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 deleted as CSD#C2. SoWhy 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Created the cat but it was named wrong. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign!) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy end - of discussion, I've placed "{{db-speedyrename}}" on the Cat, this will deal with it. --SteelersFanUK06ReplyOnMine! 23:33, 29 December 2008 (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:keep. (But certainly not a "speedy keep" since there is no bad faith and the issues involved are at least debatable and probably subject to differing viewpoints. "Test" nominations happen all the time where single categories out of an extensive category scheme are nominated, so there's nothing improper or "senseless" with what the nominator did here in that respect.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Deleteand listify - not seeing anything in the main article that indicates that happening to be an officer in this regiment was particularly defining of those people so categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep What's Worcestershire ever done to you that you pick on this out of more than 200 officers by regiment categories in Category:British Army officers? Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) This does not qualify for speedy keep. 2) "What's Worcestershire ever done to you" is hardly a compelling rationale for keeping. 3) I am not "picking" on this regiment; it's on an article I'm working on. Thanks for the assumption of good faith.
Speedy keep. Absolutely senseless nomination of part of a widespread categorisation scheme. Being an officer in a particular regiment is as defining as any other professional category, as anyone who knows anything about the British Army would know. Soldiers and ex-soldiers tend to identify with their regiments for the rest of their lives. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I see nothing in the article indicating that the officers and soldiers of this defunct regiment identified with the regiment or even gave the regiment a second thought upon leaving it. Easy enough to say "oh, everybody knows that" but in the absence of any sort of evidence it's "absolutely senseless." Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, you clearly know nothing about British military history. British soldiers join a regiment, not technically the British Army. An officer is commissioned into a regiment when he leaves Sandhurst. They usually stay in that regiment for their whole career. It is an integral part of their identity. People don't say "I served in the Army"; they say "I served in the Worcesters". They join regimental associations, which continue to exist even after the regiment has been amalgamated, and attend regimental reunions. They wear regimental ties to their dying day. This is even the case with men who only served for a few years. Every regiment has its own uniform, insignia, traditions. It is not the same as, say, an American regiment, with soldiers being posted to and away every year. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, was that so difficult? You made it almost all the way through that argument without being a condescending git. Otto4711 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth was condescending about that?! I wasn't be condescending in the slightest; I was pointing out a major difference between the British Army and most other armies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phrases like "absolutely senseless" and "sadly, you clearly know nothing about..." are condescending. Otto4711 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it is senseless to nominate a single category for deletion in a categorisation scheme of over a hundred of them and your comments ("I see nothing in the article indicating that the officers and soldiers of this defunct regiment identified with the regiment or even gave the regiment a second thought upon leaving it") do show that you know nothing about British military history. That's not condescension. -- 22:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You are certainly free to go on believing that. Otto4711 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Like most British regiments this one has undergone a series of amalgamations. With alumni categories when institutions merge, we have a merged category for alumni rather than three (two old institutions and one current). This might have some merit in this case too, but most articles are likely to be historic, and I think in this case the best solution is to retain the old names. In the British army, officers usually join a regiment and remain part of it throughout theri service career, even if sposted to a specialised corps such as parachute regimetn or SAS. This is therefore a stronmgly defining characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Otto, I really do think you have this one wrong. Belonging to a British Army Regiment is really defining. I'm not sure why it is, as I am a non-army person for all of my nearly 70 years, but I do know that it is very defining.--Bduke(Discussion) 09:41, 30 December 2008 (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 to correct caps and ampersand; will leave question of possible deletion for later. Kbdank71 14:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Caps, ampersand. This is probably speedy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename for correct capitalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure about this - do we have other "rulers by religion" categories? I would be dubious that the Seleucids were in fact Zoroastrian - large numbers of their coins show Greek & other deities. Johnbod (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2008 (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:relisted on jan 5. Kbdank71 15:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Slightly better, at least it has proper capitalization. Also, this needs better categorization itself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just Delete I think, or Rename with small "c" - this isn't really what is meant by Comparative philosophy AFAIK. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2008 (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:keep. Kbdank71 14:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Single entry in this rather meaningless category: People don't stay children for long; In this case, the person is already adult. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a repeat nomination of one that ended in "no consensus" and nothing appears to have changed since September 2008. Joyce Cheng is in the category, and from the article it appears that she is notable for things that occurred when she was a child. It's appropriate to classify people as "Fooian children" if they are notable for things that happened when they are not adults. That's the only way Category:Children and all its subcategories would make any sense. Although only with one member now, it's not out of the question that another Hong Kong child is (or will be) notable enough for an article. In other words, it's not a classic "no growth potential" small category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indeed, with quite a minimum search, I've managed to find another Hong Kong child to include in the category—Gouw Ian Iskandar was born in 1997 and is an actor and model. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Of course, most children grow up; this set of categories is for those persons who are or were notable when a child; persons stay in this set of categories even when they do grow up. Hmains (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2008 (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.
Delete - in line with some other recent deletions of categories for duos for instance for Twins (band) members; perhaps somewhat arbitrary but if there are never going to be more than two members of the group I don't believe a group members category is needed. Otto4711 (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2008 (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:German-Speaking Stars and Statesmen abroad[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete What does this even mean? How is the criteria determined? What defines who is a statesman? Star? What purpose does it serve except to group some people together arbitrarily? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not difficult to understand the name and the criteria of this catagory. Look at the entries! Than you will also understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stars48 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Actually, no. This raises a lot of questions. How do you determine that someone speaks German? Why would you group "statesmen" with "stars"? What purpose does that serve and how does it contribute to a better understanding of anything? With the word "abroad" attached to it, it makes no sense? What? They don't speak German at home? They live abroad? Even if by some stretch of the imagination, it is meaningful, it is arbitrary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an odd, odd category. Arbitrary inclusion criteria (what constitutes a "star"?), a nonsensical grouping (why stars and statesmen?), non-encyclopedic language (again, stars being completely arbitrary), and an undefined inclusion criteria (abroad? abroad from where?). faithless(speak) 05:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others above. DrKiernan (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless intersection and problems with sourcing membership of either subset. --Rodhullandemu 19:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary, non-encyclopedic etc. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (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.
Categories:Foreign-born United States political figures[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 all. Kbdank71 15:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: non defining feature - note recent nomination for foreign-born soccer players who have played for a national team. lists exclude those born as American citizens. The upmerge is based what is for me a presumption that one needs to be an American citizen to hold political office in the States. (List of foreign-born United States politicians exists.) Mayumashu (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and delete. Place of birth is generally not defining. It's only relevant in American politics in assessing whether or not someone is eligible to be U.S. President or Vice President (the whole "natural-born citizen" thing), but this is certainly not a reason to subcategorize by place of birth. The vast majority were not presidential or vice presidential aspirants, so birthplace is irrelevant for almost all and can't be the basis for a viable categorization scheme. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:04, 29 December 2008 (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.
