Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 29

< November 28 November 30 >

November 29

Category:GLAM

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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category relates to Wikipedia:GLAM. The naming conventions state: "Categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories." Since GLAM has real-world uses outside of Wikipedia:GLAM, adding the prefix word is appropriate here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2012 (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:Colonial people

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:People by colony.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2012 (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:Tamil Nadu Government Laws & Rules

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:Tamil Nadu state legislation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for this new category. We already have Category:Tamil Nadu state legislation, and "rules" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sitush (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, Unnecessary duplication.Shyamsunder (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2012 (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:911 (band)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. With only a discography page and a few songs that aren't even their own, it's too soon for this eponymous category. Navigation is simple enough through 911 (band). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:04, 29 November 2012 (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:Avenue (band)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too little content to warrant an eponymous category at this time. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:02, 29 November 2012 (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:Members of the clergy with criminal convictions

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no relationship between "clergy member" and "convicted of a crime". This overly wide net lumps together murderers and trespassing peace activists without regard to the specifics. The only reason for these categories is the belief that it's somehow worse that a holy person has committed a crime and categories can't be based on such a subjective opinion. Delete and merge as nominated to keep the articles within the "convicted" category structure. Buck Winston (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Buck, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that link. Are you saying my argument is not solid because "you need to say why the article is useful or useless," or it is solid because this is one of those "pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument?" Thanks. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think it's pretty obvious, since I think the categories should be deleted, that the link is for the former purpose. "It's useful" is a crap argument. At least one person finds every article and category "useful" otherwise the article or category wouldn't have been created in the first place. There needs to be evidence of a specific encyclopedic relationship between "member of the clergy" and "convicted of a crime". There isn't. Buck Winston (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally didn't find it obvious, which was why I asked for clarification, or to put it another way WP:VAGUEWAVE. I'm not sure that the fact you find utility "crap" is relevant to this discussion. My assertion was not that this category might be useful again to someone, someday, but rather that this category is likely to be useful to a large number of current and future readers. This is a WP:DEFINING category. (You're welcome to disagree, but I don't want my point to be mischaracterised.)
Also, I double checked encyclopedic, I do not think it means what you think it means. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on same grounds, criminals who become clergymen and clergymen who become criminals are a special breed. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning delete The intersection is questionable to begin with, as Winston and Lambert state. The other problem is "clergy": it is being broadly construed to include any person for whom religion figures strongly in their notoriety, even though some of these people aren't technically clerics. Mangoe (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge to convict and occupational categories. An intersection of characteristics should be notable, or at least there should be a relationship between the two such that one helps interpret the other. Otherwise, it is just random information. For example, we categorize politicians by their political party, and people in religious occupations by their religion, but do not apply such affiliations to members of the general public because they are not defining characteristics. Similarly, I would think a cleric convicted of heresy or blasphemy might be worthy of note, but mere thieves, fraudsters, spies, sodomites, etc. can be found in any line of work (and will represent a small proportion of those people. Even among bankers and politicians). What does it matter if a murderer's day job is electrician, football player, or Congressman? It is for this reason we have such few crime/occupation categories; these, which are largely the work of a single contributor; categories for law enforcement; and Category:Health care professionals convicted of murdering patients.- choster (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose as written In many cases, the only category for the article that reflects the fact that the person belongs to the clergy is this criminal clergly one. At the very least, the articles must be merged into at least two other categories: one criminal one; one clergy one. These nominations must be done with much care to avoid loss of WP navigation. Hmains (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as are In many cases, the only reason the individual is notable and thus has a WP article is the fact that they are both clergy and criminals, otherwise they would just be ordinary clergy and ordinary criminals. Since we have such articles, this category is a necessary navigation tool for our scandal-curious readers to easily find them. There seem to be 50 some articles here and of course more will continue to be created, given human nature. Hmains (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe your assertion is correct. While I did not check every article in the structure, every one that I did check includes sources that support the notability of the person separate from the criminal conviction. If an article exists for someone who is notable only for this intersection then it probably fails WP:ONEEVENT and should be deleted, not used as justification for a category structure. Buck Winston (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2012 (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:Environmental skepticism

