Category:Articles with attributed pull quotes[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mislabelled. Pull quotes are discouraged, and as such few if any of these are actually pull quotes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Memory is vague, but this administrative category was created for the exact reason Chris cites; to track the (mis)use of the attribution parameter in pull quotes (with the intent of clearing those out). In that regard, it is named appropriately. — Edokter (talk) — 19:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Edokter's memory is spot on. This category is intended to track the use of the pull quote templates. --Gadget850talk 20:40, 26 June 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Football-biographies are normally categorized in "players by club" and "players by league". Because Damallsvenskan has a promotion and relegation system, this category can theoretically contain articles about footballers that never played in Damallsvenskan. Instead of "LEAGUE players by team", we should categorize those categories in "Footballers in COUNTRY by club". Mentoz86 (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide examples of the proposed change currently in use for other categories? Hmlarson (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I would support re-organizing/re-naming to match something like this, but not outright deletion without another form of organizational structure in place. Hmlarson (talk) 21:38, 11 July 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.
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) 02:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. I fixed it. JDDJS (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a villain is an undefinable quality especially in television. Does Paula Dean get added now? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well villain is really just another word for antagonist, so it's pretty straight forward what qualifies. JDDJS (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our article antagonist defines it as "opponent, competitor, enemy, rival" - so diffuse to be meaningless: is Wiley Coyote a villain? Roadrunner is his opponent, so he must be one too. And the A's and the Redsox are opponents and competitors. In fact, every contestant on a game show, sports show, reality show, talent show are villains, too. And if televised; ta da, they belong in this category. Or are you just trying to substitute your subjectivity or original research for Wikipedia's definition somehow or WP:NOR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. Television has too many villains. Supervillain has some specific definitions, most notably from scholar Peter Coogan's book Superhero: The Secret Origin of a Genre. Villain, however, does not have a sufficiently specific definition. If many of those characters are not supervillains, then they should not be in the category. Doczilla@SUPERHEROLOGIST 00:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Villains" is vague and no such category would survive a CfD discussion. "Supervillain" actually has specific criteria. Doczilla@SUPERHEROLOGIST 12:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bush is very popular in many areas. You need to broaden your views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the uncalled for attacks on defenders of truth and good like George W. Bush. Such attacks continue the bias that is far too prevalent in Wikipedia and should stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is part of a plot to turn Wikipedia into a front for POV-pushing advancement of the liberal agenda. It is bad enough that the MSM defends as heroes those who want to allow doctors in Texas to continue to kill women through shoddy medical practices, I will not let GVnayR's plot go through here, and insist we keep the current category. The sinister plots have been exposed. Maybe I am over-reacting, but such flippant attacks on a president of the United States should not go unchallenged. I do not like seeing my heroes maligned and marginalized in such a manner. It is rude, inconsiderate, and should not be tolerated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I never wanted this category to expand to include real people. That is way too much POV. I just wanted to expand it to include characters like Mr. Burns, who currently in the category even though he is not "super" in anyway. JDDJS (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of expanding the category too broadly and vaguely for it to exist in order to cover Mr. Burns, it would make more sense to remove Mr. Burns from the category. Doczilla@SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Mr. Burns does not have superpowers. At least not in most episodes. He should be removed from the supervillains category and placed solely in a villains category. I am really enjoying this discussion. --Lquilter (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The proposed category, Category:Television villains, was deleted here with a pretty strong consensus. Probably better to just clean up by removing the non-supervillains. It's part of the Category:Supervillains tree; there is no Category:Villains tree. (This discussion contains one of the most impressive overreactions I have ever seen at CFD.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It contains outrageous, POV pushing attacks on people with no justification. I am sick and tired of such attacks finding space in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing other users as being "part of a plot to turn Wikipedia into a front for POV-pushing advancement of the liberal agenda" is hardly an attack-free comment. At the very least, it's an assumption of bad faith. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "Supervillains" have superpowers, which is a rather defining trait. Agree that "villain" means antagonist, but that just makes it mushy -- you can be an antagonist in one work and a protagonist in another. Supervillains is actually a little different -- they might be the protagonist and still be a supervillain. (See, e.g., Dr. Horrible.) --Lquilter (talk) 16:27, 11 July 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:Religion in the United States by county[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Needlessly specific yet vague geographic scope. We have "X by state" to make for a logical and navigable scheme and "X by city" in the case of the small handful of cities which are large enough to warrant it, but does it make sense to create tens of thousands of "X by county" categories? Who would use these for navigation? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WE have here several useless levels of categorisation here. Category:Churches in Westchester County, New York is well populated and has a NY by county parent. The Christianity item here contains this Westchester category and one for a Maryland county. There are too many coiunties in USA for this to be a useful category, if fully populated. The first split is always by state. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:52, 26 June 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.
