< September 3	September 5 >

September 4

Category:Organizations based in the Netherlands

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. The "s" spelling clearly has priority in time here. I will add category redirects to prevent the problem from developing again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Merging Category:Organizations based in the Netherlands (with a "Z") to Category:Organisations based in the Netherlands (with an "S")

Propose Merging Category:Organizations based in the Netherlands by province to Category:Organisations based in the Netherlands by province

Propose Merging Category:Organizations based in Drenthe to Category:Organisations based in Drenthe
Propose Renaming Category:Organizations based in Flevoland to Category:Organisations based in Flevoland
Propose Merging Category:Organizations based in Friesland to Category:Organisations based in Friesland
Propose Merging Category:Organizations based in Gelderland to Category:Organisations based in Gelderland
Propose Merging Category:Organizations based in Overijssel to Category:Organisations based in Overijssel

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. I think the creator just missed the presence of the older category tree. Since the Netherlands is not primarily an English speaking country, I don't care if we use "Z" or "S" but the latter is larger and more developed.RevelationDirect (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NoteNotified Knuand as the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands. – RevelationDirect (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. I don't have a clear preference between an 's' and 'z' either. Officially Dutch people learn English English at school, that may have been the reason why the categorization in WP started with an 's'. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the s-spelling category predates the z-spelling category. Tim! (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The established consensus has been that European categories should follow British English spelling, since that's the dialect that English speakers in those countries are likely to learn and speak — and even more importantly, the "s" categories were already in place, making the "z" categories duplicates. I'd suggest that the "z" categories should, however, be maintained as ((categoryredirect))s to catch future filing errors and prevent somebody from recreating them again in the future. In actual fact, the z categories for Drenthe, Friesland and Gelderland were completely empty, so I've already redirected them to the existing s categories (the other alternative would have been immediate speedy deletion as empty categories.) I left alone the ones that weren't empty, however, and I do want to clarify that my action was not meant to forestall any continued discussion of whether we should just delete the z categories instead of keeping them as redirects. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge because this is clearly an attempt to say British English is right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. As the Netherlands is a European country, the Dutch are far more likely to use English spelling, rather than American. It is not a question of right or wrong or priority, but which is more likely to be culturally appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2015 (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.

Cardiovascular disease deaths

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in California
Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in New York
Propose deleting Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Florida

Nominator's rationale: Delete per outcome of this discussion. This nomination will be extended to other states and countries if it gets consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support in Principle This is such a common cause of death it doesn't seem defining. Based on my medical history, this or other heart issues will likely be my end as well so I'm not unsympathetic here. I think a lot of the death categories have been overly influenced by obituary articles which aren't always reliable or balanced biographies. That being said, deaths in Michigan are no more or less notable but I understand even tagging/nominating whole trees can be a burden so I'm OK with this phased-in nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should avoid most death by specific type of disease categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per summary of previous deletion. We should not be categorising deaths like this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while these are likely to be non-controversial given that cardiovascular disease is (a) common, (b) commonly - but not always - a "final straw" type disease that kills people already hobbled by other ailments, and (c) unremarkable - i.e., no-one's death is really notable because of this cause. However, the arguments in the prior discussion and those above mine here are easily read as deleting all disease deaths; let's see how the various AIDS-related death categories fare when (a) it's not common, (b) it often strikes people other than in older age, and (c) often, for celebrities, is quite remarkable - indeed for some (Ryan White and Elizabeth Glaser), the disease and their impending deaths leading to activism on behalf of people with AIDS, may be larger part of their notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think we need to categorise causes of death unless they are very unusual or otherwise notable. Cardiovascular disease is a very common cause of death; hence NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cornish-speaking people

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. — ξ ^xplicit 22:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose containerizing Category:Cornish-speaking people

