Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 27 November 29 >

November 28[edit]

Category:Monks and nuns who committed suicide[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) 03:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category currently has a very unbalanced set of child categories: a huge child category:Monks, a huge child category:Nuns and a tiny child category for monks and nuns together which is the nominated category. So let's get rid of the tiny category and let's completely separate Monks and Nuns, as they are already 99% separated anyway. (Note: there is a CfD about the parent category as well, but that is independent of this issue.) Marcocapelle (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, I would not contest deletion in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, delete. They are all now categorised in other ways as suicides. – Fayenatic London 00:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Empty manually then delete -- The category has six members all Buddhist - 3 self-immolations will be better in SFK's new category. One was a sick convert who killed himself while sick. The other two killed themselves becasue they were in an impossible position for politcial reasons. I am not sure that status as a monk/nun was significant in most cases. I would thus merge all but the self-immolations (which should be a sub-category) to Buddhist suicides. I suspect that belief in reincarnation makes suicide more acceptable than in countreis with a Christian heritage. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 4 December 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:Muslims by occupation[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: Split. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. This was suggested at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 24#Category:Monks and nuns. Although all the intersections within this category are notable and should therefore be kept, not all are religious workers (e.g. comedians and scientists), so it would be better to separate these. – Fayenatic London 23:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete intersection between religion and occupation. Other than religious workers (like Caliphs, Imams, Qadis, etc.), do Muslims do dentistry, accountancy, or whatever different than non-Muslims? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree on dentistry and accountancy, but I would prefer to keep Category:Muslim monarchs, for the reason that Christian Europe and Islamic Middle East have been at state of war with each other over some 1000 years. Although monarchs weren't religious workers, the intersection of Muslim with monarchs is far from trivial from a history perspective. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusive of moving some categories down to the higher level categories. This will discourage creation of non-notable intersections (as mentioned above by User:Carlossuarez46) and focus the religious nature of the majority of the contents (cf. Category:Christian religious workers). I think Carlos is really throwing the baby out with the bathwater by suggesting the deletion of Category:Scientists of medieval Islam, which is most clearly a topic of wide study and interest SFB 22:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • SFB, straw man argument. "medieval Islam" is used as a time/place. Such as "ancient Greece" - it doesn't mean that any of those folks held the beliefs ascribed to them, much less that an alchemist of medieval Islam was a religious worker - as I'm sure no one would suggest that various scientists persecuted in the name of religion (Islam, Christianity, or spaghetti monsterism) are religious workers for that religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 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:Christians by occupation[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 and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was not consensus here to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent Category:Religious workers and to reflect the actual and intended scope of the categories. – Fayenatic London 23:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: I have added Roman Catholic and Protestants to the nomination. The various Protestant sub-cats by denomination can follow as speedy nominations. Category:Copts by occupation should be removed from this hierarchy after the renaming, as that is an ethnic rather than religious category, and most of the occupations within it are not related to religion. – Fayenatic London 23:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the actual scope includes Didier Drogba, not known for his religious work. Oculi (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on the Muslim nom above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Note: Category:Roman Catholic monarchs‎ and Category:Roman Catholic writers are not necessarily (and are in general, not) religious workers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A focus on religious workers and moving non-religious workers higher up will better gather the religious occupations and also discourage the creation of non-notable intersections of religion and occupation (e.g. Rastafari alpine skiiers). SFB 22:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is an author who writes clearly religious works a religious worker? If he is not directly employed by the Church? C. S. Lewis is clearly a Prostestant writer, but is he a religious worker?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46: @Johnpacklambert: You're both raising a fair point on which occupations are and which aren't religious workers, and I agree that monarchs and writers shouldn't be in a religious workers category. (C.S. Lewis would rather belong in the tree for being an apologist and a (lay) theologian than for being a writer.) Would you withdraw your opposition if we can reach consensus about the definition of a religious worker? The reason I'm asking is that I do find the concept of a religious worker very meaningful, and I guess that we can easily agree upon e.g. clergy, monks and nuns, ministers, evangelists, missionaries and theologians being religious workers. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 5 December 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:Sikhs by occupation[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 and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was no consensus here to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename as above, but I am making this as a separate nomination in case people think the sub-cat Category:Sikh warriors means we need to split rather than rename. – Fayenatic London 23:27, 28 November 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:Hindus by occupation[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 and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was no consensus here to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As above. – Fayenatic London 23:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This one again has a sub-category Category:Hindu warriors, which is not defined or used exclusively for warriors who fought in the defense of Sanatana Dharma. – Fayenatic London 00:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest splitting the nominated category (similar to Muslims above), by keeping Dynasties, Monarchs, Pacifists, Politicians and Warriors in an occupation category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments in the Muslim category above. Note: not all the subcats are religious workers by any means, as expected. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments above as long as non-religious workers are moved upwards in the tree. SFB 22:25, 1 December 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:Bahá'ís by occupation[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 and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was no consensus here to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As above, but listed for separate discussion in case specific points arise. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same as my comments above. not all Bahá'í poets, for example are religious work, Chase for example, seemed to work much of his life for an insurance company - pretty secular to most folks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments above as long as non-religious workers are moved upwards in the tree. SFB 22:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per comments on Christian category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 5 December 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:Buddhists by occupation[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 and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was no consensus here to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As above. – Fayenatic London 23:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination. In addition I would suggest to move Monarchs and Politicians directly into Category:Buddhists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs) 08:42, 29 November 2014‎
