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: (up)merge. We normally do not make a difference between living and historical people of a location. That's probably because in the end we all become historical people. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 23 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.
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: Categories are not named in "List of X" format — if they're meant to contain lists, then they're named "Lists of", and if they're meant to contain individual entries then they're just named "X". There may be a case to be made that we don't actually need this at all — that people here should just be filed in the Category:Manhattan Project people + Category:Women scientists (or appropriate subcategories) instead of a dedicated intersection — so I'm taking it to CFD instead of speedy in case anybody wants to actually advance that argument. But if it is kept, then it must be renamed. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename. Agree with renaming, as this is a category and list a list article. It is unlikely that a useful list article could be created. As the author of many of the articles in this category, I can tell you that they are not all scientists. I have tagged it as a non-diffusing subcategory. I have no objection to its deletion, but I don't want the women rendered invisible through being removed from the parent category. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:50, 23 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.
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. The other issues surrounding the name of either category name should be explored further, but this venue may not be it. — ξxplicit23:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article is traffic collision, not road accident. The category was at RA until someone moved it to TC back in July: as far as I can tell, without a CFD and without a speedy request, but it was clearly still the right thing to do. However, someone just moved it back: again without CFD or speedy, and this time without good reason as well. So again, this category's name needs to match the article name, and we need to make it clear that it shouldn't have been moved to the old title. This CFD also applies to several child categories, such as Category:Road accident deaths, which share the naming convention. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- While in common parlance we call them accidents, they are not all accidental: most are due to negligence; a few are due to unforeseeable mechanical failure; a few are deliberate. The first two are arguably accidents; the last is certainly not. The target is a much better name. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not all road accidents are collisions. The redirect an incorrect redirect. Not all accidents are accidents either. There is poor naming all around. If your car drops into the drink due to driving across thin ice, you didn't have a collision, your vehicle sank like a boat. If you have a flat tire and die of starvation, you didn't crash either. If you get snowed in, and don't have traction, and die of exposure, you didn't crash either... -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IP above makes a useful point. Support rename to match the article name, but a discussion about a better name for all relevant instances should start, possibly with a more general name like (the admittedly awkwardly contrived) "Vehicular incidents". —烏Γ(kaw), 06:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I am still trying to figure out what type of "accident" would not be a collision. If you hit a car or a tree it is a collision. If you are hit by a propelled object of some sort it is not a collision, but those are much less likely to be accidents. On the other hand, technically your car does collide with a bullet, so it still collides. Same with a falling rock. A car being damaged by a flood might not quite count as a collision. Reviewing the contents they generally involve buses either falling off cliffs or hitting trains. Falling off a cliff may be accidental, but the damage is caused by colliding with the ground on impact, so it still can be considered a collision, so I think collisions works. It apprears all articles involve tragedies caused by a vehicle colliding with something, sometimes as a rollover collision with multiple impacts, sometimes a single collision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming there are strong reasons the "crash"/"collision" terms are supplanting "accident". The term "accident" is horribly imprecise and passive. tedder (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and others above - specifically because the article subject is clearly about collisions. That said, I think a parent cat of Category:Road incidents might not be a bad idea as well. Note that that is incidents, not accidents. - jc3704:48, 24 October 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.
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: This category is for "judges in the American federal judiciary whose law clerks are often selected to become clerks for the Supreme Court...". From the sample of articles I looked at this appears to be a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. It is also (re "often") WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. DexDor(talk)06:38, 23 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.
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: This category has no parents, neither of the 2 articles in it use the word "important", the category text ("This category lists important geological sites around the world.") indicates subjective inclusion criteria and it is incorrectly capitalised. DexDor(talk)06:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creators rebuttal: This Cat was created for a few reasons, 1. There did not seem to be a similar Cat and I feel it is needed. 2. As a driver to expand on the geological sections on the articles contained therein. and 3. A localised listing so that people could see what was in their area and visit it. The two articles I placed in the cat are both "Important Geological Sites" and both need expanding in that area. I leave this in the hands of the consensus. The Original Filfi (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How do we decide if it's important? Is the Farm Creek Section important because it was the first such site to be discovered in North America, or is it minor because such sites were already known in Europe? The Zimmerman Kame is a glacier-deposited kame (a geological formation) that's important only for archaeological purposes; does it belong here? We need to have a better definition of what does and doesn't belong. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Whether a site is an important one is purely POV. One of the articles has a Geology of Scotland category. The other has a brief section on the geology of the site, but without a geology category at all: possibly it should have "Geology of Wales", though I have doubts as to its importance. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 23 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.
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.
