Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 21 August 23 >

August 22[edit]

Category:Muslim apologists[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, apologist is not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How strange, it looks to me it is a, possibly the, defining characteristic for all six people. The leads all deal with the matter but perhaps you are thinking mention of their Muslim advocacy should be moved out of the leads. Thincat (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thincat. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see Muslim scholars and Muslim missionaries here, we'd better discuss what criteria make someone an apologist on top of being a scholar or a missionary. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sympathetic to that. Such a discussion could be informed by considering Category:Muslim scholars, Da'i, Apologetics, Christian apologetics, Category:Apologetics, Category:Religious apologists and Category:Christian apologists. WMF might consider increasing server capacity. Thincat (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A look at these people shows they clearly were/are involved in apologetics, especially in such activities as holding religious debates. If there is a deficiency in the category it is in having apologist categories at all. That should be settled with a debate over all the categories, not one targeting the Muslim category for no particular reason.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Apologist is the personal noun to go with apologetics, as well as apology. Unfortunately this ambiguity is unavoidable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2015 (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.

Ulama[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: withdrawn. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: By lack of Shia Ulama categories (Category:Shia ulama and Category:Iranian ulama are both lacking) there is apparently just one - Sunni - denomination with ulama in the category structure. Therefore a by-denomination split is not meaningful. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query – if all ulama are Sunni, why not drop the redundant 'Sunni'? ) ie reverse merge? Oculi (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for practical reasons, to keep the Sunni parents. A reverse merge is okay as well, provided that the parenting is being updated. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw 5 country nominations because they conflict with another discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination entirely, making way for a new/better/different nomination. Since nobody hasn't voted yet in this discussion, I suppose it's alright when the discussion is closed by the nominator. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2015 (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:Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam[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) 23:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category shouldn't be about the religious background of the scholar, but about the object of the studies. This is an entirely similar proposal as for Shia scholars that have been renamed earlier in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2015 (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:Midway Games[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Requested move old category Midway Games to new category Midway video games reason=Splitted as suggested. Removed pinball games from this category. The remaining games are video games. --Tochni (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just helping Tochni do proper proceedings. George Ho (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2015 (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:Journalists killed while covering the Bahraini uprising (2011–present)[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 Category:Journalists killed while covering the Arab Spring, Category:Deaths during the Bahraini uprising of 2011, and Category:Journalists killed in Bahrain. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't know; the category has a few articles. Ahmed Ismail Hassan died in 2012, not 2011. Shall we rename or delete the category? George Ho (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The main article is Bahraini uprising of 2011. Dimadick (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator indicates there would be only two articles left after suggested rename, it should be upmerged to its parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to parents. A category of this size hinders rather than helps navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to all parents. My guess is that there is no more potential population, so that this will always remain a small intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2015 (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:Catalysts and potential catalysts of change[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. nondefining/subjective/speculative criteria. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:08, 22 August 2015 (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:Criminal psychologist[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the way categories are usually named as they are designed to hold multiple articles. Everymorning (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nom. (This should be noncontroversial). Neutralitytalk 06:08, 24 August 2015 (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:Scapegoats of Dowry law[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: User has created a number of categories and user boxes in this vein, but this one is connected to an article of theirs, now deleted--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruelty against Husband in India. The very name of this category is grammatically challenged, and it is essentially POV in a rather MMR kind of way. