< February 6 February 8 >

February 7

[edit]

Category:Indian actors by language

[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 13#Category:Indian actors by language. The Bushranger One ping only 04:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually lots and lots and lots of people have been in Tamil and Hindi films. The overlaps between these various categories is very high. Beyond that, the Hindi category could not possibly be a state category, since it is not limited to one state. The various films categories are clearly being used as categories to group together people who appeared in those films. These, as I mentioned above, contain lots of actors who are not Indian nationals. This is especially true of Category:Hindi film actors which has both a large number of Pakistani nationals, and is also probably the one with the most people who are from other countries as well, including one article on a British man who spent 6 months leatrning Hindi so he could act in a Hindi film. The claim these languages are spoken only in India is false. Most obviously Bengali is spoken outside India. Hindi is also spoken in Fiji and many other places outside the subcontinent. Also, Peter Kingiron has entirely ignored the fact that the current name is saying the people are Indian, when as I have shown many of the people involved in the film actors cats are not Indian at all, but are foriegn nationals who came to India only to perform in films there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of the complexities of these categories can be seen by looking at the article on Kirron Kher. Currently she is only in a Hindi realted category. The vast majority of the films she was in were Hindi, but she was also in English, Bengali and Punjabi language films and a few more. I half wonder if with such heavy cross-over between languages these categories are heading towards being performer by performance overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 12 February 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:Punjwood film actors

[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 to Category:Punjabi film actors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 18 February 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:Malayali actors

[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: relisted at CFD 2013 March 1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 1 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:Paul Brown coaching tree

[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. Wizardman 16:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary grouping of articles based on a tenuous connection of having been assistant coaches to Paul Brown. If anything, a subsection on his article would be better suited for this sort of information. (Edit: Just realized that subsection already exists, making this category even more pointless.) Jrcla2 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem like a category is needed. If anything, just a section or an image would suffice. ZappaOMati 05:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - I don't see why having a Paul Brown coaching tree section is a bad idea. If some of the NFL's most successful coaches have a proven link to Brown, whether it be direct or indirect, shouldn't there be a category which lists the coaches who fall under Brown's coaching tree? I mean, for goodness sakes, it's practically a forest. Mr. Brain (talk) 02:32, 9 February 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:Exosquad 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: merge to Category:Animated series images. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nearly everything in here is orphaned fair-use due to its corresponding article being deleted. What remains is too little to support a category. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:44, 7 February 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.

