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. Wizardman 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category is related to the Norwegian overseas territory Bjørnøya (which means Bear Island in Norwegian). However, the article Bear Island is a disambiguation page with many Bear Islands, and it seems more correct that this category get its correct name. Arsenikk(talk) 21:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category with little seeming growth potential. The main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for this small amount of material. Otto4711 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator.Viceregent 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. There is not enough material yet to necessitate a category, and the likelihood of a substantial increase in the number of relevant articles seems low, given that the island itself is uninhabited and (fairly) small. Rename per nominator if there is no consensus to delete. –Black Falcon(Talk) 23:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While that is indeed the most common name of the island in English, there are over 15 other Bear Islands with which the one in Norway could be confused. –Black Falcon(Talk) 04:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a cursory (and admittedly highly imperfect) Google search, it does not seem that "Bear Island" overwhelmingly refers to the Norwegian island in English usage. "Bear Island" alone has about 300000 web hits, yet only 60000 are related to Norway. The numbers are similar for Google News Archive (2200 vs. 350), Google Scholar (4200 vs. 2300), and Google Books (1430 vs. 870). Given this, the advice of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) seems relevant: "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase (unless it is unlikely that the related usages deserve their own article)." –Black Falcon(Talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have seen in my search, I always added Norway in the search string. Bear Island then has it over Bjørnøya, especially when it comes to the quality sources (books, scholar, news), making the choice for Wikipedia easy according to the policies referenced above. Gidonb 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also Bjørnøya is ambiguous itself as there is a second Norwegian Island with the same name. You will get to this island when entering Bjørnøya, Norway in Google maps (meaning that Bjørnøya instead of Bear Island is still overrated in my search). One can read more about the near-mainland Bjørnøya here. gidonb (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Bear Island" is the usual English name, just as we say Brussels not Bruxelles and Cologne not Koln. Bear Island (Norway), if you must change it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 25 May 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. Since a number of comments referenced the fact that this category is part of a larger sub-categorisation scheme, this 'keep' closure does not preclude a nomination of the entire Coastal cities category tree. –Black Falcon(Talk) 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - There are several issues with this category. Firstly, it introduces clutter to the already many categories for Israeli localities. Secondly, it has no real precedent and smells of needless category proliferation, similar to Category:Fictional magicians (I think it might still exist!). Thirdly, it's ambiguous, because some cities are hard to define as 'coastal' (e.g. Rishon LeZion), and many are coastal but aren't individual cities, like Jaffa, Caesaria, Atlit, etc. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't see the point. пﮟოьεԻ57 21:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents - without offering an opinion about the other points raised by the nomination, we have Category:Coastal cities which contains a number of by country subcats, as well as Category:Coastal towns. So this isn't unprecedented. Otto4711 (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep the nominator's comments are applicable to all the "coastal cities" categories, not just this one. They should be discussed and kept or not as a whole rather than singling one out for different treatment. Consistency removes appearance of bias. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are only a few 'by country' coastal cities categories (I think 13 out of probably over 100 with a coastline), so this can't really be called a precedent. I don't wish to umbrella-nominate, because it's possible that in some countries, coastal cities are clearly defined, or they have other reasons to keep which do not exist for Israel. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 16:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (removing ones which are not convincingly both city and coastal) - there was a recent cfd on a similar topic (which was keep). There was also a recent keep for river cities; river seems less 'defining' than coastal to me. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Israeli cities have distinct jurisdictions, so it is easy to determinate which cities are on the coast. For historical cities like Yafo and Cesarea a subcat can be created. gidonb (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: legitimate geographic category. Shir-Eltoo 21:23, 25 May 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:merge. –Black Falcon(Talk) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shouldn't this be expanded? (as is proposed for Category:Chicago GSB alumni below) I have no idea what "ETH Zurich" stands for, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Cgingold (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not think about expansion. However, it looks like (from the schools's page) ETH abbreviates German words, so I don't know what be the ideal thing to do. A "rename" might be in order as well. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 00:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, ETH Zurich is the common English name. Expansion wouldn't be helpful because of the German, so it's good the way it is. 70.51.10.113 (talk) 03:40, 21 May 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:no consensus. –Black Falcon(Talk) 22:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepTrotsky is in the first but not the second. A Mexican murdered in the US would be in the 2nd but not the first. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roundhouse Lugnuts (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to be consistent in the use this category the overlap will be huge. Perhaps it's better to throw out the Mexicans and rename to Category:Foreigners murdered in MexicoMixcoatl (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Mixcoatl, then do the same for the 5 or so other "People murdered in Fooland" cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'foreigner' not a potentially loaded word here? I can't think of a good alternative, like. Nonresidents? Seems kind of cumbersome. Flowerparty☀ 03:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forget it - the whole tree is based on the nationality of the victim, rightly or wrongly - Alexander Litvinenko was killed in London, but is in the Russian tree. Large numbers of foreigners seem to get murdered in many places, but it's too late and too complicated to start categorising for it. Start with lists anyway. Merge the Mexicans and delete Category:People murdered in Mexico. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with deletion too. My suggestion above should not be seen as endorsing a rename, only an attempt to neutralize the word "foreigner." Otto4711 (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gidonb. Category:People murdered in Mexico should be for all people murdered in Mexico. Category:Mexican murder victims should be for murder victims who happen to be Mexican citizens/nationals. Adding a "foreigner" descriptor will only complicate things, because each nation has a different legal concept of foreigner. Dh2 (talk) 19:54, 24 May 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. –Black Falcon(Talk) 21:56, 30 May 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:Appeared on "Later with Jools Holland"[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: Convert to list. Category has the potential for more than 1000 members considering 200 shows aired with up to five performers. Recommend converting to List of performers on X/List of performances on X sorted by year like other music television lists such as List of performers on Top of the Pops. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert and delete - per overwhelming precedent and concensus we do not categorize performers by venue. Otto4711 (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete - as spake Otto4711. It's OCAT:various. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify trivial intersection, performer by performance, etc ad nauseum. Maralia (talk) 01:20, 21 May 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. –Black Falcon(Talk) 22:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Expand abbreviated name to match University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. Abbreviation are particularly problematic when it comes to universities and colleges, since they are commonly used by those who attend there, work there, etc., but are often completely unknown outside of that sphere. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:09, 20 May 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:no consensus to rename. Angus McLellan(Talk) 16:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the wikiproject expressly encompasses the diaspora ("Armenians"); but it's their project if they want to change it, go for it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But do the project want to change it? This would be rather like putting all Jewish-related articles under Israel. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that this should have been initiated by the project, actually. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep as it is. Armenia is a small country compared to the area formerly inhabited by Armenians. The Armenian residents of countries such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are not a disapora (in the sense used for Jews), but people living in or near where they have always lived. Linking it all to the present Armenia (as nom) would have misleading implications. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:06, 26 May 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.
Oppose and comment: This is a very contriversal issue. Assyria does not exist as a country today like Denmark. But its people sill remain. Thus Assyrian is more sutable. Chaldean (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, modern day Assyrians have little connection to the historical Assyria. --Soman (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per both above. Ideally more distinction needs to be made in these categories between ancient Assyria and the modern Assyrian ethnic group, but all these mix the two. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the present usage of Assyrian is for a Christian denomination scattered across the Middle East. I expect they are largely endogamous, and so like many milets of the Ottoman Empire are almost an ethnic group, thus Assyrian is better for them. I would not oppose a systematic segregation of articles on ancient Assyria from those on the modern religious group, if desired. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:12, 26 May 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:delete (empty). –Black Falcon(Talk) 22:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Genus of cuckoo that has been absorbed into another genus. All articles have been updated per change, so category is redundant. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 02:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no need. There are only five articles that it could be added to, and the main one makes it clear that the genus is old. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 04:07, 21 May 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is a tricky category to come up with a good name for, and what I propose is not entirely satisfactory, but I think it's an improvement for two reasons. First, I propose changing "death sentences" to "executions", since this is a category for people, and on WP categories for people who are executed are called (somewhat awkwardly) "executions", not "death sentences". (And yes, all the people in the category were executed, not just recipients of a death sentence.) It is a subcategory of Category:Soviet executions. Second, I propose changing "exonerated" to "rehabilitated". In referring to these people, it's far more common to use the Soviet term "rehabilitate". True, "rehabilitatated" was essentially a propangandistic way of the government saying that they were "exonerated", but they weren't like "normal" exonerations where new evidence is found, or DNA analysis proved that they were innocent, etc. Essentially, the government just changed their mind and wanted to reverse the purge that was performed against an individual. Anyway, I think the category will be more recognisable to users if the term that is always used in this context is used. It is a subcategory of Category:Soviet rehabilitations. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Rehabilititated executed Soviets, people aren't executions, and shouldn't be so categorized. Most were Soviets (in the sense of being citizens of the Soviet Union at some time before being executed), so my proposed formulation. People shouldn't be in categories that aren't about people - and the formulation proposed is awkward because the execution seems to have been rehabilitated, meaning the person isn't. Maybe I'm too literal, but that's how it reads to me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that not all of the people were Soviet — many were from the communist bloc states of Eastern Europe. The "executions" issue is weird, but it seems all WP categories for people who are executed use "executions" to describe the people: see Category:Executions by country, all of which are people categories. As you say, that is not ideal, but it's where things are at right now. But overall, you're proposal is as good as mine or any other I can come up with. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose non-English. I was not a complete idiot when I used the five-dollar word "exonerated". It may be not the best English, but "rehabilitated" is very poor calque. It is used in articles about Soviet repressions since there is no English equivalent for the notion in its full meaning, but the usage in a category, i.e., as a navigation tool of a word in the meaning you cannot find in an English dictionary is out of question. And "executed Soviets" sounds as a sick joke, excused only by the the voter's complete ignorance in the subject (which is the most common pain in the ass in wikipedia: dealing with opinions of well-meaning but severely undereducated people). As for "people are not executions", it is weak argument and judging from this category move already considered. `'Míkka>t 02:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could we (and by "we", I mean "you") please scale back the sarcasm / attack of other editors and their knowledge level or education? The nomination of an article you created is not an attack on you; this is not the place or martyr dressing for temper tantrums. By the way, the Soviet meaning of the word "rehabilitation" is found in the Oxford English Dictionary and it is commonly used in academic literature. The "new" meaning has very much become an "English" word, just as "Soviet" has. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two of three my points are rather harmless statement of my opinion. The third one (with sarcasm) was not aimed personally to someone here, but a general grumble about common problem in wikipedia: lack of expert's involvement and their problems. That a first best non-vandal teenager has exactly the same rights in wikipedia as a college professor is both good and bad. As for "articles I created", FUI some of them I nominated for deletion myself after certain basic rules in wikipedia assumed their present shape. `'Míkka>t 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the demonym for citizens of the Soviet Union? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a close look at my formulation, I think that you'll agree that it doesn't suffer from the sort of grammatical problems you're concerned about. Cgingold (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cgingold's suggestion says essentially the same thing as "People executed by the Soviets that were susequently rehabilitated", but it is more concise and "pithy", which is why I favour it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of focus on people, which is its essense, bothers me. Everything can be rehabilitated - cars, football teams...... --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we had category intersections it would be an easy intersection of Category:Soviet rehabilitations and Category:Soviet executions. But is it not a triple intersection of the sort deplored by OCAT? (Category:Executions by country arose as a subcat of Category:Executed people after a ferocious cfd. There is Category:Burials too, which contains people, or their remains.) The difficulty of phrasing a name for this category suggests to me that it should be abandoned - there is difficulty with each bit of it - Soviet/rehabilitations/executions - are these executionees themselves Soviet or are they being executed by Soviets, or both, and who is rehabilitating them? Soviets? Post-Soviets? Hitler? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think my formulation is far less ambiguous/problematic than the others, primarily because it uses just a single noun, with "Post-execution" functioning as an adjective. And consider this: in the near future we will almost certainly need to have a category for "Post-execution American exonerations". I don't think that suffers from an impermissible degree of ambiguity, any more than "Post-execution Soviet rehabilitations". As for "triple intersections" -- it's true that they are discouraged and should be used with a degree of restraint, but they are certainly not forbidden. When there is a clear rationale, as there is here, it would be silly to rule it out for that reason. Cgingold (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the objection to putting a 'Post-execution Soviet rehabilitation' into Category:Soviet executions (which needs inclusion criteria) and Category:Soviet rehabilitations (which gives good inclusion criteria) and saving the English language from further torment? Ah, Zinoviev, the well-known post-execution Soviet rehabilitation ... (I agree that the parent categories are not elegantly named but these are not part of this cfd.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As nom, I don't have a huge problem with that, except that being exonerated after being execution as opposed to while still alive and able to continue life as normal seems like a meaningful distinction that could be worth keeping. A post-execution exoneration seems to be fairly significant in the overall meaning of someone's life; moreso even than a garden-variety exoneration. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a significant misfortune to be exonerated and then executed (presumably for some further infraction) ... I suppose it happens. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:49, 23 May 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.