Nominator's rationale: Containerize. For example we know from Cornish-language writers and Cornish-language activists that they are Cornish-speaking and so these are decent subcategories, and we may well add e.g. Cornish-language singers and actors in Cornish-language television as other child categories with people of whom we are sure that they were users of the Cornish language as a defining characteristic. But for all people that can't be put in child categories like these, speaking Cornish is merely accidental, not defining. By the way, many articles in this category are also in one of the child categories, already. Also by the way, this nomination is very similar as the one for Welsh-speaking people, to be found here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do all the writers speak Cornish? Or do they only read/write Cornish? Should this instead by Cornish users (and so on for all language categories)? Also, if these speak this language, do they actually perform in this language? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a very good question and I don't have an answer to it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Containerize per nom. The level of use of this minority language is already hard to verify. We don't need unsourced categories of speakers. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, similarly to the recent discussion about speakers of Welsh. There is no correlation that all Cornish people speak Cornish (in fact far, far smaller proportion speak Cornish than the percentage of Welsh people that speak Welsh). Because Cornish is an extreme minority language with a tiny number of speakers, I would contend that anyone who speaks Cornish with a degree of fluency is defined by this. The proponents of these CfD discussions seem to be equating minority languages with major languages (it goes without saying that all French people speak French so a Category:French speakers would indeed be of no use). Sionk (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Containerize based on previous discussion about Welsh.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a ludicrous idea, even sillier than the proposal to containerize Welsh-speaking people, since many Cornish speakers are notable purely for their skills in speaking Cornish. Deb (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly Pentreath, for a start! Deb (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, notable as the last Cornish speaker. While we do not keep categories for a single article, she is well-kept in Category:People in Cornish history anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But her notability is specifically as a Cornish speaker, not as a "historical" figure. Likewise, John Davey (Cornish speaker), Chesten Marchant, and others. I don't think you have thought this through. Deb (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If others exist I wouldn't mind having Category:Last Cornish-speaking people of the 17th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not have a general category, rather than shoe-horning them into contrived ones. The numbers of notable Cornish speakers is small, which you must admit makes them unusual and distinct for their language skills. Sionk (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a viable subcategory here with John Davey (Cornish speaker), Dolly Pentreath and all the potentially notable people within Last speaker of the Cornish language that don't yet have an article. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "even sillier than the proposal to containerize Welsh-speaking people" – But that's precisely what the consensus arrived at to do (a discussion I've reopened at the Scottish Gaelic-related CfD; these "-speaking people" categories should be deleted in favor of the "-language occupations" equivalents). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, The ability to speak Cornish is highly likely to be defining to a person in that category. Though I don't understand why it needs to be defining to a person; we have the category LGBT people, and that doesn't need to be defining, just that the person has stated their sexuality. We have multiple articles of people who are not defined by the categories that they are placed in. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people by languages spoken is a bad idea. How would Category:English-speaking people fare? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the difference was explained earlier in the discussion. It appear that only people familiar with the issue of minority languages can truly understand the importance of this. Deb (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - List_of_endangered_languages_in_Europe#United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland may also be of interest to those monoglot contributors who are having difficulty understanding the reason for such categories. Deb (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Containerize I'm fine with Cornish language speaking being defining for poets, language activists, linguists, etc.. Their notabiliy is closely tied to their language. To open up what language someone speaks as inherently notable, even for regional languages, opens us up to trivial intersections per WP:TRIVIALCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The Cornish language became extinct a couple of hundred years ago. It has since been revived, but remains nan unusual accomplishment. It is an unusual characteristic and hence notable. Most Cornish people speak no Cornish. Speaking English or Welsh (which vast numbers of people do) is clearly a NN characteristic and would not provide the basis for a useful category (though a Welsh-speaking container category might be viable). I have never heard of Cornish language actors or TV. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or containerize at least (as with the Welsh equivalent of this category, which I think should also be deleted). It would be good to delete these outright, as they are overcategorization by skill, similar to a "Category:People who can play trombone" or "Category:People who know how to swing dance". What we really want is Category:Cornish-language occupations (and already have for Category:Scottish Gaelic-language occupations, Category:Welsh-language occupations, Category:Spanish-language occupations, etc., etc.), with people categorized under them for occupationally notable use of the language: Category:Cornish-language writers, etc. The existence of categories like Category:Cornish-speaking people, Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people, Category:Welsh-speaking people, etc., is leading inevitably to the creation of trivial-intersection categories like Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople, which is at CfD here. See also the related ongoing CfD for Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people, here. It's noteworthy that this seems to be a Celtic language activism thing; I don't see things like Category:Spanish-speaking people, Category:Navajo-speaking people, Category:Japanese-speaking people, etc., etc. PS: I say that as a bit of a Celtic language activist myself (member of Celtic League, American Branch since the 1990s), and someone whose focus in a linguistics minor at university was Celtic languages. One's interest in, even passion for, such things does not translate into a necessity for categorization schemes that do not work well here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)))[reply]
PS: I've reopened discussion about deleting instead of containinerizing the Welsh equivalent of this category, as part of the ongoing discussion of the Scottish Gaelic one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're not serious when you say Cornish is comparable with Spanish or Japanese?! No-one would ever suggest (or support) a Category:Spanish-speaking people! Sionk (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "Cornish is comparable with Spanish or Japanese"; you're coming up with those words, putting them in my mouth, and then asking me if I'm serious about it. That's a straw man. I'm not even sure what you mean by "comparable", anyway. They can certainly be compared in various ways; both are Indo-European languages from Western Europe, for example, and both, as topics here, are subject equally to the exact same guidelines and policies. I know no one would support such a category for less obscure languages that aren't the subject of activism that raises WP:NOT#ADVOCACY concerns. We shouldn't have such categories for those that do, especially when the rationale for them appears to be the very advocacy that is against policy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Containerize or delete and replace by Category:People in Cornish-language occupations for people who are notable as a Cornish-language writer, translater etc. DexDor^(talk) 06:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Except it would be Category:Cornish-language occupations, per Category:Irish-language occupations, Category:Welsh-language occupations, Category:Scottish Gaelic-language occupations, Category:Spanish-language occupations, etc. These are container categories for Category:Irish-language singers, etc., etc., each of which contain bio articles. So, any Category:People in Cornish-language occupations, Category:People in Irish-language occupations, Category:People in Spanish-language occupations, etc., would be 100% redundant with the shorter-named versions of these categories. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Anyone notable only for being among the last speakers of Cornish before its natural language-death in the 17th century can simply be put into Category:Cornish language; a handful of such people being memorialized doesn't necessitate a whole category for them. Anyone today notable for use of Revived Cornish can be put into Category:Cornish-language activists, and into whatever artistic/authorial/performative category they're actually notable for (Cornish-language writers, Linguists of Cornish, etc.); it's not really plausible than anyone could be notable for knowing Cornish yet not using it in a way that can be normally categorized without creating a pointless "Cornish-speaking people" category. (And as someone noted above, most people with some working fluency in Revived Cornish or one of its variants are writers in the language, no conversational speakers of it, so "-speaking people" is wrong to begin with). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deb, with the legitimate question attached: what does "containerize" mean? It appears to not be defined or explained anywhere. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 09:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KarasuGamma: Containerizing means to allow subcategories but no single articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1912 establishments in French Morocco