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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a more appropriate title. It isn't all claims about the environment, nor all environmentalists that is being called into question. Furthermore, I think this title will be more helpful for people searching for content. Greg Bard (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have the article Environmental skepticism. It would seem that Climate change skepticism is a sub-cat of this category, but there is no reason to assume that all Environmental skepticism is Climate change skepticism. I really do not see why we could not have both categories, at least if we have enough articles, with the Climate change one being a sub-cat of the more large Environmental one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPL, broader term, matches article name, whereas Climate change skepticism is a redirect to what I would consider to be a subtopic. --Qetuth (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does look like it may come to that given the discussion here, and I have no problem with that. My main concern was having a category to house people who are the climate change deniers, and conspicuously identifying them as such. There are people who are skeptical of environmentalists and environmentalism, but are not climate change deniers (e.g. Bill Wattenburg). Greg Bard (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would advise against use of the toally POV-pushing term "climate change deniers". That is a totally false term and is trying to equate them with people who deny proven historical events, which is obviously not the same thing, since man-made climate change is not a proven historical event, let alone the proven catastrophe that the term "climate-change denier" seeks to imply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling the contents of this category "hatred of science" and even more referring to climate change skepticism specifically as such is entirely unjustified. There are climate change skeptics who accept science and because of that have major skepticism about the claims about man-made climate change. This category is not about hatred in any way. It would be nice if people refrained from engaging in character assasination of those who disagree with them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2012 (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 executed during the Algerian War

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2012 (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:Place names of Hampshire origin in the United States

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (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:Place names of County Durham origin in the United States

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (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:Place names of Rutland origin in the United States

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (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:Place names of Wiltshire origin in the United States

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (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:Place names of German origin in the United States

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (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 executed by guillotine during the Algerian War

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:People executed by guillotine and Category:People of the Algerian War. Category:People executed during the Algerian War also deleted as empty category as a result of this close. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALLCAT Armbrust The Homonculus 09:00, 29 November 2012 (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.

Caegory:Abazins

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) 01:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2012 (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:Current heirs apparent

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. I have also considered the previous CFD in closing this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_7#Present_status_categories_for_persons —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be a list, and since the list exists, problem solved. --Qetuth (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this proposal is consistent with the outcome of the "Present status" discussion, but I have two objections to that decision:
    1. I think there were too few people who weighed in on the subject to reach a delete conclusion, and
    2. the argument that a category of "current" is hard to maintain is hardly convincing. We maintain articles on living (and deceased) people all the time - changing a category is no more burdensome than adding or modifying any other information. Maintaining a list that is separate from the categories seems to me more error-prone than maintaining a category for each relevant person.
  • Further, there is a difference between inherently transient categories, such as "heir apparent", and permanent categories, such as "New York Yankee" or "Nobel laureate." When (if) Prince Charles becomes king, it makes no sense to maintain his heir apparent status, because as king it was apparent that at one point he was an heir to the throne. --Leifern (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the cfd linked by the nom (which was a resounding delete) is but one of dozens of cfds which have deleted 'current' (and 'former') categories just like this one. Oculi (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Current heirs apparent of monarchs. The deletion request is utterly ridiculous. WE certainly need an article like this. I know that we do not like "current" categories, because they are liable to become obsolete. The succession of a person to a throne is such a notable event that some one will almost certainly edit the article and update the category. Heirs apparent (if adults) will typically play a significant role in their country's affairs; their status as heir apparent is the very purpose of their existence - that they expect to inherit the throne on a parent's death. When Chalres succeeds, his article will be altered and recategorised to reflect that; if he dies as Prince of Wales, the category will be changed to his being a Prince of Wales who failed to succeed, and the category we are discussing will be added to the article on Prince William. If this were about the heirs apparent of British dukes, earls and barons, I might be more willing to accept the criticism, though I suspect there are categories for them too and that they in practice get maintained when succession takes place. It is as ridiculous as saying that we should not have found a category for the status of Barak Obama between his election and inauguration. No doubt Mitt Romney has moved from being a presidential candidate to a failed presidentical candidate. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2012 (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:Martha Speaks

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT. Category had the primary voice actors in it, but that's not allowed since those VAs also do other things. No chance of expansion, contains very few articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:14, 29 November 2012 (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.


Quelle: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_29