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as something that is of no encyclopeadic value even if renamed to a user category -- which is what it is. Also, {{Scapegoat of Dowry Law}} is the template that places one in this category and should be taken to MfD too. —SpacemanSpiff 16:01, 22 August 2015 (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:Nigeria record producers[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Looks like the cat creator was unaware that a Category:Nigerian record producers already exists. Stanleytux (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2015 (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:Iranian martyrs[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. (Note: I am aware that one user lodged two contradictory !votes in this discussion. I did not strike out either.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word "martyr" is a biased word. How does it come that such a category exists in Wikipedia!!  Diako «  Talk » 20:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- It should be something like Category:People classified by Iran as martyrs. I sampled several articles. Some related to Iranian soldiers killed in the Iran-Iraq war; others to people killed in various circumstances by bombs. The identification as martyrs seems to be an official one by the post-1979 Iranian government, so that this is strictly not a POV category but in the nature of a postumous award. As a national award, it probably does not fall foul of OC#AWARD, but it needs a headnote defining this scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At worst, Listify then delete, but that would be a less appropriate option in my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't distance the categories that way with "classified by" for religious or communist martyrs in the Category:Martyrs tree. I'm not neccesarilly opposed to the change, but we should be even handed.RevelationDirect (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Rahpouyan. I have nominated this category for deletion and I'm myself an Iranian. I believe that all the categories you mentioned should be deleted or at least they should be renamed. Diako «  Talk » 06:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not important for me that where are you from. Just I need a logical reason for deletion tag. What's your reason to delete or rename all these categories?-- Rahpouyan110 (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Struck comment by sockpuppet of User:Srahmadi. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said that I'm myself an Iranian as an answer to your comment that you said "Does wikipedia has double standard?". I told the reason. The word "martyr" is a biased word. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should respect the neutrality. Using such words are againt the policies of wikipedia. Diako «  Talk » 06:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK Sir. If you want to respect the wikipedia rules and you say that it's a bias word, so why you didn't start deleting the other martyrs category?!?! category:Iranian martyrs has been made on 27th May 2015. So please Start putting "deletion tag" or "rename" other categories, then I will start renaming this one. Regards -- Rahpouyan110 (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Struck comment by sockpuppet of User:Srahmadi. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this only my duty to correct all the defeciencies of Wikipedia. Why don't you do it? You can nominate the other ones, I will protect you. Diako «  Talk » 08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion will lead to nowhere and it is exactly the reason why I said earlier we need a broader discussion about the martyrs tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although the word 'martyr' might push one's POV, this category (and/or similar categories) is named in a neutral manner. I'd like to argue based on the fact that the readers are clearly informed by the title that the perspective of Iranians, which is not necessarily shared by other people, is expressed here only. In other terms, "Iranian martyrs" is a collection of the martyrs just from the view point of Iranians. So, no POV is being pushed! Mhhossein (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what the title means. "Iranian" is the demonym of people of Iranian ethnicity, and as such, the title simply means "martyrs who happen to be ethnically Iranian". And, in any case, the totalitarian theocratic government of Iran certainly do not represent "the view point of Iranians" anyway.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why 'clearly not', if there are sources calling them as 'Martyr'? Mhhossein (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a loaded label. The implication is that those bestowed with the label were more "righteous" than those not given the label (e.g. enemy soldiers) which is obviously completely POV.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The implication is that American people (or state) regard them as more "righteous" than others. Mhhossein (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to what dictionary?--Anders Feder (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All other martyr categories are by religion. This one is not. It does not fit the definitions of martyr, and turns the term on its head. It is not part of a widespread schema, but a stand alone set.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "Revolutionary Martyrs" category should be scrapped. Ghandi was killed by a radical Hindu nationalist who dislike his seeking coliving and reconciliation with the Muslims. His killing was not related to his revelutionary activities in opposing colonialism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... I asked that he be blocked after evidence of socket puppets, but you would have to actually read the discussion to see that. Why do you try so hard to make this personal? Ism schism (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because your tendentious editing is caused by a person - namely you.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you're still upset about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Keshvari discussion? You need to move on from that. These discussions don't need emotions added to them. Keep it rational, please. Ism schism (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not upset about that discussion at all - I am upset about your lacking competence.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you've run out of real arguments. Ism schism (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that looks like the description of you.