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. – Fayenatic London 00:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:NA-Class University of Florida articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a redundant and unnecessary category that confuses "class" and "importance." The "NA" classification should only apply to the article "importance" parameter, not the "class" parameter. The correct category is Category:NA-importance University of Florida articles, and it already exists. The existence of both "NA" categories in parallel is screwing up the statistical summary table for WikiProject University of Florida, and this category needs to be deleted. This is a WikiProject administrative category and its deletion should be non-controversial. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Dirtlawyer1: There seem to be many NA-Class categories. Any reason why this one is different? SFB 23:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sillyfolkboy: I can't speak for the other categories that employ an "NA-Class" scheme, but the pages in the WikiProject University of Florida classification scheme do not use "class=NA", but use "importance=NA" for non-article pages such as categories, files (images), and templates which are not rated on the Importance scale. The comparable classification on the Class scale is "Unassessed". Weirdly, the presence of the "NA" classification in the Class parameter is being picked up as a classification in the Importance parameter in some instances, and distorting the statistical outputs. There should not exist categories for "NA-Class" and "NA-importance" in the same classification scheme. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if the project's participants support this deletion. WikiProjects are allowed to form their own structures how they like as long as it does not affect content negatively. SFB 19:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This category should probably stay. Despite your claims above, NA has long been a class parameter as well as an importance parameter. I believe it stood for "Not Article" originally. Placing your project banner on a non-article would generally use this class automatically. Even though you have recently started using the extended scale with your project (e.g. Category-class, Template-class, etc.) try putting the banner on a help talk page, a module talk page or a book talk page and see what happens! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Martin, why would anyone outside the particular WikiProject care what classification scheme that WikiProject uses? Given that individual WikiProjects had complete freedom to select their classification schemes in the first instance, including non-standard optional Class and Importance classifications, why would we impose the use of an unused and unwanted category on a project? As for your hypothetical, the likelihood that this particular project will ever have Modules or Books is practically zero; if it happens at some point in the future, it can be corrected then. Also, there is already a catchall Class category: "Unassessed". NA-Class is redundant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  If you use T:WPBANNERMETA and T:ABQ, then that template expects certain categories to exist, like this one. You can always migrate away from WPBANNERMETA, but other people have been trying to get all WikiProjects to use it instead. Or you can turn off quality assessment, but then you can't assess articles for quality anymore. If you don't have this category, then this category will keep popping up in redlinked category lists (aka, cleanup listings) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

???	Total
0	0

• @Dirtlawyer1: I don't really care what classification scheme your project uses, I was just trying to make sure that everything worked correctly for you. I suppose you have two options: (1) leave things as they are and accept that your banner may, in some unusual cases, place pages in non-existent categories. Or (2) create a custom class which doesn't use NA-class (this page provides some info on this). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ((AbQ|topic=University of Florida)) this should not contain redlinks. "NA" is a standard quality class, and if WPUFlorida is to have quality assessments, then Cat:NA needs to exist. You can always turn off quality assessment, then this problem goes away. ((WPBannerMeta)) will expect this to exist, and pump out redlinked categories should anyone use "NA". Keeping the category empty would be a maintenance task for WPUFlorida. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2014 (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. – Fayenatic London 00:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Poets from Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Irish poets

Nominator's rationale: Current naming is unconventional. See category's talk page. 24.88.64.22 (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since there are valid objections to using "Northern Irish", really what should be done is the entire tree should adopt "Northern Ireland FOOs" as the standard. This avoids the "Northern Irish" issue but also conforms better to the overall format. I don't know why "FOOs from Northern Ireland" was ever thought to be a better solution. The issue goes well beyond just this one category, though—it's the entire Category:People from Northern Ireland tree and more. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. I'm not aware of any 'objections' to using the adjective, other than perhaps a handful of extremists. Northern Irish is nomenclature that is accepted by moderate people across the religious divide. According to the 2011 Census, 'Northern Irish' is the second most common identifier at roughly 30%, after 'British'. 'Irish' comes a close third. Further to that, when asked for multiple identifiers, 'Northern Irish' picks up even more support, so that many people who might primarily describe themselves as 'Irish' or as 'British' if only given a single option, would also happily describe themselves as 'Northern Irish'. Further to that, the term appears to be more acceptable as a sole descriptor amongst Roman Catholics than amongst Protestants. I see no controversy here.