Women mayors

[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 all. The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to clarify scope, and match the "Mayors of places in Foo" convention of Category:Mayors by country. The characteristic which is being categorised here is not the nationality of the mayors, but the country in which they are mayors. Local political office-holders are not universally required to be citizens of the country where they hold office, are rarely required to be natural-born citizens, so a mayor of a town in country X may be an immigrant from another country Y.
For example, a German emigrant to New Zealand may be properly in Category:People from Germany, but when categorising that person as a mayor, the relevant country is the one in which they hold office: New Zealand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been generally accepted that because women holding political office is a fairly recent (i.e. almost non-existent before the 20th century) development, resulting in extensive coverage of women in politics as a topic of social, cultural and academic research in its own right, categories specifically for women in politics are permissible on Wikipedia — because whether it's a topic that personally interests you or not, "women in politics" is a topic of interest in its own right for many other people. And because "[Country] women in politics" categories would, in many cases, become unmanageably large without some subcategorization, subcategories for particular political positions that women may hold (e.g. mayors) are also permitted whenever the numbers support them. (For example, it is still possible even in the 2010s for a woman who gets elected as a mayor to be her city's first ever woman mayor — a distinction which is not possible for a male mayor to attain anymore since men have been serving as mayors for centuries already, and a distinction which in some cases might even be enough to qualify the woman for a Wikipedia article on that basis alone even if the city doesn't otherwise meet Wikipedia's "large enough that all mayors count as notable" cutoff.) See WP:CATGRS for further information. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note to say that I fully endorse Bearcat's excellent explanation of the reason for categorising women in politics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 10 February 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.
[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: keep Category:People of Rusyn descent plus its sub-categories, but delete the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories were created by an indefinitely blocked sock of User:Oldhouse2012 who was responsible for a large amount of ethnic POV disruption of articles related to Vojvodina using at least 10 sockpuppets (so far...). These categories and sub-categories were created as an overarching vehicle for POV-pushing in order to emphasise that Serbs are the majority or plurality in the overwhelming majority of towns and villages in Vojvodina (to the exclusion of other ethnic groups). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ...descent categories would make sense if they actually included individual people and if those people were descendents of immigrants. Like this, Oldhouse has completely missed the mark. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much as missed the mark as missed the planet... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update. The user responsible for the creation of these categories has now been community banned by WP. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that in almost all cases the basis for the category is just unencyclopedic and potentially POV. If these categories are appropriate, surely we are not interested in categorising the communities that have a plurality or majority of one ethnic group, but in categorising each ethnic community in what is a patchwork of ethnicities? The current basis for categorisation means that if 51% of the town is Hungarian, we categorise it as Hungarian, but if 49% is Romanian, we don't categorise it as Romanian (as well) because of some arbitrary cut-off? It seems to me that there is no reason why all ethnic groups in a particular village couldn't be categorised (if we go down this track at all). I personally don't see the value in these categorisations, and believe they should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello! To start from the very beginning, at first I created the Category:Hungarian communities in Vojvodina on the example of the ones like Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia or Category:Turkish communities in Bulgaria. As you might know it very well, this part of Europe is ethnically very mixed, and with the borders changing rapidly during the last centuries many people found themselves in a minority status without even moving away from their own town – ie. 2 million of Hungarians live in the neighbouring countries of Hungary, which means every sixth Hungarian in the region lives outside of Hungary; or taking the second example, there are about 600-800 thousands of Turks living in Bulgaria, thus every tenth person in Bulgaria is a Turk. Of course these groups maintained their identity, cultural heritage and so on, and form their very own community.
The twist in the story came when a load of similar categories were created just to prove a point (many of them already deleted), thus the whole thing ended up in a complete nonsense mess. Rolling through these I can say that some of the categories are completely useless as these have no or only a very few articles in it (why not emphasize in the article that it is the lone, or one of the 3 villages of that certain minority?), however, I'd say some of the may be useful (the Croatian, the Romanian and the Slovak one). These three has now 10-20 towns, but if not only the places with ethnic majority would be listed, they could have easily much more, and might serve the good of Wikipedia. Here comes the question of Peacemaker: where to draw the line, since this 50% is definitely not good. Whatever decision would be arbitrary, however, something as low as 5% might be a good start to include all siginificant minorities.
Another option would be to listify these, as I was advised earlier and created the List of Hungarian communities in Vojvodina article. This could give additional informations about the settlements of a certain minority, a short background, thus one could easier understand how they are there, where exactly they live, and could easily navigate in between the settlements.
So, to close my thoughts, I strongly support the deletion of all categories except the Croatian/Hungarian/Romanian and Slovak communities of Vojvodina. These four could remain in my opinion, and by adding an "underpopulated category" template they may find someone who would add further towns and cities to them. Additionally, I think the communities list can be added to the articles' "Demographics" section as a "See also", thus making the coverage complete. That much for now. Regards, Thehoboclown (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thehoboclown, I think they should all be deleted. I see your point about listifying, and I would encourage you to do that as it would be useful for the reasons you have identified. It would need updating after every census of course... But my view is that the above categories have no actual value, and I maintain that they should all be deleted. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, considering that pointing to the settlements list link can convey the intented additional information, and that these categories can trigger future problems (as it became a playground of some in no time) , I don't stand in the way of deletion. So, I'm completely fine with adding the list link only, and support the deletion for now. – Thehoboclown (talk) 08:58, 16 February 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:Songs written by Dennis Knutson

