< May 10 May 12 >

May 11

Category:City councils in the United Kingdom

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. MER-C 09:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as a city council in the UK, and the existence of this category potentially misleads readers into thinking that there is. Types of local authorities in the UK include county councils, district councils, unitary authorities, London borough councils, metropolitan borough councils, parish councils and so on, but not city councils. The members of this category includes Cambridge City Council (a district council), Hull City Council (a unitary authority), Salisbury City Council (a parish council) and Westminster City Council (a London borough council). The only thing they have in common is the fact that they have the words "city council" in their name (because the places have city status, which has no relation to their local government status) – this does not seem to be a worthwhile reason for categorising them as such, and (as stated above), is potentially misleading. Also nominating the sub-categories below for the same reason. Number 57 22:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:United Kingdom city councillors
  • Category:City council elections in the United Kingdom
  • Category:Former city councils in the United Kingdom‎
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:Holocaust deniers

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. This seems to be headed for a snow keep, so further discussion has proven frivolous. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is consensus at CfD and BLPN that we should not have a category of climate change deniers per WP:BLPCAT. Holocaust denial is just as contentious and therefore this should not be much different, except that the subcategory Category:People convicted of Holocaust denial offenses is a legitimate category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the Holocaust itself is a historical fact, the details of which have been thoroughly and voluminously documented. As such, it is not a "contentious" issue. Climate Change, on the other hand, is still in the process of occurring, and the factual reality is still being documented, day by day. Even though there is a strong concensus on the subject among scientists, details are still being worked out and "debated" in the normal course of scientific inquiry. At the same time, much like the tobacco industry did for decades, the self-interested fossil fuel industry has expended considerable effort over the years to raising doubts among the public, with a generous helping of support from the Fox News crew and conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones.
The unfortunate result of all of this is that Climate Change is unquestionably a rather "contentious" issue -- and consequently, "Climate change denier" is a far more "contentious" term, which is reflected in the discussions you cited. Unlike Category:Climate_Change_deniers, however, Category:Holocaust deniers survived two previous CFD discussions, and has gone completely unchallenged for more than a decade. (See the April 2007 discussion and the August 2008 discussion.
And lastly, please take note of the inclusion criteria, which have been in place since 2008. The category is restricted to people who have "actively promoted" Holocaust denial. Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The usual criteria for inclusion is common/self designation, rather than place of birth. Thus Tony Blair is not in ANY Scottish categories, whereas Gordon Brown is in several, despite both being Scottish-born, though Brown being much more associated with Scotland. This 'cultural' distinction makes sense but none of the Scots or English or NI deniers seemed to be meaningfully Scottish or English or Irish. Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A wee bit of Wiki History on this issue: Back around 2006-7 there was an upsurge of English nationalism from a contingent of editors who were insisting on designating people as "English" instead of "British" in their Wiki bios. Here in the States, we were shaking our heads in dismay & puzzlement, not realizing that this was happening because of an upsurge of English nationalism in the real world (presumably in response to the rise in Scottish nationalism). Before long there was a myriad of subcats for ALL 4 of the national identities in the not-so-United Kingdom. You can be quite sure there will be a battle royale if there is a large-scale effort to upmerge most of those subcategories. Cheers, Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly free to withdraw this nom if you wish to; it does appear to be heading for a SNOWBALL KEEP. As for the other category, rather than trying to resurrect that exact category, I think perhaps it might be better to drop the word "denier", which is something of a hot-button term, and refer to them as "Climate change skeptics" -- though I seem to recall that having been tried at one time, as well. But I think the ground may have shifted enough to support such a category now. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 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:Thai people by rank

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 11 May 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:Iranian journalists by subject

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate category. Only content is Category:Iranian music journalists‎ Rathfelder (talk) 14:34, 11 May 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:Recall elections in the United Kingdom

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:Recall in the United Kingdom. MER-C 09:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Recall elections in the United Kingdom to Category:Recall petitions in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: The UK doesn't have recall elections like the US, but rather a petition process outlined under the Recall of MPs Act 2015. If successful this then triggers a by-election; though these by elections are functionally and legally identical to those triggered by other means.

This category should be moved as proposed and only contain the articles about the petitions (three to date) and the parent article Recall of MPs Act 2015. This would eject 2019 Peterborough by-election from the category, as this is a by-election, not a recall petition. LukeSurl t c 12:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2019 Peterborough by-election is currently the only such by-election so it would be in a category of its own (at least for now). Currently we do not subcategorise UK by-elections by their cause (which has normally been death or resignation) but only by location. --LukeSurl t c 09:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason not to do it.Ingratis (talk) 21:59, 12 May 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.