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; single item in category placed in Category:Non-free comic images, since it is a non-free comic image. If there are any free comic images, the proposed category could be created.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Koavf. A note for the person who created this category: do not create Category:Comic strip images before the close of this debate. --88.214.161.22 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Hiding. I also believe that Category:Non-free comic images shouldn't become too crowded either and that people who are interested in comic strip images have an easier way of categorizing their work. GVnayR (talk) 15:38, 26 June 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.
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 as nominated. The question of Turkey vs. Asia Minor is a correct question, but this is beyond the scope of this discussion. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Not convinced that we need this fine of a breakout at this time. I realize that there may also be some questions about Turkey being correct this far back, but this nom does not address that concern. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, as per my earlier remarks in similar threads, Turkey, as we know it now, did not exist at that time.
As per previous threads, this should either be renamed to how the area was called at that time (possibly per item), or plainly split to Category:280s BC establishments, Category:Establishements in Turkey and [[:Category:Establishments in <wherever it was in 280>]] (and possibly the intermediate countries it was established in). Can we please re-think this anachronistic , confusing and way to fine-grained scheme once and for good in stead of keeping discussing these cases one-by-one. --Dirk BeetstraTC 06:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Kingdom of Pontus, contained in this category, was in its original state in what is now Turkey, but after some conquests was also in Bulgaria, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia (noting that the latter three of these states were once USSR, etc. etc.; see File:PonticKingdom.png, for country-indications for the current situation see e.g. File:Black Sea map.png). Needless to say, none of these 5 states existed in the 280s BC, and most of the locations have been through a whole range of countries in the meantime, and the Kingdom of Pontus did not exist anymore at the time all these countries were established. --Dirk BeetstraTC 06:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC) (+addition Dirk BeetstraTC 06:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Rename to ... in Asia Minor as geographically specific but not Turkey. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Asia Minor was mainly Turkey as well, I don't think that that comprises Bulgaria and the Ukraine? --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider a rename appropriate since there is, I believe only one entry in the century. So an upmerge is really the only option that we should be discussing. Now, if you want to propose an upmerge to a Europe and/or Asia century category, that would be better in my mind then keeping that while we decide the issue over Turkey and how these things should be named. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REname but to Category:3rd-century BC establishments in Asia Minor. Annual categories (by recnet convention should be named according to the contemporary political situation. Turkey did not exist in any meaningful sense of something like 1200-1500 years after. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge as nominated, do not rename to "Asia Minor". The current name is useful as it allows a connection to present-day Turkey. Users can use it find things founded in the territory of present-day Turkey in the 3rd century BC. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "unworkable"—it works perfectly fine. To use what has been implemented in the USA categories is taking one scheme example out of a couple hundred, and their are many of the by-country schemes that are fine with categorizing things established in the past based on what country that land is now located. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't work. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it Turkey before Mazikert is a sure way to turn Wikipedia into an advancement of Turkey against Greece in totally unacceptable ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that you believe that, and that's one viewpoint. From another viewpoint, and if the purpose of the category were clearly explained at the top of the category, it could be quite helpful. Remember that both categories have existed for some time under the "Turkey" name, so we're not in danger of "turning" WP into anything that it is not already. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we should continue POV-pushing category names because no one has objected to them yet. Considering that the horribly named 1905 establishments in Israel cat has lead to a call for a topic ban on someone, I think we need to show more respect in how we name these categories, and stop running roughshod over history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can try to dismiss other viewpoints as "POV pushing" if you want, but it would probably be more helpful overall if you sought to understand them. There is no credible move for anyone to be topic banned over the category name you refer to. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that John Pack Lambert is here saying that you are POV pushing because you create or support categories of these type, but that the category names are POV pushing in itself. And as with the other discussions, we do understand your point, we do understand why these categories are made, but we think that it is resulting in problems like we see here, with Israel etc. An avoidable problem, if the categories are named according to the time the event took place. --Dirk BeetstraTC 09:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't much matter whether he's attributing it to me directly or not—either way, it goes to the very heart of the matter. He views the names as POV-pushing, but several other editors do not. Just because you disagree with the way a category is named and operates doesn't automatically make it POV-pushing. And actually, I am not convinced that JPL does understand my point, and I don't know how you know that he understands. He has made no indication so far that he does. If he does I wish he would say so instead of implying that those who disagree with him are lacking in respect. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these names can result in forms of POV pushing, one of the many problems there are with naming categories according to their current country status, and as has been discussed in other places as well. And it is all avoidable .. --Dirk BeetstraTC 09:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not really whether they can result in POV-pushing—virtually any name could do that, given the right editor and the right circumstances. (For instance, it could be alleged that the attempt to delete this category name with "Turkey" in it is an anti-Turkish attempt to expunge any connection between the state of Turkey and the contemporaneous territory that these historical events took place in. I'm not alleging that, but I am demonstrating the easy malleability of a POV-pushing charge. One can be designed to fit virtually any situation.) The question is whether the names are inherently POV-pushing or if they POV-push "on their face". I do not think that they come close to meeting that standard, especially when the purpose of the categories are defined clearly. My questions re: JPL remain unanswered/up in the air. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question to JPL is further up to JPL.
