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: I created this today, but accidentally gave it the wrong title (SWC vs SWAC). I created the category (and a few others) to try and standardize DI women's soccer articles. Apologies for the screwup! Cleancutkid (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cleancutkid: Do you expect to be able to populate this category with a substantial number of articles? If not it better be merged to its parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Well, eventually it could/would have an article for each year the tournament has/will run, plus one for the tournament as a whole (see the slightly-more-populated Category:ACC Women's Soccer Tournament). I created a number of these last week because about half (or more) the DI conferences had one already for women's soccer tourneys, and half didn't. Also, it matched the style from other sports (see Category:ACC Men's Basketball Tournament or Category:Southwestern Athletic Conference Baseball Tournament). I'm very new to working with categories, so I would defer to others' judgement on whether the category is too narrow (I know I get annoyed when I have to take 5 steps up/down a category tree to get anywhere). I know that "it exists somewhere else" is not sufficient justification, but in this case, it seems to be a pretty broad pattern in NCAA sports? I'm not vitally attached to this scheme, but if the category does stick around, it needs a new name, because right now it is referring to a defunct conference. Also, if you do think it should be killed, ideas on (re)organizing the NCAA women's soccer category tree would be welcome - I feel like it is less standardized/more complicated than it should be. Cleancutkid (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT without objection to recreation if a substantial number of articles becomes available. If kept, rename according to nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2017 (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:1708 establishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain[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.
Keep Not a copy. One entity refers to an island, the other to a short-lived state. Islands don't establish things; states establish things. If anything, it is Category:1708 establishments in Great Britain that ought to be deleted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are virtually the same thing and serve the same purpose. Besides, just "Great Britain" was the official name of the Kingdom of Great Britain.--Nevé–selbert 14:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (not plain delete) to Category:1708 establishments in Great Britain, as the content may not quite be the same, or is the rest in the target's subcats? In theory, Great Britain is the island and might exclude offshore islands, but that is splitting hairs. The creation of a separate "Kingdom of..." category tree has been a disruptive move. Annual categories tend to be very small and splitting them infinitely does not aid navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not splitting hairs, it is adding precision. That's a good thing to do. Having a few more letters in the cat name is a small price to pay for precision. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ALT What about a reverse merge? Islands don't establish things; states establish things. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge things are categorized by where established, not by what organization established them. This is an establishment by place schema, not an establishment by sponsor schema. Many things so categorized were not established by a state at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment every entity in the "XXXX establishments in Foo" is a state. Please name one entity in the tree structure that is not now or was not at one time a state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Preceding and succeeding categories added to the CfD.--Nevé–selbert 16:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, these are disruptive duplicates created by Laurel Lodged in defiance of previous CFD nominations. Tim! (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False The categories that I created are non disruptive as they are the more correct form. It is the GB variant that is anomalous as only states establish, not islands. It is also false because they were created before the CFD, not after. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal The CFD cited above is not the CFD that I had in mind. I was thinking of the epic CFD of July 8. This date is after the date that the 3 categories of this nomination were created. In that epic nom, Tim participated, and started the myth which he has again attempted to feed. I called it out then in these terms: "Tim neglects to mention that the closing Admin of the nomination that he cited said "Perhaps the Events (including Trials, Disestablishments and Establishments) should be renamed with "Kingdom of..."". As I wrote at the time, I believe that it showed bad faith on Tim's part not to have cited that ref by the closing admin. Clearly, he has not learnt his lesson. Tim then went on to attempt to blacken my reputation by digging up old dirt, contrary to Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds which he dismissed as a mere essay. Had more dispassionate editors from outside the UK participated in all these discussions, it is likely that KoGB would have primacy for state events and not GB (the island). But we are where we are. But not of this is an excuse for on-going mud-slinging and the making of blatently false accusations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2017 (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:Scottish football chairmen and investors[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. ℯxplicit 05:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it makes more sense to categorize chairmen and investors by the country of the football clubs than by their personal nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2017 (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:Ancient Germanic history and culture[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. ℯxplicit 02:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:rename per actual content, it is not about history on the one hand and culture on the other hand, but about the history of culture. An alternative rename could be to Category:Ancient Germanic culture since "ancient" already implies history. