Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 23 August 25 >

August 24[edit]

Category:Youth empowerment individuals[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Individuals" is not a standard term for people categories. This was proposed as a speedy rename, but opposed by Armbrust who suggests "activists" instead of people, noting that the category is a subcategory of Category:Youth activists. That logic might make sense, except for the fact that only some of the people articles in the category are about activists. Most are about people whose work is in some way related to youth empowerment or youth rights. Orlady (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In that case the first category shouldn't be in Category:Youth activists and the second shouldn't be in Category:Activists by issue. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it. Categorizing living people by their opinions can be problematic and it's not obvious to me that all of the people in these categories are properly characterized as "advocates" for youth empowerment or rights. Examples: Bill Ayers seems to be in one of the categories because of his research and teaching; he was an activist when he was young, but his activism was not related to youth empowerment. Steve Culbertson and Robert L. Gordon III do work in the nonprofit sector that promotes the interests of children and youth (supporting the cause of youth empowerment), but it's not clear from the articles that they should be characterized as "advocates" for youth empowerment. --Orlady (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled as to why you invoke the issue of "opinions". How does that come into this at all? Cgingold (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it either. I originally used "Individuals" per informal convention, and now that's switched to "people", and I support that. "Advocates" is a subjective judgment title, not an objective position.• Freechildtalk 14:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. I am genuinely mystified as to what either of you construe "advocate" to mean. Perhaps you have a much narrower view of the term than I do. If you support or promote the rights or interests of youth, you are most assuredly an "advocate" of or for those things. In all sincerity, if these people are not in one way or another "advocates" for youth empowerment or rights, then what on earth are they doing in these categories in the first place? Cgingold (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the word "advocacy" to indicate active support for advancement of a goal or viewpoint. In this case, the indicated goal/viewpoint is "empowerment of youth" or "youth rights". Regarding the examples I gave, people who have conducted research that other people use in advocacy or who have run charities that support the interests of youth should not necessarily be characterized as "advocates" for youth empowerment or youth rights. --Orlady (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're an "advocate" of/for youth rights or empowerment, it simply means that you embrace and support those issues/causes. I rather suspect that the individuals we're talking about would be surprised at your reluctance to consider them "advocates" for youth. On the other hand, if their connection to these issues is as nebulous or tenuous as you seem to be suggesting, then really and truly, they probably do not belong in these categories in any event. That's not merely rhetorical -- I'm quite serious. Cgingold (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my dictionary the verb "to advocate" involves some activity on behalf of the cause (consistent with the Latin derivation, which means "speak for"). However, even your narrower interpretation does not necessarily apply to some of these people, as not all of the articles give any indication that they actually "embrace and support" youth empowerment or youth rights. --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Actually, Orlady, I'd say I am using a slightly *broader* meaning of the word that doesn't necessarily imply that people are literally "speaking out" in public on behalf of something, but simply that they are working to promote whatever cause or issue it may be. So we are left with the question, "If a person is not, in fact, working to promote youth empowerment or youth rights, then why is he/she included in one of these categories?" Cgingold (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a person conducts research and publishes findings that are later used for advocacy purposes, that person isn't an advocate. However, you are asking a larger question about whether such a person's involvement with "youth empowerment" or "youth rights" is defining for that person. That's a separate discussion to have with User:Freechild, who I believe is the Wikipedia contributor most closely associated with youth empowerment, and other users knowledgeable about that topic. --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be glad to have that conversation, Cgingold, on the category's talk page or another location. In the meantime, I stand with my assertion that "advocate" is a subjective title rather than an objective fact. Additionally, I believe it largely depends on how RS refer to these individuals, no matter what the topic is. We can't arbitrarily designate people with titles according to our own whims. And while I know its not policy to bring it up, other topic areas refer to "activists" not "advocates" as well. • Freechildtalk 14:47, 29 August 2013 (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:Democides[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Democides. Democide is essentially a term developed fairly recently by one person. The article focuses on that person's ideas and in no way suggests it is a broadly accepted term. We should not have categories that essentially serve as means to advance a very specific world-view and theories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Nomination is based on false information. This can be quickly detected by looking at Democide where it is clear that the term was first used by T. Able in 1951. It was popularized by a later writer. In any case, someone has to first create/use a term. This one has been in use since 1951; a 50-year old term is not 'new'. See Google for current uses and definitions of the term. Hmains (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've read both the article and large chunks of the talk page, and as I said in the related CFD, I am very concerned about adopting this term for a Wiki Category because the views of its principal promoter are extremely controversial. What's not at all clear to me is how widely -- if at all -- the term is used other than by R. J. Rummel and his supporters. If there is strong evidence that it has gained reasonably wide acceptance among social scientists and historians, then it would probably be acceptable for a category. Cgingold (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator is wrong on a detail, but only a minor one, because the term seems not to have caught on after Able's use.
