seems they are intended, nearly every article on Wikipedia would be in one of them, and it doesn't seem to me to add any useful information—and date of coinage is an etymology thing, better suited for a dictionary. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 16:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm not as certain any longer. Sorry to be a stickler ;), but shouldn't the WP:DICT be interpreted as: pure definitions of jargon/slang should go at Wiktionary, but whenever a word's article is encyclopedic, it's ok. That is, articles belonging to Wikipedia should also be categorized as any other article? As said, I'm not 100% certain I agree with myself, and feel that this discussion needs more input from other editors. jonkerz♠ 14:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see how these would be of encyclopedic value to readers. Also, that's quite a large amount of categories to be deleting, and I don't think deleting something only because a blocked user created it is a very strong rationale in this case. Neither is them being sparsely populated a rationale for deletion.. as that's what the {{popcat}} template is for. I think we should tag a few of these and give them a bit more time. I also strongly suggest that these categories be nominated individually. nevermind -- Ϫ 03:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or Delete. Yea, I know that I am going against the trend here but I think this set of categories is problematic. How are we sourcing that a word, phrase or initialism becomes slang? How about when it nolonger is sang? Did LOL become slang in the 1990s or was it the 1980s,or in the 1970's on pagers? If a term like that lasts for 90 years in usage, do we then have it in 9 categories? Is 'ain't' slang and when did it appear? For most of these terms we will be over classifying the articles to meet the demands of this tree. Also these categories are yet to be populated since many more terms are in common use. So many that it may in fact make navigation by subcategory useless. Where are BDSM and gringo in this tree? Is there objective criteria for determining slang? Is there objective criteria for separating out slang from jargon? Bottom line is that there may well be too many problems to have these as categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 20 May 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_23#Category:Sainsbury. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)