[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: keep. There's no guideline that requires a parent article; there is only a guideline that, if a parent article exists, the category matches it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No parent article. Searches failed to find enough content to make one. Compare Category:Songs written by Tim Buppert, which was deleted for the same reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because an article on a person does not exist does not mean they are not notable. Also, songs by songwriter is an established patter, and I almost think it is the mentioned exception to smallcat rules. There is no clear reason why we should not categorize every song by the person who wrote it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not matter if the writer is notable. The writer is always a defining characteristic of a song. Thus it is always a notable trait of the song, and is worth categorizing. Exactly how someone can be "not notable" are write 5 notable songs is not clear. Anyway, just because there is no mention of someone on the internet does not actually prove they are not notable. The internet is not the sum total of all knowledge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this makes NO FUCKING SENSE. Why categorize by what isn't there? Should we categorize "Now and Then There's Such a Fool as I" as Category:Songs written by Bill Trader even though according to BMI, it's literally the only thing he ever wrote? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does make sense. In this case there are multiple songs. The songs are notable enougbh to have articles. They were all written by the same person. The Bill Trader issue is a red herring since that category is not this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, then what about Perdew? He wrote four or five songs, but all were cut by the same artist (Joe Diffie) in a couple years' span, and he had no outside cuts. Tim Buppert wrote a Top 10 hit and a Top 15 hit two years apart, but nothing else that was a single. They shouldn't have categories IMO since their scope was so limited. And what argument do you have for Knutson being notable? Not every songwriter is. Some people just crank out a song or two sporadically for a few years, then fall off the face of the earth. Every song has a songwriter, but we have to draw the line somewhere, or every song would have a "Songs written by X" category even if no one knows who the hell X is. And I think "not notable enough for a standalone article" is a good line to draw. If you find any sources on Knutson, then I'll withdraw, but so far I've found bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The writer is a notable trait of the song. I see no reason to not categorize all notable songs in this manner. Whether we have a rule on song notability that actually makes sense and leads ot having only articles on notable songs is another issue, which I am not prepared to make any comment on at the present. For now I assume that the articles in this category are all on notable songs. If some of the songs are not in fact notable, you are free to take the articles to AfD. However, for the present I believe we should keep this category. I am not sure why you are bringing up totally different categories that this nomination is not even about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of the songs is not at issue. The notability of the writer is. And so far, I can't find a damn THING on this writer. He could be a pen name for all I know. He could be a disgruntled Kmart employee who wrote five songs and was never heard from again. He could be Wilford Brimley's son. It's the writer's lack of notability that's the sticking point here, and no matter how many songs he's written, I see no reason to categorize songs by a songwriter whom the world has totally forgotten, and never given a drop of attention to. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of the writer is relevant to the decision of whether we have an article on the writer, but that is not the issue here. The songs are notable, and we have articles. They share a common defining characteristic, and a category is how we group tings which share that defining characteristic.
    We'd do the same thing with a place. A townland in the back of beyond might not merit an article even if a cluster of notable people came from there, but if there were enough notable people to make a viable category it would be a good grouping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That still seems bassackwards to me. Why category by what doesn't exist? It's totally counterintuitive and misleading. Someone's expecting the category to hook on to an article, and when it doesn't, you have confusion and a feeling of incompleteness. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I created Category:Songs written by Cory Batten where there was a CfD discussion back in 2009 and the result was delete on the grounds of no main article. Several other articles were deleted for similar reasons. Obviously I argued to keep, but accepted this guidance not to create a category without a main article.
  2. Back in December I checked through the whole Category:Songs by songwriter speedy renaming, nominating for deletion etc. All done keeping an eye on what I thought were the guidelines/common practice.
  3. For the first CfD I stated, There is no matching article for this category. Notified creator of category and happy to withdraw nomination if relevant article is created. A very weak article was created and it was still deleted!
  4. Having established a precedent again, I nominated in 3 or 4 batches, example CfD about another 30 categories on the grounds there was no main article, it quickly becoming apparent that they would survive, I withdrew the nomination on all except those with a single member.
  5. Unlike 10pound I do agree that songwriting credits are a defining characteristic worthy of categorizing in WP, but equally I can see the logic in ensuring that every category has a matching article.
  6. My opinion is a category with 5 members and no main article is a lot more navigational use than a category with one member and a main article - which can survive CfD.

What I really don't want to see is different outcomes at different nominations. I would expect that any responsible editor would agree. Although I am specifically interested in Category:Songs by songwriter, I suspect this discussion applies to all/most categories. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Rich, the [CfD first CFD you linked] had only one participant other than you, so, the less than 4 different editors" you complain about here is a lot more than the example you prefer. And in second example, of ~30 categories, the no-main-article test was rejected.
    So what we have here is a common enough scenario: a proposal gets consensus in a low-participation discussion, but the same idea is rejected when scrutinised by more editors. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Response to BHG. I am going to rely on The Bushranger who said at a previous nomination noted above, There is no requirement that a category have a matching article; Obviously if consensus changes to "there should be a requirement" that's fair enough. At least then it won't be who has strolled past a CfD on a particular day which is my concern. Thanks for your help in the matter. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:43, 13 February 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:Bakery/café restaurants