The Northern Ireland Life & Times Survey found that 'Northern Irish' was also a very popular second and/or third choice for a descriptor, when placed against other descriptors such as religion, 'a husband', 'a city person' etc, when it took on that specific research in 1998 and 2001. Had it been limited to the national or regional descriptions, I have no doubt that 'Northern Irish' would have been an extremely popular choice.

I think we should possibly examine the objections, 'valid' or otherwise, so that people can make an informed decision. From personal experience, saying 'Northern Irish' amongst your peers in Northern Ireland itself, is regarded as a very neutral stance. --24.88.64.22 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you—I think it's much ado about very little. But I guess we have had some "extremist" opinions voiced in a number of discussions. As I recall, there were some pretty strong opinions voiced against the use of "Northern Irish". A list that links to some of them can be found here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ol'factory, I can see there could potentially be problems. Not because the term itself is controversial, but because the regional or 'national' identity of certain sportspeople or celebrities or other famous or infamous people is often unclear or ambiguous.

What I would propose is that the whole tree be set to default as with the convention - I think you say 'fooian fooers' - and that exceptions can always be made on an individual basis. --24.88.64.22 (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Irish is the third most popular choice not second like you have opinioned above. Murry1975 (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – these names were settled in a series of cfds such as this one in 2009. Oculi (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. I had a look and apparently this was the reversal of a successful nomination quite a while back. This proposal was the result of this discussed CFR. Apparently both have been reversed, but the previous proposal attracted more votes. I would recommend people read the discussions there before voting on this proposal.

I would also recommend that somebody do the same thing with all the categories if this proposal is successful. --24.88.64.22 (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified WikiProject Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming. While the argument used in previous discussions (that Northern Irish has no official status) no longer applies given its use in the UK census, there's no problem with the current name. Northern Ireland poets is more ambiguous. It could mean Poets who originate in Northern Ireland, or poets based there. Valenciano (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only "problem" with the current format is that it is out-of-synch with the standard naming format for other similar categories that categorize people by nationality and occupation. I take that to be the gist of the rationale for the nomination. I don't think it can be waved away by saying that there is not a problem with the current format, because that avoids the issue in question in a circular manner. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- We had a long debate with this some years ago. A poet from Denegal is from the north of Ireland, but in RoI, not Northern Ireland. We settled on the present solution and should stick to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

• Category:Ghost town stubs/((ghost-town-stub))
  • upmerged tag ((Australia-ghost-town-stub))
  • Category:Canada ghost town stubs/((Canada-ghost-town-stub))
  • Category:United States ghost town stubs/((US-ghost-town-stub))
    • Category:California ghost town stubs/((California-ghost-town-stub))

