< February 14 February 16 >

February 15

Category:Ethnic groups in the Republic of Macedonia

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:Ethnic groups in North Macedonia. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the country has been renamed and all major international orgs are making the change. rename all subcats as well. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac, would you be kind enough to withdraw this nomination, on the same basis? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate in a manner you feel appropriate and I'll consider withdrawing in favor of a better nomination to fix these cats. I accidentally learned there is no problem with creating more than one discussion about a page. If it were not for the Admin only restrictions I'd just fix the cats systematically. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: there is a problem with having more than one simultaneous discussion about a page. It creates a forked debate, with the possibility of different outcomes. That's why WP:MULTI and WP:TALKFORK are long-standing guidelines.
In any case, since this nomination only lists and tags one category, it cannot rename any other categories.
So I will omit Category:Ethnic groups in the Republic of Macedonia from the group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CUTPASTE, I have reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 9 March 2019 (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.

Republic of Macedonia

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. Thanks to @HapHaxion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the Prespa agreement, the country was renamed. All categories identified with the former name under this one (all relevant subcategories), as well as any templates or important articles (including lists of years), should be adjusted to reflect the new name (unless the official name of the "Republic of North Macedonia" is required. As "Republic of..." is no longer required to differentiate the country from the Greek province of Macedonia except under official circumstances, North Macedonia is an acceptable name. Discussion added at the request of BrownHairedGirl. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 17:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A CFD discussion can rename only those categories which have been listed and tagged. So this CFD as nominated can rename only the top-level Category:Republic of Macedonia
  2. CFD can only renamed categories, not articles or template (except stub templates)
  3. It is unlikely that all the sub-categories should be renamed. As we found in the Swaziland/Eswatini CFD at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018_November_5#Swaziland, some categories related to proper names and to participation in international organisations, and those cases needed more careful examination.
In most cases, this renaming will be appropriate, but I am sure there will also be some exceptions here.
So I invite HapHaxion to withdraw this nomination. If they are kind enough do so, I will then open a new CFD which lists all the subcats, so that editors can identify any exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 15 February 2019 (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.

Films by editor

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: While editing is a very important aspect in the film making process, I'm not sure who edited it is defining to the film itself. Director, yes; editor, no. Also seems like a path towards overcategorization of films by job. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But is the individual who edited the film defining? Do either of those articles mention the editor in the lead? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:19, 16 February 2019 (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:WikiProject Republic of Macedonia articles

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. The project itself was renamed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_North_Macedonia#Requested_move_15_February_2019. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This cat and all subcats that refer to the current country of North Macedonia need to be updated to either say "Republic of North Macedonia" or just "North Macedonia" (and drop the "Republic"). The mother page Republic of Macedonia was renamed to North Macedonia by a well attended RFC (see talk there) so this is just housekeeping. Legacypac (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2019 (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 Celtic descent