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after closing the discussion on Category:Martyrs, however without prejudice against purging. For individual biographies the martyrdom should obviously be sourced and I'm not sure if this is always the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we find a single article to put in this category? Even legitimate historical Islamic martyrs like Husayn ibn Ali are generally Arab and the notion of an Iranian "nationality" is a modern construct anyway.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a harsh oversimplification considering the number of lives lost since the revolution. Ism schism (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does "the number of lives lost since the revolution" have to do with anything?--Anders Feder (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the large number of deaths is a response to your question "Can we find a single article to put in this category?" Clearly, there are enough to choose from. Ism schism (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does the number of deaths have to with the number of martyrs to choose from?--Anders Feder (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I think that if we clarify the meaning of martyrs here then we can judge on the remaining the category or deletion. I think that in Iraq-Iran war the meaning of word martyrs is not religious but every one who has killed as a human in an ethical good way. in other words the martyrs are those who killed as ethical man. this ethics is not religious because in iran there are many martyrs who are not Muslims but they are Christian. in simple, this concept is ethical. according to criterion of ethics maybe every body who defend of his country in front of enemy ,wether Iranian or any other nationality, could be count as martyrs. therefore we have to separate two meaning. religious vs ethical. although the ethical criterion maybe find out in religion of course.--m,sharaf (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources for this alternative definition of the term?--Anders Feder (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the category has been emptied and been nominated for speedy deletion. I've requested to put the speedy deletion on hold at the category talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment it seems like this category has never been tagged for CfD, I'll do that now and relist the discussion for procedural reasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisted after adding CfD template on category page. The discussion originally started 2015 May 28. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Martyr" is a term that is defined differently in different countries and religions, of course, but screaming "it's POV", as the nominator seems to do, is less than helpful. In religious studies it's quite normal to speak of Dutch martyrs or English martyrs or Irish martyrs or Anglo-Saxon martyrs, so I don't see why speaking of Iranian martyrs would be a problem. Maybe Iranian statehood is a matter of consideration here, but that can be dealt with at the article level. If tomorrow an Iranian Christian is stoned in Teheran, and Rome declares her a martyr, then an Iranian martyr she is. If the day after tomorrow an Iranian Muslim is killed in Texas, and he is declared a martyr by the authorities in his denomination, then he's also an Iranian martyr. The dead don't care, of course; it's us who should be able to look calmly at these things, and what's quite clear is that a. there are a number of different definitions of "martyr" and different processes in religions, philosophies, etc.; b. that such should be decided for a specific case based on reliable sources; c. that since the 20th century on there certainly is plenty of ground for organizing this category also by nationhood. And what goes for martyrs goes for saints as well--yet nobody is complaining about [[Category:Dutch saints]]. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether "the dead cares" is very much irrelevant. Wikipedia content is not dictated by what biographical subjects may think of themselves; it is governed by Wikipedia's policies. And there certainly are no Wikipedia policies that stipulate that "If the day after tomorrow an Iranian Muslim is killed in Texas, and he is declared a martyr by the authorities in his denomination, then he's also an Iranian martyr." In the unlikely event that the Catholic Church declares someone from Iran a martyr and that person is notable, we can easily create a category at that time. Until then it is mere crystal-balling. Please point to the actually existing, reliable sources that designate any notable Iranian subjects "martyr" in the present reality.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Anders Feder is attempting to argue for an outlandish idea. Category usage needs to depend on the concept expressed by the category: if we have a category for "Iranian martyrs", it needs to embrace everything that would realistically be considered Iranian martyrs, rather than just the current contents; see the discussion of glass spheres in the "For more appropriate categorization" section of Commons:COM:CAT. Dutch and English martyrs are a good reason for retaining categories about them, but Iran is a different case: it appears to have an official state classification of martyrs. We shouldn't have a single "martyrs" category that includes Mohammad Hossein Fahmideh, a casualty of the Iran-Iraq War, and Iranian people murdered or executed for their religious beliefs: the term "martyrs" is being used in two radically different senses here. And the latter doesn't demand individual biographies: one could compile a general discussion of Iranian governmental and popular persecution of Bahais and Christians on religious grounds and then put it into a category for Iranian martyrs. Given all this Since most or all of the current contents of this category are "official" martyrs like Fahmideh, let's rename it "Category:People classified by Iran as martyrs", since an official designation will easily avoid any inclusions of non-Muslims who were killed for their faith. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: What, precisely, is "outlandish" about it?