    I think that it would be wrong to get diverted into the merits or otherwise of Rummel's own work. The quality of his scholarly efforts is not directly relevant the suitability of this word as a category title.
    It seems to me that there are the relevant tests here, all of which should be met if we want to keep the category: a) is the term in broad use, b) does have a stable and objective meaning, c) does it make a viable category which assists in navigation without being arbitrary, trivial etc.
    On the evidence I see so far, this one fails at the first hurdle. AFAICS, it has gained currency only in a circle around Rummel; Merriam-Webster lists it under new words and slang. So it fails at the first hurdle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My nomination does not say Rummel at all, so if people take it to mean Rummel this shows just how much Rummel is the inventor as it is currently sued, especially since Rummel claims to have invented it, not to be following an earlier usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ill-defined term without a defining nature. Are any of the categorized items notable because it's a "democide" instead of what (more generally or specifically in common English) it really is. My guess is that even the word "democide" is unlikely to appear in many of the articles... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the cases made above, made much better than I could. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent category Mass murder, where most of the current content seems to belong. Dimadick (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2013 (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:Sirius Satellite Radio channels[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, but consider narrowing the scope of the categories to include only those channels that are exclusive to Sirius/XM. I think that a strong case was made that these categories contain overcategorization of performances (channels) by venue (broadcaster), but the consensus in this case is that this could be addressed by tightening the inclusion criteria. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a radio station (e.g. NPR or BBC Radio 1) has been broadcast by a particular satellite/company is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that radio station. What next - "Category:Radio channels transmitted from Droitwich" ? These categories also incorrectly place articles in Category:Digital only radio stations. Alternatively, these categories might be salvageable by tightening up inclusion criteria, purging and possibly merging. There may be some list articles in these categories (e.g. this, this, this) that should be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This provides navigation to related series of articles, the purpose of categories. Deletion/up-merge makes no sense. Hmains (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The various methods of distribution are not really defining for a radio station.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • unfortunately that has nothing to do with the contents of the category Hmains (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the relationship between NPR (for example) and Sirius/XM if it's not that Sirius/XM has been used to distribute NPR ? DexDor (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What if the categories were cleaned up so they only contain articles that state they are a Sirius channel in one case and XM Satellite channel in the other--which is what the category names indicate should be the only contents. Most of the articles say this; eliminate the others Hmains (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the other hand, CNN, etc. do seem to have radio channels on Sirius and XM Satellite so why would their channels be any different than the rest of the channels? Hmains (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the category was changed to include only channels owned by Sirius/XM (or in some other way that meant it didn't include channels for which Sirius/XM is just a transmitter) then that might be OK; the nomination suggested cleanup as a possible alternative to deletion. DexDor (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hmaines and DexDor. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm actually arguing that these categories (as currently constituted) should be deleted. Note: there are already several lists. Deleting these categories would not prevent someone (probably someone who knows more about the US satellite broadcasting industry than me) creating category/ies based on a more defining characteristic and probably with a different name (e.g. containing "owned"). DexDor (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but purge of all channels which aren't exclusive to Sirius, etc. It is a useful grouping, but not useful for channels which are syndicated across multiple networks, as you can probably get any channel on Sirius these days. A List of radio channels by broadcaster could be a useful adjunct.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is that not everything in these two categories is a conventional service for which Sirius/XM is a supplementary distribution method that's used in addition to terrestrial broadcasts — for some of them, SiriusXM is their primary and/or only distribution method. Subscribing to SiriusXM, for example, is the only way it is possible to hear OutQ, POTUS, Howard 100 or '90s on 9, and accordingly being on SiriusXM is a defining characteristic of those stations. It may be worth narrowing the inclusion criteria so that the categories only include the services which are SXM exclusives, and exclude the ones which are merely rebroadcasts of a more conventional media service (the lists can cover those adequately), but the categories are defining and legitimate for some of their entries. Keep but reconsider the inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an appropriate defining characteristic of these stations and as an aid to navigation across these articles. Alansohn (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete. This is in the nature of a performance by performer category, the satellite being the performance and the radio station the performer. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A radio station performs a satellite? Isn't this stretching a bad analogy well beyond the breaking point? Alansohn (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that argument doesn't really make any sense to me either. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, defining for the stations in question. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:44, 28 August 2013 (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:American basketball players of Polish descent[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: delete (merge to appropriate Category:American people of XXX descent). Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#EGRS. Non-notable intersection. Up-merge per JPL below. Nymf (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the decision is to delete, I would like to at least make a list of this first.Hoops gza (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why is this less notable than other ethnicity-based categories?Hoops gza (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your other "American <profession> of X descent" categories are most likely not notable either. I just haven't had the energy to nominate them all in one CfD discussion yet. Nymf (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • deletecomment <arbitrary ethnicity 1> + <job 1> does not imply <arbitrary ethnicity 2> + <job 1> is equally defining. In newspaper articles about X, they may say "X, one of the first African-Americans to play starting center for Y", while they wouldn't say "Z, one of the first polish-Americans to play starting center for Y". In this case, it's simply a matter of all ethnicities are equal, but some are more equal than others. We have to go by sources. Due to media coverage and past discrimination against black people, African-American + job is usually defining, but polish-American + job is likely not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added a couple of more noms (probably even more that needs to be added). If you need to, you can revisit this comment. Nymf (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
urg. Striking for now, pending further research. Can those who want to keep, or delete, provide some evidence one way or another? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pretty weak reasoning imo. I realize that some ethnicities have been discriminated against more than others, but what ethnicity hasn't been discriminated against in American history? To Nymf, that's the only discussion on Americans' ethnicity that I have seen. I would like to see one on sportspeople, for instance. It does not seem right that one sportspeople/ethnicity intersection should stay and another one should not.Hoops gza (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nymf (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:OC#EGRS says, Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. I cannot see how ancestry directly affects sportsmanship. - if I am wrong I will change my opinion.--Richhoncho (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is categorization by a characteristic that is not related to the careers of those involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all back to Category:American basketball players. Ethnic origin is unlikely to be relevant, unless they are qualified to play for their national sides, in which case they should not be categorised as American. The exception would be cases of dual natiomnality, who should have a category for each nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as defining characteristics of these individuals, where their ethnicity is often used in reliable and verifiable sources in describing these athletes, and in which sources regularly use ethnicity as a means of real-world categorization. Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one will regularly speak of a group of "Jamaican American athletes". Just because the ethnicity is reliably sourced (which is not even always the case), does not mean it will be linked to a particular occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to parent categories per Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per WP:CATGRS; unless someone can show by reliable sources that American basketball player of Fooish descent play basketball differently than those of non-Fooish descent- as they must do by our guidelines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge only to the specific ethnicity categories (for example Category:American people of Jamaican descent), since most will already be in more precise by sport categories than a general American players of x sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2013 (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:American musicians of Polish descent[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: delete (upmerging to Category:American people of Polish descent). Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#EGRS. Non-notable intersection. Nymf (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2013 (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:Rebel groups in Lebanon[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All articles in this category are Lebanese militias or former militias. They are not "rebel groups", so the current name makes no sense. In any case, there aren't any Lebanese groups labelled "rebel" by anyone, so the category has nothing else to include. These groups did not fight the state (since there practically wasn't one), they fought each other. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, because then non-militias, such as UNIFIL, could perhaps be added as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed request to factions. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per revised proposal. However, I hope you're not serious about including UNIFIL as a "faction" -- that makes no sense to me, since the "factions" were all part of Lebanese society, which the UN surely wasn't. Cgingold (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This category is part of the wider Category:Rebel groups by country which covers militias, irregular military forces, and political factions in many countries. I don't see why Lebanon should be singled out. Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As explained already. There are no groups in Lebanon labelled as such by anyone. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -Eli+ 08:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just added a new parent cat, Category:Lebanese Civil War. It seems to me that those parent cats which are intended for militias and rebel groups should be removed if this is renamed as proposed. Alternatively, this category could be renamed to Category:Lebanese militias and purged of contents that don't belong. Either way, Category:Factions in the Lebanese Civil War should be created and populated. Btw, I just noticed a subcat of Category:Lebanese Civil War called Category:Irregular military in Lebanon, which seems to overlap with this category. Cgingold (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2013 (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 from Luttrell, Tennessee[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small populated place with just 2 entries. ...William 13:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Too small of category to be worth while.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Without any prejudice against recreating if we can find at least 5 articles to place in the category. Luttrell, Tennessee is a tiny place (pop ~900), so the category may expand, but it looks unlikely to do so soon, and in the meantime its small size makes it an impediment to navigation.