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The concept here is a vague one, covering law, folklore, myth and other things. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It is about both history (e.g. Roman sources describing the tribes) and culture (e.g. based on archaeological evidence), not one or the other. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2017 (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:9th century in the Carolingian Empire[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. ℯxplicit 02:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, the Carolingian Empire was from 800 to 888 so a separate 9th century subcategory in the tree is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Unlike the Great Britain nomination above, these are identical entities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge like the Great Britain nomination above, the things listed here are exactly the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A separate history is an additional category layer that is not needed in this case since the main Category:Carolingian Empire hardly contains any articles yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. ℯxplicit 05:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – re-creation of deleted category Category:Jewish anti-Zionists, deleted at cfd and upheld at drv in 2008. It should be made more difficult to restore categories deleted at cfd. Oculi (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The new user who created all of these can not edit them per WP:ARBPIA3. Additionally there is no need for this and most people they have put into it, cannot be proven under WP:BLP, therefore the category itself is a violation of WP:POV. - GalatzTalk 13:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- largely subjective, coatrack category; also given background as previously deleted category as per @Oculi. Quis separabit? 13:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom and noted cfd's, re-creation of deleted categories. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted the short lived unresponsive SPA re-spawning these categories bears some relationship[1][2][3][4][5] to another blocked account. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Previously deleted category, entirely subjective, and possibly WP:BLP issues as well. Also, this user (DrunkenIrishman819) is creating numerous similar categories that have the same problems.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Delete I have to admit that I am highly suspect of all categorization by ideology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. ℯxplicit 05:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Historically, we don't classify people as anti-Zionists. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 02:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took the liberty to merge 8 separate nominations to one. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Malik Shabazz: Could you please elaborate your rationale? Do you mean we have deleted categories like these before? If so, in which discussion(s)? Marcocapelle (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll find some previous CfDs. In the past, categories such as anti-Zionists, antisemites, and racists have been routinely deleted. If appropriate, the articles are included in categories related to anti-Zionism, antisemitism, or racism. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 02:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: -- Subjective, i.e., difficulty (varying degrees, depending on the country or nation or territory) in discerning where anti-Zionism leaves off and anti-Semitism or anti-Jewish sentiment begins, or vice versa (i.e. Ireland). To be a Palestinian or Egyptian anti-Zionist is inherently unavoidable, making a category in which well more than 90% of the population of a particular country or territory qualifies meaningless. I also adopt the reasoning of my esteemed fellow editors, @Malik Shabazz and @Oculi, regarding continual recreation of categories which always are deleted. Time for SALTING, I think. Quis separabit? 13:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Seems to be obvious re-spawning of categories deleted per cfd. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One can actually find cases of both Palestinians and Egyptians who are clearly Zionist in persuasion, so being an anti-Zionist is not "unavoidable". Plus, especially for Egyptians neautrality on the matter is possible. It is hard to class those in Egypt who orchestrated the treaty with Israel as "anti-Zionists". Also by some definitions an anti-Zionist is someone who denies Israel's right to exist and seeks to deport all the Jews there out of the Middle East. While this does seem to describe the political position of much of the Palestinian leadership, and claims to recognize the right of Israel to exist have never been proven to be more than window dressing to attempt to gain political legitimacy in the eyes of the few who have not bought into the antisemitism inherent in anti-Zionism, there are still questions of degrees of hate for Israel and refusal to recognize its right to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a)It is hard to class those in Egypt who orchestrated the treaty with Israel as "anti-Zionists" -- really?? I guess the Irish signatories of the Anglo-Irish Treaty were pro-British. Treaties, even those worth more than the paper they are printed on, do not quantify anything other the narrow circumstances in which two or more countries (almost always temporarily; sometimes briefly) are "allied" against a common foe.
b) "One can actually find cases of both Palestinians and Egyptians who are clearly Zionist in persuasion" -- can you name any (non-Jewish) Palestinian or Egyptian Zionists off-hand? Quis separabit? 17:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Zionists refuse the right of Israel to exist as a nation. No one would say the signatories of the Anglo-Irish treaty reject the right of self-government for the people of Northern Ireland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2017 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 27#Category:Southwest Conference Women's Soccer Tournament. ℯxplicit 02:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: Preceding and succeeding categories added to the CfD.--Nevé–selbert 16:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)