[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: no consensus on splitting. There was no support for the current name, so I'll take as a consensus to rename to the only proposed alternative: Category:Bakery cafés. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an unusual category name construction which I've never encountered before. The closest real name for this concept I can think of is simply "bakery café". The additional "restaurant" is probably redundant and superfluous. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I support the below mentioned split to Bakeries and Coffeehouses. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:13, 8 February 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:Coffee houses

[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: a very weak consensus to rename to Category:Coffeehouses, without prejudice to any further renamings of the category, or to renamings resulting from a move of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Coffee houses to Category:Coffeehouses
Nominator's rationale: Either the category should be renamed to match the main article, coffeehouse, or vice versa. I have no strong preference but I figure that the main article has a reason for omitting the space. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:56, 7 February 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:Batmobile

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains a handful of articles loosely connected to the Batmobile; seems more suited to a navbox, if that. Trivialist (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I do not think we want to start categorizing museums by items in their collection. That just sounds like a overcat nightmare. It is bad enough we categorize huge museums like the {[Detroit Institute of Arts]] because part of the large collection focuses on one or another specific things, but to categorize museums because of one thing seems extreme. That would be like putting films in categories for each of the actors who appeared in them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 9 February 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:Military operations of the post-1945 period

[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: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 13#Category:Military operations of the post-1945 period. The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Military operations of the post-1945 period to Category:UNKNOWN
OR
  • Propose merging Category:Military operations of the post-1945 period to Category:Military operations post-1945
Nominator's rationale: Rename or merge. This category is a subcategory of Category:Military operations post-1945. It is defined as being for military operations from the end of the Second World War to the year 2000. So in other words, it's acting as "20th-century military operations post-1945". The current name is not clear at all. I'm not sure if we should simply upmerge this to Category:Military operations post-1945 or if we should try to come up with a name that works. There is no broader scheme for military topics in the 20th century that are post-1945. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it'll need to have text explaining that it's only for operations after WWII. DexDor (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's several problems with that idea (which I had considered myself) - "M.o. of the Cold War period" includes the word period which I think is what the nom is trying to avoid (and would be a slightly strange way to categorize articles about any ops by countries not involved in the Cold War), "M.o. of the Cold War" would be OK as a category but doesn't solve this problem because it can't contain any ops that weren't part of the Cold War, and (most significantly) "M.o. of the post-Cold War period" has exactly the same problem as "M.o. post-1945" (it doesn't fit within the 20th-century category) - in fact it's even worse as editors/readers are more likely to consider 2001 etc part of the post-Cold War period than part of the post-1945 period. DexDor (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: No "from" just "1945–2000" (and not "from 1945 to 2000") Hugo999 (talk) 10:48, 13 February 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:1963 assassinations

[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: no consensus. Note that I am closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 2#Category:Assassinations_by_year together with this one, and the closing statement (to follow) is the same in both cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extended rationale. There is a consensus that these categories should not exist as presently constituted, but there is no consensus on what do with them. This debate was hampered by being split over two separate discussions, and per WP:MULTI that undermines consensus-formation. However, there is no sign of a consensus being reached in either of the 2 discussions, so even if these categories had all been discussed together, the outcome may also have been inconclusive.
There was no support for splitting Category:YYYY deaths, and no evidence of any precedent for doing so. The YYYY deaths categories are generally treated as fundamental biographical data which should not be divided. The closest precedent I can find is Category:Executed people by century and its subcats such as Category:20th-century executions, which are not divided by year.
The point was made in both discussions that there is a difference between an article about an assassination, and a biography of a person who was assassinated. These categories are currently named as if they were for assassination articles, but their actual contents are overwhelmingly biographies. That could have been an argument for renaming, but the existence of biographical articles in the subcats of Category:Murder by year (e.g. in Category:Murder in 2005), suggests that the distinction is problematic.
There was also suggestions of merging these categories to the YYYY crimes categories. However, it was also pointed out that this raises POV problems: Carlossuarez46 noted that "one person's assassination is another's pre-emptive strike", and it is hard to see how classifying the assassination of a tyrant as a "crime" can fit with WP:NPOV. The same issues arise with merger to categories relating to murder; what if the the 20 July plot had succeeded?
Possible solutions include categorising assassinated people by century, or listifying them. Those and other ideas were not discussed here, but might be considered if there is a further nomination of these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the murder in x year categories are supposed to be for articles about the murders, with only two exsceptions these are all biographical articles. We do not subdivide x year deaths by the way the people died. You cited one of two exceptions to the fact that these are bio articles that should not be in the murder categories at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 9 February 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