--Anders Feder (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my second sentence? Or if you're unable to understand that, consider Category:Houses in Henry County, Ohio. At the moment, its only article is a house that is also a former prison, and I don't know of any other houses in the county that would qualify for notability. Try putting the category into Category:Defunct prisons in Ohio: would this be appropriate, since every article currently in the category is also a defunct prison, and there might not be any notable subjects that should go into Houses but not into Defunct prisons? Absolutely not! Categories are named and categorised to refer to a concept (in this case, "Iranian martyrs"), without regard to the articles currently and not-currently in the category. Otherwise, if the current contents were all military people of some sort, it would be appropriate to put this category into Category:Iranian military personnel, but then we'd have to remove that category if someone added a non-military person. So in summary, a category's name and uses shouldn't change just because of the addition or removal of articles to that category. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: Of course I read your second sentence. That isn't what I asked. What does your second sentence have to do with anything I've argued? Or "if you're unable to understand that", what have I said that contradict your second sentence?--Anders Feder (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nyttend: I like your rename idea. The state classification that you are referring to, does it coincide with this list [[2]] or is it different? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per user:Peterkingiron. The main problem with this category is not that martyr is a POV word. The main problem is that historically in English martyr is for people who were killed at some level due to their belief. While it may be that the Iranian state sees its soldiers when fighting Iraq in the 1980s standing for the Shi'ite religion against the Sunni Hussein and his followers, or maybe Shi'ah religion against the secularist tendencies of Hussein, it is not really fitting the standard definition of martyr. So making it clear this is a category of people so designated would help.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment on recent discussion. The category is largely for those martyred while performing jihad in the war against Iraq. There are in fact several Pentecostal pastors who were found killed in the 1990s, the perpetrators being presumed to be members of the Iranian security forces. Placing them in the same category as soldier killed in a war would be a travesty. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2015 (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:Local civil rights history in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:NONDEFINING. What is "local" depends on where you are sitting and, by design, the African American civil rights movement took local acts of civil disobedience and brought them to national attention through the media and the courts. We have many local history categories like Category:History of Cardiff but they are local in scope whereas this one is national without local subcategories. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Pb30 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject United States History. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge - local is subjective. Neutralitytalk 00:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was going to suggest that this be converted into a meta category, a parent for local civil rights history categories (e.g. "Civil rights history in Birmingham, Alabama", "Civil rights history in Barrow, Alaska", etc.), but I can't find any such categories to put into it. So either delete here and now, or convert and immediately C1-speedy delete it. But either way, this should be speedily recreated (and not subject to G4 speedy deletion) if we get categories for the civil rights history of various US localities. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2015 (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:Local Historic Register places in Martin County, Florida[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 to Category:Martin County Local Historic Register. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:NONDEFINING. Martin County created a local heritage register. There is no main article about this registry and I'm not sure it would be notable but you can read about it on the county government web site. 3 of the 4 articles are already on other, more defining heritage registers so we're not losing much navigation. (Alternatively, if kept, we should rename it to Category:Martin County Local Historic Register to make it clear that this is a formal noun not a description.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Clariosophic as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - The local register list is county-wide, government sponsored, with a review process. The category has a defining characteristic, and will have less overlap as it is expanded. Keep, and rename it as suggested by RevelationDirect. Generic1139 (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are separate things. Category:National Register of Historic Places in Martin County, Florida is a federal list. Category:Local Historic Register places in Martin County, Florida is a list of items meeting local requirements. The notability of the federal list is well established, and on Wikipedia is broken down by county or large city. Items on the federal list may or may not appear on the local list. Items on the local list may or may not appear on the federal list. The question here is whether or not the local list is notable enough to have a category - or are the members of the list notable enough to make the category notable and useful. I'm arguing that yes, for some types of local historic lists, the notability is sufficient, and is this case, being a government sponsored list over a county-wide area, keep this list, renamed per RevelationDirect. Generic1139 (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming. I'm fine with that. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2015 (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/2015_August_22&oldid=1138408341"