Rationalle: We don't have stub types for current populated places, we ceraintly don't need one for former places. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at this point. This structure has over 500 articles and has a WikiProject. In many areas these are not simply former places. They are historic places and those we do tend to categorize as stubs. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- These are quite well enough populated to retain. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Keep, the topic is one that meets WP:GNG, as such, keeping a category for the subject makes sense.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2014 (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. – Fayenatic London 00:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:United States Supreme Court justices by party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Democratic Party United States Supreme Court justices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Democratic-Republican Party United States Supreme Court justices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Federalist Party United States Supreme Court justices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Independent United States Supreme Court justices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Republican Party United States Supreme Court justices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Whig Party United States Supreme Court justices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I created this category tree, and since there has been some discussion of its appropriateness here. I feel that the balance of the discussion there was favoring deletion, so I agreed to formally nominate them. Rather than reproducing both sides of the argument here, please see the link above. I am not so much in favor of deletion as happy to pursue the greater discussion by starting the nomination. I also think it would be appropriate for the closer to consider opinions expressed in the linked to discussion if they are not stated again by the same editors in this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename if Kept to Category:United States Supreme Court justices by party of nomination president, Category:United States Supreme Court justices appointed by Democratic presidents. There is no official partisan makeup of the Supreme Court but there is definitely party affiliation with the presidents who nominate them. Most commentators refer to justices as conservative or liberal but that's hard to define in an encyclopedia. Perhaps this is a way to categorize the group their ideology in a way that isn't subjective. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presidents have nominated justices that are from a party that is not the same as the nominating president. It doesn't really happen anymore, of course, but in the 19th century was quite common. For some time the focus was more on keeping a more or less even party balance on the court than the party in power stacking it with their own party members. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for deleting, party membership of the justice doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic and the appointment by a president of a certain party - although a very good indicator - may be kind of stretching it too far. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inappropriate and misleading intersection (and thanks to GO for bringing this to discussion). There have been justices who were appointed by Republican presidents, there have been justices who vote Republican as citizens, and there have been justices whose decisions Republicans tend more to like. Any or all of those three may coincide in one justice. But there's no such thing as a "Republican Party United States Supreme Court justice". The office itself is legally nonpartisan, and we already categorize by the nominating president, whose political orientation the justices may satisfy or frustrate in their later jurisprudence (see Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, or David Souter for examples of the latter; all "liberal"-leaning justices who were later considered mistakes by the conservative Republican presidents who appointed them). So this scheme can only be confusing if not misleading. That judicial partisanship is discussed and analyzed is of course not in question, but that doesn't mean it lends itself to classification in this manner, just that such analysis and characterizations should be discussed in prose. postdlf (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to parent -- I am not an American, but I would expect the Supreme Court to be above politics. We should thereofre not split accorrding to party membership (or previous party membership). Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category creator didn't empty Category:United States Supreme Court justices to populate these, but I'm sure the closer of this CFD will doublecheck to make sure that parent category hasn't been removed from any articles. postdlf (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's right—the nominated categories were simply added, so unless further changes were made by other users, no merge should be necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, justices are suppose to be non-partisan positions, as such, they are not classified by party. While who nominates the justice is verifiable, this is better left in the article of the subject, and IMHO need not be categorized.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The party of the judge has sometimes been different than that of the nominating president, and this too is verifiable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peterkingiron and RightCowLeftCoast's comments immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2014 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Lists of textile mills by geographical location to Category:Lists of textile mills

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge This category sits between the overall category and the subgrouping by country but there is absolutely no content in this layer so it adds complexity without aiding navigation. I actually created the top category when I should have probably renamed this one instead.

CURRENT STRUCTURE:

• Category:Lists of textile mills

• 1 article
• Category:Lists of textile mills by geographical location

• Category:Lists of textile mills by country

• Lots of articles

RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)) [reply]

• Upmerge is fine by me, but wouldn't it be easier to just Delete this category? Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mjroots, "delete" would mean removing the member Category:Lists of textile mills by country from its grandparent, which in this case is Category:Lists of textile mills and obviously valid. It is unhelpful for closers when people !vote "delete" when they mean "merge", so thanks for raising the question. "Merge" is also better because it would avoid de-categorising any other pages or categories that might be moved down into a nominated category after you !vote but before the category gets deleted. – Fayenatic London 15:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge so that Category:Lists of textile mills by country will automatically be recategorized correctly. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge pointless layer. Arguably, Category:Lists of textile mills in the United Kingdom is the only useful child in this structure. SFB 23:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge, we only need a "by location" layer if there are categories by other types of location e.g. continent, region or island. – Fayenatic London 15:46, 5 October 2014 (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.