< March 22 March 24 >

March 23

Category:Archaeology of prehistoric Anatolia

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 & rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge/rename. The categories hold only articles/subcats about sites, not other aspects of archaeology. If any articles turn up for prehistoric sites in the European part of Turkey, then Category:Prehistoric sites in Turkey can be reactivated as an intermediate category, but the present contents are all in Anatolia (Asia). – Fayenatic London 22:18, 23 March 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:Suicides by jumping from a height

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. Now that the train category has been renamed, and our auto-snake-pittings seem to be at a minimum, I think we can trust people to know what this means.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think it can be implicitly understood that a suicide by jumping is from a height. This would make the category name more manageable both by itself and for future subcategorizing. (Due to the size of the category, I was already thinking about subcategorizing it, but before doing so, I'd like the shortening issue to be settled first. --Nlu (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"From a height" can reasonably be taken to mean "a fatal height", i.e. it's the height that is fatal. No-one drowns from the Golden Gate, nor are chairs fatal unless there's a noose etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the assertion about Golden Gate is wrong; a significant portion of Golden Gate jumps result in drowning deaths, not deaths by blunt force impact. (See, e.g., [1].) --Nlu (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The more information you give the more it raises questions that can be answered ambiguously. I think this is one of those cases where it's better to go with the simplest definition and let common sense sort it out. "Jumping" is not going to be used on the people who jump in front of trains or who jump off of chairs; it will be used basically for those who jump off buildings, bridges, and heights. More words are not going to help. --Lquilter (talk) 17:21, 2 May 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:Rape in novels

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) 16:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A very specific and trivial category. Tomcat (7) 19:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same rationale would support the deletion of those categories, so your argument that other stuff exists is not really valid.--Atlantima (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If rape is the major theme in a book, then I agree with the anonymous voter's proposal. Currently the category is unclear, because it may mean that every novel mentioning rape belongs to this category. Also, Wikipedia is not censored, and categories are not there to warn someone. They should simply categorize articles. People should be aware of what is written in a free project. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NODISCLAIMERS, we're not here to warn readers that the topic they're accessing may contain material inappropriate from their private viewpoints. We should only categorize in content categorization due to WP:DEFINING characteristics, or heirarchical organization of those characteristics. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then there are novels like To Kill a Mocking Bird where they extensively discuss rape, including the applicable state laws on it, but it is unclear that a rape actually occured even though a person is convicted of rape in it. For what it is worth that novel is not even in the category. I think this is not a good way to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 25 March 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:Hong Kong expatriates in the People's Republic of China

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 to Category:Hong Kong expatriates in China..--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Hong Kong expatriates in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Hong Kong is a part of the People's Republic of China. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there was such a need, general consensus seems to be we use China, Russia, Turkey etc. to refer to the current country, and use some other name to distinguish previous incarnations of the countries that were refered to with these names by contemporaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 26 March 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:Reconstruction

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(ish) rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:22, 23 March 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:Turisas

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) 16:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. Cf. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_12#Category:Turisas —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:12, 23 March 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:Lists of bus routes in the United Kingdom

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here, Also most lists will have gone making this "glorious" page useless Davey2010 Talk 14:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that at least many of these are up-for deletion. If they are in fact deleted and the category comes to be empty, than it should also be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else here is up for deletion. Hmains (talk) 03:47, 30 March 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:Images of Debby Ryan

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) 16:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Debby Ryan album covers, it only contains album covers and they are already in that category. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:12, 23 March 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:Luxembourgish resistance groups

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Luxembourgish resistance groups to Category:Luxembourgian resistance groups
Nominator's rationale: Rename per the convention of the subcats of Category:Luxembourg. There was a proposal at CFD 12 Nov 2012 to rename all such categories to "Luxembourgish", but the discussion closed as no consensus.
Unless and until there is a consensus to rename all the other categories, this one should be consistent with the convention. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this was nominated at speedy, and opposed by the category creator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
  • Category:Luxembourgish resistance groups to Category:Luxembourgian resistance groups – C2C; categories use "Luxembourgian" Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment: Surely this matter should be for WP:Luxembourg to decide as this discussion (and the category) clearly falls within their remit. Please do not think me rude, but I find it curious that the clear manual of style guide on the page in question should be questioned by those who are not particularly interested in Luxembourg-related topics. I would suggest that this category move is denied while the members of the project can come up with suitable evidence that their convention is correct, allowing us to decide these sorts of circular disputes once and for all. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. WikiProjects do not WP:OWN articles which fall within their scope. WikiProjects are a valuable forum for collaboration, but they do not have a veto over wider community consensus. In this case, WP:Luxembourg did not succeed in persuading the wider community that it s right about this name. Please don't think me rude, but if you don't want something to be questioned, then you should know by now that you shouldn't write it on Wikipedia, because everything here (other than core policy) is open to challenge.
    If members of that project haven't bothered to assemble the evidence so far, and didn't bother to assemble it when there was a discussion on the convention at CFD 12 Nov 2012, then there is no reason to refrain from applying the convention. If those project members do want to assemble the evidence, then they can make a group nomination to change the convention ... but creating one exceptional category is not the way to change a convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your argument. I certainly would never say that WikiProjects "own" their articles. What I am saying is that people with knowledge/interest in the subject in question (which you must agree is pretty obscure in this case) will assemble in the WikiProject. Their combined knowledge/interest on the subject makes them, in my belief, able to decide on these kind of minor issues than people for whom this is the first they've seen of Luxembourg-related articles. A couple of members on the project voiced concern about the term "Luxembourgish" on the project (see the talk page -it's not a unanimous consensus) but the majority do seem to be in favor of the "Luxembourgish" adjective, myself included. I agree that "Luxembourgian" has currency in American English, but again, the WP does state that British English should be used throughout. If this debate was between the terms "Luxembourgish" and "Luxembourg" (used as an adjective in British English)...---Brigade Piron (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As above, if you or another editor wants to do a group nom to change the convention, then off you go. Editors with expertise in the topic can bring their expertise to a wider discussion, and see if they can persuade a wider set of editors ... but their membership of a WikiProject does not entitle them to tell everyone else to butt out of the conversation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
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 Wrocław

