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 a category of supporters of the Better Off Out campaign, a predominantly (though not wholly) Conservative Party-derived group of politicians in the UK who seek withdrawal from the European Union. So this is a form of categorisation by opinion, but in a fairly precise sense which allows objective inclusion criteria -- either someone is a publicly-sgned up supporter of this campaign, or they are not.
Another point in favour of this category is that attitudes to the European Union have created one of the major fault lines in British politics over the last 15 years, so attitudes to the EU are a significant attribute of the people concerned.
However, I think we deleted a category of Eurosceptic politicians some time ago (though my memory may be faulty) and I can't find any trace of it, and there are several pressure groups operating in this area. If we were to categorise Eurosceptic or euro-hostile MPs by which groups they support or are members of, we'd generate massive category clutter ... and if we did it on this issue, why not do it for every other issue? Most current politicians sign up to support a wide range of campaigns, so the result would be spiralling category clutter.
This campaign does not seem to have made much impact since it launch, its and notable supporters are listed in the article Better Off Out, which should be sufficient for any such group. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorization on the basis of opinion or belief. Very similar to deleted categories for members of the US Congress who opposed Vietnam and Iraq, which were discussed and deleted a month or two ago. Otto4711 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2009 (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:Biographical Directory of the United States Congress images[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, empty. Kbdank71 12:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Empty. All images in this category have been moved to Commons. Any new ones should uploaded there and not here. – Quadell(talk) 19:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Later elaboration: the category page states, "Images are added to this category by putting the template {{PD-USGov-Congress-Bio}} on an image's page. However, the {{PD-USGov-Congress-Bio}} copyright tag has been deprecated." That template has also been deleted. – Quadell(talk) 04:01, 5 April 2009 (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: There's nothing wrong with the concept of these categories, but Pennsylvania is now the only state with such a category, and the parent contains only that category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there enough to create other states...with Gettysburg (one of the better known battles of the US Civil War) and Valley Forge (significant in the Revolutionary War), perhaps Pennsylvania has a richer military history than many other states. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there's really nothing wrong with the category structure. But it seems like it would have to part of some grander effort than this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletemilitary history by state, since it's a highly US-POV-biased name. There are Australian states, there are states like the USA, Australia, Canada, the UK, etc. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete military history by state - with a single subcategory there is simply no need for it and it serves no navigational purpose. No prejudice to recreation should there be a sudden influx of state-level milhist categories but it should be something like Milhist of the United States by state to address US-centric issues and in line with other similar US state by state schemes. Keep milhist of Penn and re-parent it to the two suggested merge targets. Seems like a substantial enough category as it stands and dumping the hundred-plus articles currently in it along with the additional sub-cats oesn't seem beneficial. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 12:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bringing these in line with the other categories in Category:Television series by studio, which are all "Television series by (studio name)". Also see below.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At a recent cfD we all seemed to agree that "programming" avoided the US/UK issues the best. (Such as programme vs. program and series meaning season or show.) However, I'd weakly support "series" instead of programming, if that helps consensus (and per WP:NC-TV). Though obviously opposing "show" and "program/programme". - jc37 08:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Best solution here, i think. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2009 (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:Delete - the category consists of nothing but projects that the two worked on, which we do not use as a basis for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as above. This is not two random people who worked together on these shows. Rather, "Sid and Marty Krofft" is pretty much an entity while the two (independent of each other are vitrually nothing. Sid Krofft has a brief intro of his pre-Krofft brothers work, then nothing but the Krofft Brothers. Marty Krofft is a redirect to Sid and Marty Krofft. Notably, we have a pile of articles that "the two worked on together" and zero articles on anything either did alone. We could have categories for Sid Krofft projects and another for Marty Krofft projects, but they would be identicle in every respect. (Full disclosure: I created the cat when I relalized we didn't have one. The name was, in retrospect, not the best possible choice.) - SummerPhD (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 12:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd been thinking of proposing the same, after seeing Eureka's category addition to Henri Lefebvre today and thinking it was better than the vague Urbanist category. Might also be good to develop reference articles which help define the 3 remaining categories though? AllyD (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2009 (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:Merge. The term National forest is only defined in US terms. The English entry is simply a forest with National in its title. The others appear to be national parks with forest in the title. With no clear common definition of the term this category should not exist. There's no National mountains or National lakes categoriesJBellis (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Protected forests. The Brazilian ones are certainly not National parks - I think access to some is supposed to be prohibited. This would also widen the scope considerably. I realize many or most of these are not fully protected at all. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do not merge Parks are very different than forests, both in their purpose and administration. Hmains (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Differnet coutries have different designations for protection. England has National Parks (which are subject to the National Parks Act), and the National Forest is not one of them. English and Welsh National Parks are not necessarily the same thing as those in other countries. It might be appropriate to have a common parent for them all, but the world is a diverse place and the WP category scheme cannot impose order on the diversity. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge Not necessarily equivalent to National parks. Rename Protected forests might be possible but is without precedent in Category:Protected Areas. Rmhermen (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge It would be nonsense to merge them. In the United States national forests are very different than national marks. So what if the term is not used worldwide? It is an important distinction where the distinction is made. doncram (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge not equivalent in many countries, USA included. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2009 (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: These appear to be redundant, and other categories of this type use the form Lists of foo topics. —G716 <T·C> 14:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merging - My initial assumption was that I would support this proposal, since the category names seem so similar. But after looking at the contents of Category:Lists of environment topics -- which is entirely made up of articles called "lists of environmental topics" -- I think it probably makes sense to keep both. (Though I note that Category:Lists of environment topics does need to be renamed very slightly, adding "al" to "environment".) Cgingold (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on the discussion here, and based on the new article List of environmental topics, all lists of the type List of environmental topics (*) (where "*" = some letter of the alphabet) will shortly be PRODed. This will change the nature of the category Category:Lists of environment topics to a more general category. —G716 <T·C> 03:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how that comes out, then we can figure what to do with these categories. Cgingold (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2009 (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 police officers convicted of crimes against humanity[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 per nom (small with little chance of expansion). That said, if someone wants to create Category:Police officers convicted of crimes against humanity, feel free (the only article that is in the German category is Klaus Barbie). I would have closed this as rename if there were more articles in this category; as it stands, if I had renamed it, we'd just have a new category with one article since I don't know what else to populate it with. Kbdank71 13:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomComment. This strikes me as an awfully narrow category, tailor-made & created purely for the one individual it categorizes. I would not want to see the rest of Category:German people convicted of crimes against humanity separated into other sub-cats by occupation -- and I really don't think there's anything more special about police officers than any of those other occupations. Cgingold (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I've just finished looking through the umbrella category, Category:Police officers with criminal convictions -- nearly all of which was set up by the same editor who created this category -- and I'm having second thoughts about deleting. It occurred to me that we don't currently have Category:Police officers convicted of crimes against humanity, which one would expect to find as the parent cat for this one. So I'm wondering if perhaps we should rename this (dropping the nationality) instead of deleting it, as there are probably other Police officers who have been convicted of crimes against humanity. Cgingold (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). Such a rename is also fine with me if it can be populated. Per BHG, it's OK to divide by nationality OR by occuopation, but it's probably OCAT in this case to do by both. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlikely to expand, and Herr Barbie is in plenty of other odious categories, that this isn't needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2009 (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.