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 along with the "Fooian people of Celtic descent" sub-cats also nominated and listed below.
As for the re-creation of Category:Celtic people within Category:Celts, it is providing a function of separating biographies from content about the ethnolinguistic group. Given the low participation at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_10#Category:Celtic_people, I will leave it, and not re-merge it under WP:G4. I will record this at category talk:Celtic people. – Fayenatic London 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the modern nations to whom it is applied are factually incorrect (it is at best contestable and can cause lenghty disputes), and it over-categorises in some cases. I have asked one of the editors who has so added the category, User:DuncanHill, to provide a rationale for such applications. None is forthcoming. I hoped there would be some use in retaining it for those to whom it genuinely does apply (Diviciacus (Aedui), Vercassivellaunos, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, et al), yet it seems we cannot have one without the other; in any case other editors have so used it too. Thus with some reluctance I propose it for deletion. Fergananim (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fergananim, please either add the subcats to this nom, or withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have reverted @Fergananim's removal from this category of Category:Australian people of Celtic descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) etc. It is utterly bizarre to claim, as Fergananim ddi in edit summaries, that it is incorrect to place "Cat:Bar people of Fooian descent" as a subcat of "Cat:People of Fooian descent". And Fergananim, please don't edit-war over it. You were alreday been reverted once by @DuncanHill; now, per WP:BRD it's time to discuss. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People of Fooian descent??? I have no idea about this Fergananim (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: The nomination was amended to include "the lot", see below. Would you consider to review your opinion? Place Clichy (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, I might have considered doing so if the other categories had been part of the nom from the outset, and if the nominator had not acted in such as shamefully underhand way by depopulating categories.
But given the way this went, the discussion is a WP:TRAINWRECK, and should be procedurally closed as such. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I recon the original nominator behave very poorly within and outside the nomination, however other editors such as Marcocapelle and myself have worked to list and nominate all categories that should have been grouped in the first place. A WP:TRAINWRECK would be if people voiced separate opinions, wanting to keep some categories and delete some other, however this is not the case here as most editors seem to consider that all these Celtic descent categories should either go or be containerized. If I understand correctly you "would enthusiastically support a proposal to delete the lot as too fuzzy", isn't it precisely what we have at issue here with the amended renomination? Place Clichy (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Place Clichy, but I stand by my view that trying to magic a consensus out of a WP:TRAINWRECK is a v bad way to proceed. When the first screenful of the discussion is spent tackling nonsense and misconduct by the nominator, other editors are deterred from participating. So the outcome is unlikely be a valid consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: No problem, I'm just trying to contribute to the discussion here, not attempting to extort an opinion from someone contrary to what you feel. Still what we have here is the opposite of a WP:TRAINWRECK: it is not a grouped nomination of too many categories that have different merits, it is the nomination of too few categories... do we have a name for that? However in terms of process I am afraid if we are not sometimes stuck when both too large and too small nominations would be objected on procedural grounds. This seems to me an unfair system bias towards the status quo regarding large chunks of problematic categories (I'm not saying that it is the case here). Place Clichy (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The system bias is against botched nominations of all types. Some are botched by including too many disparate topics. Some are botched by being incomplete sets, like here. Others are botched by the nominator playing disruptive games, as happened here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored a significant number of subcats to the nominated category, which the nominator had removed. I have made similar reversions to other categories and subcats as they all should be nominated together or not at all, as BHG said above. DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I was indeed mistaken in thinking DuncanHill created the category. For that I apologise. However DuncanHill HAS added the category to a number of others, without a clear explanation why. As a result, and because simply deleting and reverting them achieves nothing, I propose deletion due to its factual inaccuracy and over-categorisation. While I grant I have exasperated DuncanHill, I have not acted out of bad faith. Fergananim (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I added it to a lot of categories - I have restored the category when it was removed out of process. Yet again, Ferganim is lying about my contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said, I removed it because there was no clear reason to link so many in the first place. When asked why, you failed to give good reasons. Thus I felt I had to propose deletion as such deletes and reverts could go on ad infinitum. If you can give good reasons, here is the place for it. Fergananim (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle, but let's solve that in a fresh nomination. The subcategories have not been nominated now. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:American people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Argentine people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Australian people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Brazilian people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Canadian people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Chilean people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Dominican Republic people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Filipino people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Indian people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Indonesian people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Israeli people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Japanese people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Malaysian people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Mexican people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:New Zealand people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Nigerian people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Pakistani people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:Peruvian people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:South African people of Celtic descent
  • Propose deleting Category:South Korean people of Celtic descent
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:Judges of Australian superior courts

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, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an ill-defined category that solely houses useful subcategories for judges of specific courts, and isn't repeated in another country that I can find. The "superior" focus means that there is no place for the many articles on judges of lower-level courts to be categorised by the court they sit on. New Zealand has Category:New Zealand judges by court - that approach seems to cover the purpose of this category in a better way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are various ways of slicing the court system of a federal country like Australia. The US categories are divided between Category:United States federal judges, Category:American state court judges and Category:County judges in the United States, and there may be a case for a similar structure in Australia, or some other alternative to the current "superior courts" grouping. But for now the distinction in the Australian court system is made on the basis of superior courts, and I don't see any gain in grouping judges differently to the courts.
The advantage of retaining it is that it keeps a distinct set of judges who operate at the level of case which sets precedent. I don't see any gain from mixing these judges with those of lower courts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 23 February 2019 (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:Virginia Tech Sports Hall of Fame Inductees

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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Induction into this hall of fame of minor note is not defining for the subjects of the constituent articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2019 (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