Category:Members of paramilitary and terrorist organizations[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. In the absence of any strong consensus or level of participation here, I'm defaulting to the previous consensus that has been established, that being that we don't use categories to label organizations or individuals "terrorist". No one here convincingly argued that including the word "terrorist" was crucial to this category's meaning.Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We dont call organizations terrorist, at least not in this way, as its subjective and contentious. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: It is not entirely true that the term "terrorist" is not used; refer to some of the articles in this category, e.g. Red Army Faction. I originally started creating two separate categories for "paramilitary organisations" and "terrorists" but on reflection merged them. The reason for using both the terms in the category name is that each does not automatically apply to all members. "Paramilitary" implies an organisation built to some extent on military lines with all that goes with it; "terrorist" by contrast has slightly different connotations. I suspect that the Red Army Faction would probably have considered itself to be terrorist rather than paramilitary and would not object to the term. However, it is perhaps a distinction without a difference which is why, although I would keep the title as I created it, I wouldn't fight hard if the general feeling was otherwise. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
to date there has been fairly strong consensus that terrorist (unadorned) should not be used in category names. We do have cats like 'orgs designated as terrorist by govt x' but that's a different meaning.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2014 (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:Rename. Note sure here, but it is somewhat confusing. The introduction says this is the category for Townsville and the City of Townsville. However there is Category:City of Townsville which kind of shows that the description is inaccurate at best and simply wrong at worst. The commons category is at Townsville, Queensland. Subcategories here both use and don't use the ', Queensland' in their names. Also there is Townsville (disambiguation) which shows that this is a reasonably well used place name making clarify without ambiguity in the category name important. This category was created as a result of a speedy move request. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure how the rest of the world works, but in Australia, there are generally three common uses of the name of any city. 1. There is the historic centre of the city (usually its central business district), which will be a gazetted suburb. 2. There is the contiguous urban metropolis that generally radiates out from that centre. 3. There is the local government area, which is typically bigger than than central business district but smaller than the full extent of the urban sprawl. The term "the city" or the "town" is overloaded in the same three ways. In everyday speech, context usually disambiguates which one we mean. In Wikipedia, we generally end up with three articles for these three distinct purposes, although the naming of those three articles is somewhat inconsistent. For example, for Townsville, we have Townsville City, Queensland for the central suburb, Townsville for the metropolis and City of Townsville for the local government area. For Brisbane, we have Brisbane central business district, Brisbane, and City of Brisbane. Etc. Since we have these three meanings, we potentially have three categories for things "in" them. This is true for Brisbane where we have Category:Brisbane and Category:City of Brisbane and Category:Brisbane central business district (which are subcats directly or indirectly of the first). So the presence of multiple categories for Australian cities is to be expected and generally occurs in both Wikipedia and Commons (although this does not yet seem to have happened in relation to Townsville on Commons which is using a single category for all three purposes). Kerry (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: As to the specific issue of renaming that one particular category to disambiguate it with "Queensland", I don't really care what it's called but there's a cost to making the change for what appears to be no apparent benefit. It's the primary topic so doesn't need disambiguation. It sounds to me like the problem is that the category has a confusing introduction, in which case, maybe the simplest solution is just fix the introduction to be less confusing. I note there is one article currently in the non-existent Category:Townsville, Queensland (why isn't it there currently a redirect to prevent this?). Kerry (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That one was added in changing updating categories. It matches what is used in the article. It was this 'problem' that led to this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The category and the article refer to the same topic, the metropolitan area. The confusion appears to relate to issues of Australian English as explained by Kerry above. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2014 (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: These categories are almost the same scope. The only exception I can find is List of polyamorists, which aren't really LGBT. Nonetheless, keeping the category just for that one article isn't worth it. Merge. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2014 (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. – FayenaticLondon 22:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to split out teenagers here, especially since we divide Child writers by nationality (thus, an American teen writer would be both a teen writer and an American child writer). Another option would be to merge and rename the category tree to be Category:Writers under 18 or something similar, but that's a bit annoying. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the definition of minor varies by jurisdiction, and the choice of 18 is seemingly arbitrary, physical adolescence ends at 25. The age of majority in some jurisdictions it is 19, others 21, and it changed through history as well, such as traditional coming of age at 13 (barmitzvah). Instead we should define ages. Below 10; 10-14; 15-19; 20-25; Above 25. Use 5 year intervals, and as below 5 would be a very small category, combine it to all under 10. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The suggestion by the IP commenter that we need to make this even more subdivided by age is not the direction I would go. I think just having a general "child writers" divided by nationality is perfect category-wise. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:22, 7 June 2014 (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. All redirects of songs to a total of two albums. No aid in navigation if one is only redirected to one of two albums. Not sure how helpful the creation and categorization of every song on an album or by artist really is when they are all redirects. It sure wouldn't help me find the notable song I wanted to look at if I had navigate through a long list of non-notable songs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A category of redirects? Just a duplication of the albums category. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2014 (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:North America Railway Hall of Fame inductees[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:Listify and delete. This is overcategorization by award. These railway stops are not notable for, much less defined by, their inclusion in a hall of fame (created in 1996). They are notable, like all the railway stops in wikipedia, for their role in mass transit infrastructure, architectural prominence, etc. The hall of fame recognizes existing notability; it doesn't confer notability; and therefore the recognition doesn't "define" the stop. In other words, these railway stops are going to be in wikipedia whether or not the hall of fame recognition exists. It's perfectly appropriate to keep the HOF article, and to list the honorees on that page, and that's the better way to handle it. (In fact, it's dangerous to keep the category, because we cannot automatically police erroneous inclusions into the category, and a category with relatively few watches will have fewer eyeballs to manually catch problematic inclusions.) ... The category is already listed in List of North America Railway Hall of Fame inductees. Lquilter (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Hardly a notable recognition of significance. A list article already exists. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2014 (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.