I created it to cover "Americans convicted of treason". I wouldn't mind changing the name to that. But spying and treason aren't exactly the same thing. I checked the dictionary and "traitor" is the word for people guilty of treason, just as "perjuror" is the term for people guilty of perjury. Will Bebacktalk 07:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to believe there is a good solution to this quandary, but at the moment it eludes me. Cgingold (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People convicted of treason against the United States, and purge out of it those convicted of treason against other countries. There are two ways we can sub-categorise treason on nationality: by the nationality of the convict, or by the state which convicted them. It seems more consistent with the rest of thje categories in this are to categorise by the nation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on what might be done to accomodate Benedict Arnold? Leaving him out entirely would constitute a truly stunning oversight. Cgingold (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's an old saying that "hard cases make bad law", and I think we have to make a hard choice here. Either we keep conviction by a court as the criteria for attaching the label of "treason", or we open the floodgates to POV categorisation of people as "traitors". In the context of irish history just about every notable in political or military figure pre 1922 is a traitor from one perspective or another, and I';m sure the same applies to many other countries. (Consider for example the ANC in South Africa). So the best I can suggest for Benedict Arnold is that there may be scope for a more descriptive and less judgemental category, possibly along the lines of "people who waged war against their own country". But even that is a minefield, because from a British legalistic perspective, the whole American revolution was the work of British subjects who took up arms against their lawful sovereign-by-the-grace-of-God. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Benedict Arnold is in Category:American defectors, which suffices. Because of their close relation I just made that category a subcategory of the one currently under discussion here, and I'm going to now expand it. --Wassermann (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BHG; the omission of Benedict Arnold, due to his lack of conviction, is little different than other omissions in the other convictions categories: Mussolini, Hitler, Himmler, and Goebels will be glaring omissions from various categories that would no doubt have contained them had they lived to face trial; Kenneth Lay will be missing because his conviction was vacated due to his death; D.B.Cooper will be missing because no-one caught him, etc. We'll just have to live with the fact that unless we are willing to make the category useless as described by BHG by opening it up to POV, we need to keep it grounded in facts, which limit some of the most known people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). The Cgingold/BHG rename suggestion seems as good a solution as any I can currently think of. I don't know what to do about the Benedict Arnold "problem", but all this talk of him is making me hungry. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:21, 7 April 2009 (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 separate (do no merge). However, per this discussion, both categories (Category:Artificial satellites orbiting Earth, in particular) should probably be nominated for a rename. (For example, the terms: geocentric, geo-orbital, Earth-orbit, etc.) So this closure should not prevent an immediate nomination for renaming of either of the categories. - jc37 02:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was merged with Category:Artificial satellites orbiting Earth after this CFD, as part of a group nomination. However, as the result of a discussion at DRV, the category has been relisted for consideration.</admin><editor> I personally (as an editor) oppose this merge, as something which is "formerly orbiting" is, by definition, NOT "orbiting", and thus an incorrect categorization. If someone has a better name for this category, it would be welcome. Aervanath (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Artificial satellites that have achieved Earth orbit still has the same issue, it does not communicate that a satellite that had previously been in an Earth orbit is no longer in an Earth orbit. Why exactly do some people take issue with the word formerly? It seems to me this is exactly the word that is needed here and trying to work around it just means a longer and more difficult to understand name. Tothwolf (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the issue is, if splitting what is needed and what should the parent be called? Is Iridium 33 still in orbit? One could say yes since the parts are still up there if is not functioning and in pieces. Is the more important break out, for navigation purposes, the active satellites rather then former ones? How does one split active if it is necessary, functioning, not functional, in pieces? I think that so far the issue has been the name for the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid "Geo-orbital" is anything but a widely used term. It makes all of one appearance anywhere on Wiki, and in the wider universe it gets only a very limited number of G-hits (the exact number is impossible to say because the results are completely riddled with false hits). Cgingold (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If a concise and technically accurate alternative name is wanted, I would suggest using the following formulation: "Geocentric artificial satellites". Cgingold (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question? Where are all the editors that participated at the DRV who often edit in space topics? They seemed keen to participate there but they seem to have disappeared from the process. I think it's possible to simultaneously acknowledge that "geocentric" may be more properly correct while still believing, as I do, that "geo-orbital" is easier to understand. I wonder what the spacies think, though. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the editors who participated in the DRV were notified of the CfD relist. Tothwolf (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. There's a clear difference between a satellite currently in orbit around the earth and one that is not. Being able to see through a category what is currently in orbit versus formerly seems like a pretty fundamental function. Why would we list things that are not orbiting the earth as orbiting the earth, just because they once were? Still don't understand the allergy to 'formerly' in this case- it seems like it would be a fairly stable category, even if a few objects a year move from 'orbiting' to 'formerly orbiting'. Is this discussion about, essentially, whether being a satellite intended for use in earth orbit is a defining characteristic vs. just a place that a satellite has been? --Clay Collier (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole point—we're trying to come up with a way to phrase it that doesn't suggest they are "orbiting the earth" (i.e., currently). Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 'formerly' doesn't suggest that they are orbiting the earth. 'Satellites intended for Earth orbit' is all that comes to mind for a supper cat, but again, this doesn't eliminate the issue that distinguishing between satellites that are currently in orbit vs. those that aren't is a distinction worth noting on its own. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a "distinction worth noting", just not necessarily in category space. Using "formerly" solves one problem but creates another, as far as categorization is concerned. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The distinction is between "live" and "dead". Former sattelites are ones that have fallen out of orbit, usually burning up on re-entry. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, not onto a populated area (rimshot). Seriously though, though it might be broken, it's still a satellite, and if it hasn't de-orbited, it's still in orbit. We could distinguish in the 'current' category between operational and non-operational sats, if this is a significant issue, but of course there's the issue of when a satellite goes from being a satellite to being a former satellite, which seems to be verging on the absurd. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Broken is an understatement. So are you saying that this one is still in orbit? If so, tell me how we decide when it is no longer in orbit? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the case for Iridium that its status is not determinable. A third category might be required, or just leaving it in a higher category. But putting it in 'satellites orbiting the earth' seems particularly misleading as it 1) might not be a satellite any more and 2) might not be in orbit any more. Orbiting/formerly orbiting isn't a perfect classification, but maybe there isn't one here. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Repopulate category. A clear and factual distinction. Formerly is a good word. Rmhermen (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge/rename Merging these categories is what caused this mess to begin with and is what caused this to go to DRV in the first place. If someone can later come up with a better name that still shows that these satellites are formerly orbiting then they can be WP:BOLD and rename it then. Tothwolf (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one can be bold and unilaterally rename a category. That's what this consensus-driven forum is for. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they can, as long as it is done with care, common sense, and the general consensus of those who edit the articles and categories involved. Bots and forums such as this are not nor have they ever been required to rename a category. Tothwolf (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... the general consensus of those who edit the articles and categories involved." As I said, no one can be bold and unilaterally rename a category. The quoted part of your comment would suggest it's not being done unilaterally. Anyway, for this case, considering the fact that there is no obvious consensus here, it would be foolish to assume that there will be some consensus in the future that will emerge to justify a bold creation of a newly-named category without a CfD. It's exactly for cases like these that CfD is designed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't mean CfD is required for a rename. Most of the time common sense will more than suffice. In this case it seems no one has been able to come up with a better category name so renaming it would be pointless right now anyway. I'm still waiting on a valid answer to my earlier question: Why exactly do some people take issue with the word formerly? Tothwolf (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK—you go ahead and rename categories unilaterally and we'll see what happens. Call me crazy, but usually it's just "common sense" to use the forum designed for doing so. I guess the old chestnut is true that common sense is not always "common". For two great contemporary examples of what one user thought were "common sense" unilateral category renames that were subsequently rejected by consensus when he "bothered" to try to delete the old emptied categories, see here and here. The issue involving the word "formerly" has been explained somewhat in the DRV (link at top) and in this CfD, so no need to repeat those reasons in depth here. In summary, there has been consensus to avoid "current" and "former" categories when the status of the thing can change from one to the other; categories should be timeless, not time-dependent; etc. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have Category:Dead People, a distinction that I would say is very similar to a satellite that has been de-orbited. Changing from one to the other is a once in a lifetime (of the sat) event; quite different from 'People Currently in Space', where a person might be taken up and down a dozen times in a career. One transition; it's in orbit, it comes out. No more complicated than adding a death date for a person who doesn't currently have one. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is arguing it is "complicated". The argument is that it is not typically done. I'm not convinced that an exception in category space should be made to the general rule by analogising orbiting/"deorbited" satellites to living/dead people. They are quite different cases. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But 'it's not typically done' is a habit, not an argument. Rationales were given in the past for why current and former didn't match with certain categories, and in many cases are appropriate. It can give rise to categories that are frequently out of date or misleading. I think living and dead is quite a good analogy; it's a one-way trip, for one, and can be verified in the vast majority of cases. Some satellites may not be in a verifiable state- the Iridium sat mentioned above- but people are commonly 'missing presumed dead' or just 'missing'. We shouldn't get rid of category:dead people just because we're not sure if Jimmy Hoffa is alive or dead. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about unilaterally but I've renamed a great number of categories in years past without ever having to bring them to CfD. I think the key element being those renames were non-controversial and made sense. Thanks for the links, I needed a good chuckle. Did you hand out a trout-whack to the editor involved? Peterkingiron made a good point and I intend to reference that one myself in the future. I think in that case, common sense would indicate you do not bring a category to CfD if editors are already working on renaming it. In many cases keeping the original category name around with a {{Category redirect}} template is sensible anyway as it prevents red-linked or duplicate categories in future articles when people don't bother to check a category name. For completely pointless never to be reused category names, there is always WP:CSD#C1 and for non-controversial renames there is C2. I personally don't see a problem with using formerly in cases where it makes sense to do so. In this case I think it is highly unlikely that satellites that have re-entered the atmosphere and burned up will ever return to space and once again become Earth orbiting. I also think it is rather unlikely former satellites such as Iridium 33 and Kosmos-2251 which are now basically an orbiting debris field will re-assemble themselves into orbiting satellites (if that were to happen we have a much larger problem than the name of this category IMO). --Tothwolf (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No trouts or WP users were harmed in the closing of those discussions. No whackings were administered. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge I think things are clear as they exist. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not wild about the current title, but will stay out of the current question. One issue, though: shouldn't every space mission be listed? Apollo 1 was an artificial satellites orbiting Earth for a little while, for example. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 12:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Grammar - the name "fictional" is vague and non-descriptive. I'll grant that "fictional things" is only marginally better, so I'm open to other ideas. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional subjects? Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure If no one has anything better than that, I'll go for it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear everything is a fictional subject either, since Words originating in fiction would be a real subject. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, super-strong, uber-strong oppose (smile) - Joking aside, the problem with ascribing the adjective to a noun is that the category includes a wide range, including fictional persons, places, objects, concepts, etc. I think that may be why they settled on calling it "fictional". - jc37 08:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not everything in the category is a thing (yes I know, that's a bad sentence). 76.66.193.69 (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Fictional subjects. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe the correct technical term is "Fictional stuff", which I think encompasses all the entire range of things that have been mentioned. (It doesn't get more generic than that.) Cgingold (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think "fictional" is fairly clear. "Fictional topic" would be my preference if it were renamed... Hobit (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2009 (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:Laureates of State Prize of the Russian Federation[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. Kbdank71 12:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just because. OK, this sounds more "natural" in English, and makes it easier find in categorisation structures, etc. RussaviaDialogue 03:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The usual solution for award categories is to listify and delete. We only keep them for the really major awards. Is this one really that important? I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a major award. It is akin to the Nobel Prize, and is the most prestigious state award in Russia. --RussaviaDialogue 00:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Yes, it is a major award and I think it is worth a separate category. I agree with Russavia that his proposed name is better than mine (I was the creator of the original category) Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2009 (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. (Sole article was already in parent category.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One member and chances of expansion are thin, all previous member articles have been redirected to extant article. Cerejota (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge then delete -- A useless category as it is now. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2009 (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.