    Please re-create the current title as a {{category redirect}}, so that any further articles may be easily placed in the appropriate category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 26 August 2013 (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 from Bluff City, Tennessee[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small city with just two entries. ...William 13:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Without any prejudice against recreating if we can find at least 5 articles to place in the category. Bluff City, Tennessee is small place (pop ~1700), so the category may expand, but it looks unlikely to do so. Its small size makes it an impediment to navigation.
    Please re-create the current title as a {{category redirect}}, so that any further articles may be easily placed in the appropriate category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 26 August 2013 (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:Active MMORPGs[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We normally avoid categorizing things as being current/active (I think that's what "active" means here) as it's not a permanent characteristic. Note: This is an upmerge to grandparent category and further tidying up of these categories is needed. Note: The proposed merge also avoids using the abbreviation "MMORPG". DexDor (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we do not allow active/current categories generally. The better course is to have a subcategory for defunct ones. Whatever happens, the abbreviation needs to be expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all Category:MMORPGs by status and sub-categories. No need to categorize by active/inactive by specific genre. Granted, this is a significant milestone for MMOs, but it's not significant in overall categorization. We would have this designation for a lot of products that require support or availability of service, but we don't generally categorize like that. I don't think this ought to be an exception. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and all siblings, per Hellknowz.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category, but keep category for inactive ones. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2013 (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:Hosts of the Rose of Tralee[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the presenters (see WP:OC#PERF). Could be listified to Rose of Tralee. DexDor (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2013 (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:Modern military equipment[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of Subcategories to be Renamed
Nominator's rationale: This is another step in phasing out the word "modern" because it has at least two meanings - for some people it means "of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries" (see Category:Modern weapons) and for others it means a much more recent period. All these categories either state they are only for equipment developed from the 1990s or only contain such articles (when I last checked, except for TERPROM). For info: The previous CFD step in the removal of modern was this. DexDor (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have reformatted the listing of sub-cats, making use of the "collapse" templates, which is the standard format used in CFD to minimize visual disruption by long lists of items. Cgingold (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- While I am not happy with a number of aspects to this category tree. If we are going to have such a periodisation, the target is an appropriate title. At some point we will need to end the present period, but that is (one hopes) far away. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Modern is a word that has way too many possible meanings. The target is at least better, while maybe not always ideal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Modern, to me, is a word that describes the current period of time. As far as I know, it will continue to describe the present, even 100 years from now (and what is now "modern" will become something else). "Modern" is a relative term in my view, and we need something that's more concrete, more frozen in time. LazyBastardGuy 08:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then how is there post-modernism?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. That's an art and philosophical movement. There was also futurism if you're interested. Modern, in this context, means the present time, and is likely to continue to mean that years into the future, even as this technology grows outdated. I don't know how or when the English language will change the meaning of "modern", but the word is right now something that represents something that can be represented using more concrete terms, e.g. the nominator's "Post-Cold War" (which, if necessary, can be bracketed with something else, e.g. "Pre-WWIII" if that ever happens soon enough). (On a side note, it seems to me that "modernism" and "post-modernism" were so named because they were respectively seen as "modern" or "post-modern" ways of thinking at that time. That distinction doesn't apply here.) LazyBastardGuy 22:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename post-Cold-War is much better and clearly defined (meaning if a different era occurs, we don't have to worry about miscategorized products for the era after the post-cold-war.) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2013 (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:Province at the Pekan Olahraga Nasional[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorization that does not form part of any wider categorization scheme. DexDor (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mergin - a verybig problem is the creator has not responded once in 3 years of editing to any talk page requests, it is highly likely the user is not a native speaker of english and has a tendency to create text thats looks as though it has been machine translated.. sats 07:02, 25 August 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_24&oldid=1090390911"