People of the Umayyad Caliphate

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 "from". There is general consensus that the categories should be renamed, but no consensus about whether to use "of" or "from". There seems to be slightly more support for "from". Since the closing instructions for CfDs don't seem to cover this, the general guideline for renaming (WP:RMCLOSE) says (in WP:THREEOUTCOMES):There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place. Thus, this close is without prejudice to speedy renomination for further discussion of moving some or all of the categories to "of". (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to reduce ambiguity: "Umayyad people" may either refer to people of the Umayyad dynasty (more likely so) or to people of the Umayyad Caliphate (as intended in the above categories). The nomination also brings the category names in line with the parent Category:People of the Umayyad Caliphate. A similar case is Category:People of the Ottoman Empire and all of its subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same in this case, e.g. Category:Umayyad scholars describes people of the Umayyad Caliphate who were scholars, but Category:Scholars of the Umayyad Caliphate describes people of any era who studied the Umayyad Caliphate.
Sadly, the uncritical support of a flawed proposal at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 13#Ottoman_people has cascaded into many other similar categories, replicating the same basic problem across many hundreds of categories.my mass nomination at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 28#People_from_the_Ottoman_Empire was closed as no consensus despite the opposes including non-arguments sch as they're grand as the are and nominator has not laid out why the Ottoman Empire should be different, even tho the nomination laid out a large list of problems) and "reluctant oppose" which noted the "absurd results" of the "of the Ottoman Empire" naming format.
It's sad to see that the proposer of this broken naming convention is proposing it yet again, as if the flaws of the "of Foo Empire" format had never been noted before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Especially for the sake of scholars it makes sense to avoid "of" (for the other categories it is less of an issue). As nominator I am equally fine with "from" and once suggested "under". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, "under" implies managerial or hierachical control which is not always the case. It probably applies to generals, but less so the scholars and poets (or maybe not at all).
"From" is indeed less problematic.
I think we need an RFC on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please comment on a rename to "X from the Umayyad Caliphate".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:02, 11 May 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.

People of the Abbasid Caliphate

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 "of". There is general consensus that the categories should be renamed, but no consensus about whether to use "of" or "from". There seems to be slightly more support for "of". Since the closing instructions for CfDs don't seem to cover this, the general guideline for renaming (WP:RMCLOSE) says (in WP:THREEOUTCOMES):There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place. Thus, this close is without prejudice to speedy renomination for further discussion of moving some or all of the categories to "from". (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Abbasid people by century to Category:People of the Abbasid Caliphate by century
  • Rename Category:8th-century Abbasid people to Category:8th-century people of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:9th-century Abbasid people to Category:9th-century people of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:10th-century Abbasid people to Category:10th-century people of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:11th-century Abbasid people to Category:11th-century people of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:12th-century Abbasid people to Category:12th-century people of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:13th-century Abbasid people to Category:13th-century people of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:Abbasid admirals to Category:Admirals of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:Abbasid calligraphers to Category:Calligraphers of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:Abbasid courtiers to Category:Courtiers of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:Abbasid eunuchs to Category:Eunuchs of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:Abbasid generals to Category:Generals of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:Abbasid governors to Category:Governors of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:Abbasid military personnel to Category:Military personnel of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:Abbasid officials to Category:Officials of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:Abbasid scholars to Category:Scholars of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:Abbasid viziers to Category:Viziers of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:Abbasid-period musicians to Category:Musicians of the Abbasid Caliphate
  • Rename Category:Abbasid-period poets to Category:Poets of the Abbasid Caliphate
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to reduce ambiguity: "Abbasid people" may either refer to people of the Abbasid dynasty (more likely so) or to people of the Abbasid Caliphate (as intended in the above categories). The nomination also brings the category names in line with the parent Category:People of the Abbasid Caliphate. A similar case is Category:People of the Ottoman Empire and all of its subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same in this case, e.g. Category:Abbasid scholars describes people of the Abbasid Caliphate who were scholars, but Category:Scholars of the Abbasid Caliphate describes people of any era who studied the Abbasid Calipahate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please comment on a rename to "X from the Abbasid Caliphate".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:00, 11 May 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:Puerto Rican people of Dutch-Jewish 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: merge to Category:Puerto Rican people of Dutch descent. MER-C 17:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This narrow category contains only one page. serioushat 08:02, 11 May 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.

