< June 19 June 21 >

June 20

Category:Albums produced by Daft Punk

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Albums produced by Daft Punk to [[:Category:All parents (except Category:Daft Punk)]]
Nominator's rationale: There are only two members and they are producers in their own right. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 20 June 2013 (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:High Fantasy Films and TV Series

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: Split. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. Other than the obvious capitalisation issues, we usually have separate categories for films and TV series. c.f. Category:Fantasy films and Category:Fantasy television series. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2013 (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:Members of the Institute of Directors

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting
Nominator's rationale: The article contains a large amount of BLP articles, many of which make no mention of the individual being a member of this organisation. The ones that do, I have yet to find a reference to prove they do. It seems to me to be Overcategorisation anyway - surely not every business and trade organisation can have a "members of" category? But none of the information is verifiable anyway. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2013 (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:Slave traders and slave holders

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 & split to Category:British slave traders and Category:Planters of the British West Indies (following Category:People of the British West Indies). – Fayenatic London 21:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Holding slaves is not defining unless we're talking about a certain era when it is considered unacceptable. Regardless, these two things should be split. JFH (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the slave trade itself was not deemed unacceptable, and in most places slave ownership was still acceptable after the formal trade was outlawed. We shouldn't impose modern morality onto historical figures as they had an entirely different set of values to our own. Anyway, away from history, I'd support the change. --Rushton2010 (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps, but again, not really defining. E.g., we don't say Thomas Jefferson, who held slaves, drafted the declaration of independence. It's a fact about his life, but it doesn't really DEFINE him. On the other hand, a slave trader, this is basically their occupation, so obviously more defining. If we start categorizing slave holders, then why not have egyptian slave holders, and put all the pharaohs in that, etc. If we wanted to demonstrate famous figures in history that held slaves, perhaps a list could be generated, but as a category I don't think it works.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Obiwan: Its not defining. And you seem to be thinking only of the American slave system - remember this category is English and British slavery, which was VERY different to what happened in America (get thousands of slaves toiling in cotton plantations out your mind- slaves were mostly domestic servants in Britain) And slavery has been been around since the very ancient times; Are the Romano-Britains or Anglo-Saxons defined by the fact they had slaves? 10% of the population were slaves at the Norman conquest of 1066- does that define the era? Are we classing peasants as slaves under the feudal system? What about the pauper workhouses of the victorian era? And you are wrong to think it suggests wealth: I have found through my volunteer work transcribing census returns that even very very modest people could have several slaves or domestic servants. Small time farmers, green grocers etc. People you would never think of as wealthy. So if you're looking to categorise wealth, you're better to create a specific category for it. --Rushton2010 (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You see my point. You are using the word "tarred" because we are attaching modern moral judgements. At that time there was nothing wrong with it and no one would blink an eye- as you say, it was respectable trade. Categorisation needs to be done in a manner which does not slander those who find themselves within the categories. I would support the Category:British plantation owners in West Indies option --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2013 (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:People from Everman, Texas

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. ...William 11:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned Everman's "what links here", and didn't find any additional people that could be filed in here. Upmerge per nom; if we ever get up to four or five or ten people from Everman who have Wikipedia articles, then maybe this can be recreated at that time, but at the present time this isn't needed. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2013 (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:1903 establishments in Poland

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. I think the comments at the very end of the discussion about Congress Poland point that maybe there is more to this issue. I suggest the interested editors consider the comments here and then decide how to proceed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be technically correct there were established in the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. What is clear is that they were not established in a place then desiganted officially as Poland, and where they were established is not now in Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator plus one user want to destroy the category on the grounds that there is no functional Poland in 1903. Another user wants to end by yea by country categories entirely. 2 want to leave things as is, without dealing with the problem that there is no functional Poland in 1903. I object to their plan as just as bad as calling an Arab association formed in Nazareth in 1903 an establishment in Israel. Calling Germans living in German majority parts of Germany in 1903 reisdents of Poland is just as bad as calling Arabs resident in Arab majority parts of Palestine in 1903 residents of Israel. Anyway, On what grounds do we exclude a group founded by Poles in a Polish majority area that would be within the next boundaries of an independent nation of Poland from this category? I do not think there is a workable way to keep this category. Since 2 of the articles are things that were established in what is not now Poland, we need some explantion of what definition of Poland is being used here. What is the definition of Poland that includes Lviv?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who wants to leave the things established in Lviv in the category?—no one, as far as I can tell. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fram says that ALL the articles need two cats. I also have to say if we keep the cat, we probably should keep the Lviv articles in there, since if anything was an establishment in Poland in 1903 they were. They were clearly more established in Poland than the German clubs established by Germans in Germany.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Fram did not explicitly say that one of those two cats had to be the Poland one—I don't think the user addressed the issue directly. He might well be OK with it being in a Ukraine cat (current) and a Germany cat (historical). I was just saying that if we are looking for common ground, I didn't think anyone would have objected to those articles being removed from this category, but it appears you disagree with that if the category exists. I think that approach would turn the category into more of an "ethnicity"-type category rather than one based on present or historic states, so I'm not sure that's a good idea if we're trying to narrow down how these are applied. So far, we've had two proposals for how the system should work—are we really wanting to add a third proposal that is based not on current or past borders but on ethnic connections of the topic in question? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Congress Poland did still exist in 1903, then we could rename and repurpose this to Category:1903 establishments in Congress Poland, but we would have to exclude both the Lviv and the in Germany articles. This was actually what I was originally going to propose, but at the time the article on Congress Poland said it was abolished in the 1860s, and I am still not convinced it existed enough after 1870 to categorize by. The argument Congress Poland exists in 1903 undercuts most of the above arguments to keep this category. If we do accept that as how to understand the past, we have to exclude both the Lviv and the in Germany articles. Also, to call some of the German articles in the "German partion of Poland" is questionable, because they are in Silesia, which was not part of the partition of Poland, but had been in Germany a long time before that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the articles in this category is SV Ratibor 03 which was established in a city that was in Prussia/Germany from 1742. Before that it had been part of Bohemia for at least 200 years, it was not part of pre-partition Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2013 (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.
More