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 as is. Wizardman 15:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:people from Breslau is a redirect to Category:People from Wrocław. I believe this should be changed for the following reasons:

  • The name of 'Breslau' was in 1945 changed to 'Wrocław'.
  • With the name change, the city became part of Poland. It was also part of (the Kingdom of) Poland from year 990-1241. Back then it had the Slavic name 'Vratislavia'.
  • In the middle ages it was a Hanseatic city, so prior to becoming part of the relatively new country of Germany, it was an important part of the Germanic part of Europe.
  • Prior to the change of name, the population was largely German (speaking)
  • After the name change the population was almost entirely Polish.
  • In 1945 the city itself had been almost completely destroyed and is was then rebuilt.

In other words, in 1945 the city itself, its population and its country changed and any person who came from that city during the 700 years prior to 1945 would have basically no connection with the Polish name 'Wrocław'.

As an alternative to the category split, the category people from Wrocław could be renamed to people from Wrocław (Breslau), to reflect that the category also covers people from Breslau.

PS. This is the first time I start a discussion regarding a category, so please let me know if I should have done it differently. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tidied up by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 23 March 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:Syrian Nazis

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 delete as empty per WP:CSD#C1. The consensus is that the articles which used to populate this category are about people who were not Syrian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C1. Speedy delete Unpopulated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it's repopulated; nom. has not provided any reference that these Nazis who are Syrian renounced either Nazism or their Syrian citizenship. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah no. This category was populated by three articles, one a Croat and two Germans. One of the Germans was an SS officer and it can reasonably be assumed he was a member of the NSDAP. There is no evidence that either of the other two were members. However the key issues here is there is nothing in any of the three to support the idea that they were Syrian. The Croat flew for the Syrian Air Force, and the other two lived there for some time, but that does not make them Syrian Nazis. I have emptied the category again on that basis. This was not vandalism despite the accusation on my talk page, but removal of completely unsupported categorisation. The emptying of the category is a consequence of the removal of the inappropriate categorisation. I have explained my actions on the talk pages of the three articles. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker has made a statement on my talk page that being in the SS does not make one a Nazi. That is logic that is pushing these deletions. Shame on us if we cannot see that SS members are Nazis or do we need categories like Category:Expatriate SS officers in Syria? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
whether he was or not doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion, he wasn't Syrian so the categorisation was wrong. And because all three were wrong the category was emptied and now it should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note the editor objecting to this deletion has not produced anything to refute the assertions of Jpl (in one case) and myself in the others that these people were not Syrian. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:23, 26 March 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:Egyptian Nazis

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 delete as empty per WP:CSD#C1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C1. Speedy delete Unpopulated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it's repopulated; nom. has not provided any reference that these Nazis who are Egyptian renounced either Nazism or their Egyptian citizenship. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • and unpopulated again, for the same reasons as the Syrian one, as well as the fact that one article was about a German extermination unit planned for Palestine (but which did not eventuate). The members may well have been Nazis, not there is any evidence of that in the article, but there is also no evidence any of them were Egyptian. This is another example of completely inappropriate categorisation. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note the editor objecting to this deletion has not produced anything to refute the assertions of Jpl (in one case) and myself in the others that these people were not Egyptian. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:24, 26 March 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:4 August 1978 births

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: merged. Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories for birthdates more refined than the year are not used, as being WP:OC. Recent example of deletion of this sort of category here. The Bushranger One ping only 08:26, 23 March 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:United States Continuity of Operations facilities

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: deleted (G7). The Bushranger One ping only 08:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I created this category yesterday, but it was a mistake. The category is too narrow. Continuity of Operations is a specific U.S. plan, that is both relatively recent and much of which is classified, thus it is difficult to know whether or not any facility belongs specifically under the Continuity of Operations plan. Sorry for the extra overhead -- I've learned my lesson and will be more careful in creating categories in the future. Brycehughes (talk) 00:55, 23 March 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:Space centres

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 Category:Space technology research institutes; purge spaceports to Category:Spaceports, and others to Category:Space agencies, Category:Spacecraft manufacturers and Category:Space-related visitor attractions . – Fayenatic London 13:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Deletion would be the cleanest since this term is completely ambiguous with no simple way to fix it. The dab page is at space center so if kept this probably should be renamed. To avoid the US/UK English issue, maybe upmerge the appropriate articles to Spaceports and delete what ever is left? Or maybe split into something else. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 23 March 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