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ ^xplicit 22:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1912 establishments in French Morocco to Category:1912 establishments in Morocco
Propose merging Category:1956 disestablishments in French Morocco to Category:1956 disestablishments in Morocco

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; simply adding the French colonial empire categories to the existing Morocco category should be sufficient. Note also that French Morocco redirects to French protectorate in Morocco. Tim! (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is similar to an earlier discussion about Birma, about one country with two governments. Here in Morocco, while there were two protectorates at the time (a French and a Spanish one), it was considered to be one country nevertheless, e.g. because it kept to have one sultan. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The decision on Burma was wrong, wrong, wrong. They ignore the fact that there were two Burmas for longer than there were two Germanies. There were two Moroccos. These nominatiions consistently ignore reality. The fact of the matter is that not all of Morocco was under French control. A significant portion of it was under Spanish control. So we can not treat French Morocco as coterminous with Morocco. It would be nice if people came to understand the actual history of a place before rushing in head long with claims about how categorization should work that will not work with the actual real facts on the ground.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think here in Morocco we have an even stronger case for merging than in Burma, since History of Morocco says:

The treaties did not legally deprive Morocco of its status as a sovereign state, and the sultan remained the country's leader. In practice, the sultan had no real power and the country was ruled by a colonial administration.

... whereas the second of the treaties discussed here is between France and Spain. So Morocco as a whole remained a sovereign state despite the establishment of a French and Spanish protectorate. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - today's morocco stands for the independent Kingdom of Morocco. This is substantially differing from the dependent French protectorate of Morocco (1912-1956), both in geographic and geopolitical terms.GreyShark (dibra) 06:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco has been a unified country under the Alaouite dynasty since the 17th century, there is no reason to restrict it to "today". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I noticed that these categories weren't tagged for WikiProject Morocco, I've notified WikiProject Morocco just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and Marcocapelle's comments above. I doubt very much that there is enough content to justify splitting into the two protectorates, and there was a unified place known as "Morocco". The creation of the target categories also pre-date the creation of the nominated categories, so they also have precedence in time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as there is only one member page for these establishments and disestablishments trees, namely French protectorate in Morocco itself, so the structure is of no help for navigation. Merge to additional parents Category:1912 establishments in the French colonial empire and Category:1956 disestablishments in the French colonial empire. – Fayenatic London 14:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review regarding awards categories

The result of the discussion was: deletion review has been closed. The result was "relist". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion the proposal is being made to overturn the delete of Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands and other awards categories. You are welcome to join in this deletion review discussion. As several editors joined in the CfD discussion, and in other similar awards discussions, it was suggested to post a note about this review discussion here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]