Roman Gaul

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, current category names are anachronistic, there was no France in Roman times. The proposal aligns with the category structure of Category:Roman Britain and Category:Roman Egypt. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 11 May 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:Military musicians

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) 10:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are all in the same class as Category:Musicians by band, and can be named in a similar manner. This would allow the more specific categories to be in the Musicians by band container category as well.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 11 May 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 with honorary American citizenship

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. of Mother Teresa). See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_3#Category:Honorary_citizens_of_Hamburg and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_10#Category:Honorary_citizens.  For info: there is a list here. DexDor (talk) 05:29, 11 May 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:Monuments and memorials to Amelia Earhart

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. I find DexDor's suggestion worthy of further discussion. – Fayenatic London 08:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there was an earlier discussion of this and related categories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_27#Memorials where there was strong consensus to keep. – Fayenatic London 08:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME and the spirito of WP:C1, an empty category
No conceptual objection to this category, but it consists of articles with nothing to do with Amelia Earhart except for being named after her like the SS Amelia Earhart, Amelia Earhart Peak and Amelia Earhart Dam. (While not exactly a memorial, Amelia Earhart Birthplace is the only article that's defined by Ms. Earhart and it's already in a parent category so no upmerge is needed.) No objection to recreating the category if we ever get up to 5 or so articles of actual monuments and memorials and no objection to creating a list article now. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm pretty sure there are more out there - I mean, she was literally one of the most famous and illustrious people on the planet in the 1930s. There must be an airport or two named for her. (It's a little surprising that Burbank Airport, which she frequently flew out of, wasn't renamed for her. There is, however, a freestanding statue of her in nearby North Hollywood, which could have its own article.) Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two more subcategories of Category:Monuments and memorials by person are nominated today with more to come. Honestly though, I was also suprised Wikipedia didn't have any existing articles that were clear momuments to Earhart and would welcome their creation. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate, consider the following excerpts pertaining to Amelia Earhart:
From USNS Amelia Earhart (a naval ship): "In early 2007, Alex Mandel along with members of the Amelia Earhart Society (AES) and Amelia Earhart Research Association (AERA) successfully petitioned the naming of the ship. // At 9 p.m. 6 April 2008, a ceremony was held to christen the Amelia Earhart, with the honors of breaking the traditional bottle of champagne given to Amelia Earhart's closest living relative, niece Amy Kleppner."
From Amelia Earhart Memorial Bridge (in Atchison, Kansas): "The bridge was renamed for aviator Amelia Earhart, a native of Atchison, in 1997 to honor the centennial of her birth in Atchison. The illumination along the trusses and xenon spotlights that shine straight up into the sky from the top of the bridge's two peaks were installed and debuted during the Amelia Earhart Centennial Celebration on July 24, 1997."
We're fortunate to have those kinds of details in the two articles I quoted from. I rather suspect that many if not most articles won't provide such details. But that doesn't mean that the items in question were not sincere expressions of regard. And the absence of such details certainly should not be construed as de facto evidence that they are not "legimate" monuments or memorials.
Lastly, I don't think it's helpful to deal with these categories on a piece-meal basis. We really should have some sort of centralized discussion that will hopefully produce agreement & guidance on the core issue of what constitutes a "legimate" monument or memorial. Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thank you both for the more detailed answer to clarify your concerns beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Obviously when a ship or mountain or a bridge is named ofter someone is not a coincidence and it's meant as a legacy to remember a person that will involve a speech at the opening and often a plaque and such recognition is often either included as a section in the bio article as a separate list. I thought that the WP:SHAREDNAME guidele did reflect a clear concensus for individual articles not to be defined/categorized in this way but let me hold off on further nominations in this tree until this nominaton closes to make sure. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read it. Looks like almost half the articles in Category:Libraries in Los Angeles are named after someone: Washington Irving Branch, John Muir Branch Library, Robert Louis Stevenson Branch Library, et al and I would guess they all have a bust, plaque, display case, or painting of their namesake in the lobby. So I also see potential broader implications to this discussion so I added a neutral notice here. I'm open to moving the whole conversation to that page if that brings consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some clear guidance for this whole category tree would be welcome. My own view is that we should only categorize something as a memorial if it was created specifically as a memorial (e.g. a statue); not things such as mountains, ships and dams (although wherever the line is drawn there are likely to be some borderline cases). DexDor (talk) 20:21, 14 May 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:Places named after Thomas Jefferson

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 19#Category:Places named after Thomas Jefferson

More