  • Delete per my comments on the Muslim one. Not all Buddhist writers are religious workers. This is again a fallacy of WP. The mere fact that a consensus cannot be reached that there is no intersection between ReligionX and OccupationY, a category is kept, and now, it's deemed that anyone who fits the intersection is now "working" for or on behalf of the ReligionX. Bulloney.... Reminiscent of the anti-Catholic fears of JFK-working for America or the Roman Catholic Church. Well, WP is clear it's the latter. Well done. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments above as long as non-religious workers are moved upwards in the tree. SFB 22:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per comments on Christian category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 5 December 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:Jewish religious occupations[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: Split. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split biographies from articles about occupational roles. – Fayenatic London 23:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't this an argument for purging rather than for deleting? Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. It's not maintainable - try to purge into a tree that everything below belongs entirely to everything above -- first of all, use the example of Christian Hebraists... our unsourced article on Hebraist says "A Hebraist is a specialist in Jewish, Hebrew and Hebraic studies". So, one could well theorize that a specialist in Jewish studies (by which I assume means a study of Judaism, although that's also not clear) would come with different biases were they of Christian belief than of Jewish belief (but see the whole foofrah at ARBCOM over whether dedicated Christians or atheists have biases on the Historicity of Jesus article, on which the jury is still out), that the intersection might be defining, although I'm not sold on that. However, it seems relatively implausible that those Hebraists who study the Hebrew language have inherent bias due to their religious beliefs, so hence no Category:Linguists by religion tree. Those who study the Jewish religion, and publish religious works (rabbis with commentaries or Christian writers of exegesis), presumably can be "religious workers" - those who toil away academia are likely not, but alas, there's no distinction in these categories, and for many it's really impossible to know why anyone studied anything 200 years after they're dead. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me this just confirms that we can have discussions about whether individual occupations belong in these categories and, possibly, that we need to define the concept of a religious occupation more clearly. But anyway that's different from deleting the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments above as long as non-religious workers are moved upwards in the tree. SFB 22:25, 1 December 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:Mugham albums by artist nationality[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/upmerge contents to parents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: And upmerge to parents: there aren't enough subcategories to justify diffusion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:49, 28 November 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:DC shared film universe[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 as re-creation. – Fayenatic London 22:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match page DC Comics' shared universe films; the words are currently in the wrong order. Alternatively, move back to Category:DC Cinematic Universe films; or remove the apostrophe from both the category and the articles. Note: this is a re-creation of a category that was deleted following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 1#Category:DC Cinematic Universe films, but the category now looks worthwhile. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just have the category deleted; the fictional universe is still developing (it is not even officially titled yet) and no future DC film (except BvS:DoJ) has yet begun shooting. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:57, 5 December 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:DC shared film universe soundtracks[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) 03:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge as WP:SMALLCAT, only contains one page. – Fayenatic London 21:27, 28 November 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:Personal Ordinariates[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2A: capitalization fix. Elizium23 (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Two categories were not tagged until November 28. This discussion can be closed as of 21:05, 30 November 2014
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:05, 28 November 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:Prince-Bishoprics of Estonia[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Estonia did not exist yet in the time of the Prince-Bishops. Estonia and Latvia together were Livonia. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Estonia/Latvia are the modern terms for Livonia now, and many people may not know what Livonia is. Although that was the name when the Prince-Bishoprics were around, I think it'd be best to keep with the modern-day terms. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 05:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that there is already a well-used Category:Livonia within Category:Former countries in Europe. Given the fact that this Livonia category exists, I think these bishoprics categories really belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support matches parent category and better reflects topic. Disagree with Fimatic in that if people think Livonia is obscure, then they probably won't be searching articles on Livonia or its Prince-Bishoprics. SFB 18:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SFB's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We should categorise historical things according to the contemporary polities, not the present successors. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The category was not tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, actually the Duchy of Estonia did exist back then, it was located north of Livonia, in the northern part of present day Estonia, the southern part of present day Estonia was part of Livonia, and the Bishoprics grouped in this category were Livonian. --Nug (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The present name is ahistorical. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:35, 30 November 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:Hungarian clerics[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: speedy merge. – Fayenatic London 09:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category most likely has the same purpose as Category:Hungarian clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 28 November 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:Organizations affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant[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) 21:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Its a nasty subject. there are groups, perhaps groups is a better word, that have sworn traditional Arabic oaths to ISIL. There are those that want to say that this makes them part of ISIL and, without suitable categorisation options, this is how the groups will be defined. I am also planning to start a category of "organisations/groups allied with the I...." Its amazing that they are defined as Islamic. Anyway, this is what we've got. Related discussion is at: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Standard for Naming ISIL in Sinai, Libya etc. TY Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is declaring allegiance to some group or another defining for that group? Even in this instance? We don't have, for example, Category:World War II Axis members or Category:World War I Central Powers or anything akin to that, which presumably was much more formal for each country to become than just saying, "hey we like what you're all about and we'll help you do what you're doing" which essentially is these pledges of allegiance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Carlossuarez46 editors are either going to categorise these groups as in allegiance with ISIL or they are going to categorise them as ISIL. The former is more accurate and doesn't falsely present an escalated presentation of the situation. The effect of deletion would be that Wikipedia will say that ISIL are spread in various locations in Africa and the Middle-East. In this case Wikipedia will have enforced a falsehood. This is not relating to groups saying "hey we like what you're all about". This is about groups that go out and kill people. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsourced material that ISIL is "in Libya", etc., can be deleted by any editor. That someone has pledged allegiance to a group, whether a good or bad group, is not something on which we ought to categorize. Many wars and criminal enterprises - ISIL seems to be both - are rendered by proxy, but we don't categorize the proxies by their puppet masters, real or aspired to. I just think it's a bad idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the category is not tagged. Oculi (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add it if someone else didn't already. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the defining characteristic for these groups may be jihadist, islamist, terrorist, or anything like that. But the proposed category has no potential to be a defining characteristic, per Carlossuarez. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The category was not tagged until November 25.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:20, 28 November 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:Vaasan Palloseura players[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: Reverse merge per main article and parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Two categories for one club. Fredde (talk) 14:54, 28 November 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:Cricketers who died while playing[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: reverse out-of-process move. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This used to be called Category:Cricket deaths but it was renamed this week as a knee-jerk response to the death of Phillip Hughes. It will only ever hold a handful of subjects at most. Of the three men named in the category at present (Phillip Hughes having been removed because he died in hospital two days after his accident), only one is potentially valid. Wasim Raja died of a heart attack playing in a minor match a long time after he retired from competitive cricket; he could have been anywhere when it happened and it was not due to anything on the cricket field. Darryn Randall died in hospital. Jasper Vinall was hit on the head during a game but it is not known if he died on the field; he may well have been taken elsewhere for treatment and possibly died days later; as did George Summers. The category should be reverted back to its original name so that it encompasses cricket-related deaths. Jack | talk page 11:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the original category creator (as "Cricket deaths" name) I support this change, and agree with the rationale given by @BlackJack: above. I checked other sub-categories of Category:Deaths in sport to ensure I was consistent with this naming format. -- Chuq (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – There is no reason to distinguish people who died on the field, as opposed to dying in hospital shortly afterwards as a direct result of something that happened on the field. – Smyth\talk 13:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the category itself it says it is being considered fro deletion rather than renaming, please can this be corrected on the category page ? I support a rename but not deletion! Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham, I agree with you but that banner defaults to "deletion". It should say "discussion" as categories can be renamed or merged in this process. I don't know how to get the banner wording changed though. Jack | talk page 15:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the 'rename' (diff) was in fact out-of-process and could just be reverted. Oculi (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We should not put an overly sharp edge on death categories because the moment death is declared is rather arbitrary. A cricketer could be brain dead on the field, but life support keeps his heart beating until the diagnosis is confirmed at hospital. Did he die on or off the field? A better criteria is whether the death was caused by a cricket injury, regardless of where the victim is pronounced dead. Jehochman Talk 18:05, 28 November 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:Jimmy Cauty[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) 21:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:52, 28 November 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:Lahore Ahmadiyya Emirs[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For clarity, and per Category:Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:57, 28 November 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:Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. The article is at Sailors' Snug Harbor; Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden redirects there and is listed in the lead as an alternate name. The opposition was based on the article name, but there has been no activity on the talk page suggesting a name change. I propose renaming for now to bring conformity with the category name and article name. If the article name ever changes in the future, then so too should the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
Oppose - The organization's official name is Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden, shortened to Snug Harbor, not Sailor's Snug Harbor, which is the old name used for NRHP purposes. The current Sailors' Snug Harbor should actually be moved to the redirected Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden. Jllm06 (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, what is important for Wikipedia names is not the official name, but the common name. This is an issue for the article, though. Is anyone planning on proposing a rename for it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:45, 25 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_28&oldid=1138399858"