August 30
Category:People who married their first cousins
- 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. (I have expressed an opinion on similar categories in the past, but I think that the result here is clear; in any case G4 does apply.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete
or listify. Category is not WP:DEFINING: criterion for inclusion is a trivial characteristic. Ibadibam (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, plus only 4 couples listed. Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify to list of people who married close relatives, and specifying "first cousin" vs "double-first cousin", or uncle/aunt, first-cousin-once-removed, etc. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—already in a list: List of coupled cousins. Not what I would have thought of if I wanted to find it, but accessible through Category:Cousin marriage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The list is much better, especially since it allows to include people who married a child of their cousin. This is not a defining trait, in some cultures it is actually the opposite that is defining, that is to say the default is to marry your cousin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The list also includes a few people who married their double-first cousins. It includes a lot more people even among those who married first cousins than are in the category. It also allows for people to be organized in meaningful ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-defining characteristic. I also don't see why we would need to listify this. We already have a List of coupled cousins, and all relevant entries should be added there. Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as nominator. Thanks to Beeswaxcandle and Dimadick for pointing out the existing list. Proposal now revised as delete only. Ibadibam (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-defining. As noted, this is certainly a "taboo" in our culture, which is the only possible reason for the category even existing in the first place — but it historically wasn't a taboo in many others (and sometimes still isn't today), and thus represents an improper imposition of a particular set of cultural values onto people who were under no obligation to share those same values. And, in fact, I'm sure that we've dealt with this exact thing before under a different name — so speedy it as a G4 if someone can track down the prior version for confirmation. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually considering the book Rose in Bloom by Louisa May Alcott, the fact that I have American some number of cousins some-times removed who in the 19th-century did marry their first counsins, and other issues, I am not sure even marrying your first counsin was taboo in 19th-century America. Discoraged maybe, but clearly not forbidden.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this category is kept, can we create Category:People who married their niece for Philip II of Spain and Philip IV of Spain. And my altime favorite Category:People who married their double first counsin for Louis XIV and Maria Theresa of Spain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:DEFINING –Fredddie™ 16:46, 6 September 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:Superstitions of Alaska
- 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 (merge to Category:Alaska culture). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Category with only one item. And I kind of doubt some honky from Cleveland would like the gold cross around his neck referred to as "white people superstition" so maybe we shouldn't label the beliefs of Alaska Natives that way either... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 30 August 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:Settlers of Catan
- 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; can be renamed back if article name ever changes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of the game - and of the key article, is The Settlers of Catan. This is, theoretically, a speedy, but I'm bringing it to full discussion because I realise the game is usually referred to simply as "Settlers of Catan", and therefore it might make more sense to rename the key article (this would be my preference). Whichever is preferred, the category and article should at least have the same name. Grutness...wha? 12:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse rename rename the article, per commonname -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. The actual name should be used for article and category regardless of peoples' habit of dropping initial "The"s. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:THE: "The definite or indefinite article is sometimes included in the official title of literary works as well as other kinds of fiction and non-fiction publications and works such as newspapers, films and visual artworks. In this case, the article should be included in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia page as well." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry Pepsi (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COMMONNAME is a policy; WP:THE is a guideline. As such, it would be in line with Wikipedia practice to remove the "The". WP:THE also calls the use of the definite article into question in another way, given that the title is based on the German title, Die Siedler von Catan (it would be unusual practice in German not to use a definite article). In this case, the section of that guideline on titles of works and publications suggests The rule of thumb regarding these translated titles of works is this: if there is the least bit of ambiguity whether the article is always used in a translation of the title, it is preferred not to start the Wikipedia page name with an article. It seems that even the makers of the game are a little confused - there are two official sites: www.catan.com, which uses the article, and www.playcatan.com, which doesn't. One further point - if the decision is to add "The" to the category name, a soft redirect will be needed from the unarticled form. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reanme to match articles. If someone wants to rename the article they should do that first, and then apply it to categories. CfD usually has much lower participation than rename requests on particular articles, and the later tends to get participation by people who are more versed in the particular issues. Anyway the decision on whether or not to use "the" is not compelling either way, so we should go for consistency for now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 14 September 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 of 14th-century Zurich
- 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: double upmerge all to Category:People from Zurich and Category:1Xth-century Swiss people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category fork. Do we want to start categorizing people articles by region and period of time? ...William 12:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There were several hundred "virtually independent places" in the 14th century HRE; don't let's take that route. Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Double Upmerge per Oculi. We don't have many/any other "People of <century> <city>" categories so the exception to WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply. DexDor (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate this, "people by century and [independent] city-state" isn't going to work out very well. But "people from Zurich" will just end up mixing random people living in Zurich today with historical figures, what is the point of that? So perhaps there is a compromise solution as in "people of the Republic of Zurich" or "people of pre-Napoleonic Zurich" or similar, just to separate the historical Republic / independent city in the HRE from the modern Swiss city. Not sure this would work though, you decide. --dab (𒁳) 08:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Double upmerge per Occuli. The preserves the periodic element of the present category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Oculi. no century by city, please. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:39, 6 September 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:Superweapons
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary inclusion criteria. The Superweapon article defines "superweapon" as "a very powerful weapon compared to others of its time or era" (but then goes on to list things like Vickers Valiant). For info: Category:Superbombs was recently deleted. DexDor (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nominator....William 11:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Seems like a fairly arbitrary definition... does the English longbow count? Grutness...wha? 13:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. There may be a case for Category:Superguns, though Supergun is a bit vague on the criteria. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify a list can better specify what makes the weapon a superweapon. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- Whether a weapon is a "super"weapon is a matter of POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge There is not a clear way to say yes or not to something being a "superweapon".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Urgent Inquiry - Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I would have sworn this category had more than 2 articles in it the last time I looked (several weeks ago). Has it been emptied in conjunction with this CFD? If so, the all of the articles that were removed out of process should be put back immediately to allow for proper consideration of the issues involved. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it indeed seems to have been emptied. Certainly all the bombs that were in a subcategory have been removed. And at that time, there were several other articles in this category (as per the nominator's article, which isn't in this category anymore) -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from the Superbombs category (referred to in the nomination) I'm not aware of anything having been recently removed from this category. DexDor (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. The smallpox blanket was a superweapon at the time. –Fredddie™ 16:56, 6 September 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.