The only difference is, that over these naming issues, one editor got a call for a topic ban, and in other situations regarding naming of areas, whole ArbCom cases have been made. I am yet to see a similar argument carried through to a topic ban or ArbCom case on calling deleting .. well, renaming a 'Turkish' category 'anti-Turkish' .. malleable, maybe .. --Dirk BeetstraTC 10:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The call for a topic ban was rather extreme and is not a credible proposal. To use that as a reason to rename this category is grasping at straws. We should focus on the substance, not on peripheral issues like this. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This discussion seems to have focused on the issue of Turkey v Asia Minor. This was a simple request to eliminate a small isolated category. If the closer does not see an objection to the upmerge and is willing to do that close, leave me a note and I'll create a new nomination to address the Turkey v Asia Minor issue for the century category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To speak of Turkey before Manxikert is outrageous and historically inaccurate. I am tired of being opposed on every turn for trying to improve the historical accuracy of categories. It is just plain incorrect to speak of "Turkey" so far back in history. I am tired of people acting like the imposition of the present whole scale on the past is a good plan. It is not in this case. Historians do not use "Turkey" to refer to the area at the time, they use "Asia Minor" or "Anatolia", we should not be using a modern term that is not the way historians refer to the area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should just consider the possibility that some editors might just disagree with your assessment as to the "goodness" of such plan. It's OK for there to be disagreements on such matters. The reason we can speak of Turkey in this context is to provide the link to the modern state—since the territory in question is presently in the state of Turkey—and thus provide relevant links to the overall history of the places that are now in Turkey. So it's not an implication that Turkey existed then, it's a suggestion that it exists now and that the physical location in question exists in Turkey now. But we've been over this before. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To speak of Turkey before Turkey existed makes it normative, and can be seen to push the view that the current Turkey is what Turkey ought to be. On the other hand, if we only apply these by year categories to things as they existed in the year in question, we are only saying what was, not what ought to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's one way to interpret it, but it's certainly not a common approach in academic writings. It is fairly normal to write of things happening in "Turkey" in BCE years without adopting any "normative" interpretation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the target already exists. If the merge happens, then you can propose the target for renaming. In fact there is no reason to not propose the target for renaming at this time. Should I withdraw this so that you can nominate the two categories for renaming or can you let this one go and only need a discussion on one category? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing this up means we should consider all the issues, and using "Turkey" for any category that covers the time before Manikert is just plain wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, since it's often difficult to get consensus on multiple changes all in one fell swoop, Vegaswikian is pointing out that we may have more success if we take things stepwise. The merge he has proposed is a first step. Whether we get to the second step could be considered in a follow-up nomination. The alternative could be that this discussion ends in "no consensus", which won't make any of the users happy, since no one has agreed that the status quo is preferable. Sometimes we have to try to do things in baby steps and compromise a bit so we can at least be headed in the right direction, even if we don't immediately end up as far along as you want to be. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:15, 9 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:Knights and Dames Grand Crosses of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre[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.
Support -- Correct (or at least better) plural. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:56, 26 June 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:Knights of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre[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 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: Single entry category. No other song he wrote is notable enough for an article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Koavf and previous previous CfD(forgot to sign at first, now added ) --Richhoncho (talk) 15:23, 26 June 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.
