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.
Meanwhile Category:People by association largely serves as a container category of container categories, implying that very few articles are directly in an association category. This is one of the remaining exceptions. In this case, grouping by having "associated with" in the article title is actually a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2018 (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.
Years in the Israeli Civil Administration Area
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, though it was trending towards option D. I recommend a fresh nomination with an option or options which are clearly set out. This discussion ended up as more of a brainstorming exercise. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There was consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_22#Category:1993_establishments_in_the_Palestinian_territories to merge the 1982–1993 establishments hierarchies for Israeli Civil Administration area and Palestinian territories, and a balance favouring "Palestinian territories". I have done some housekeeping to redirect parent categories that became empty, but consensus is needed to harmonise the rest of the structure.
Alternative Option B: keep the nominated categories, and rename the Palestinian territories categories back to ICAA, i.e. reversing the merges that were done after the previous CFD.
I notice that support for option D is growing in the discussion below. For me option D is close enough to the original nomination to support that alternative as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: As I said, there was a consensus to merge, and a balance that took the merge in one direction. Given your "keep" !vote, please clarify whether you support the suggested alternative B, rather than keeping the current mixture that has been left behind after that result. – FayenaticLondon07:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If option B is chosen, then I suggest that all "ICA area" categories should carry an explanation of the years and locations that the ICA covered. I have just found one page which has an attempt to do this, namely Category:1983 in the Israeli Civil Administration area, but most of them do not explain what ICA was; e.g. the header info for the succeeding 1984 category currently has only a red link. I have some awareness of this topic, but when I first came across these "ICA area" categories I did not understand that they were set up to be precursors to the later "Palestinian" categories. – FayenaticLondon15:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Until the 1990s most sources and UN used "Occupied Arab territories" (like this [1]) for all territories under the Israeli Military Governorate and under the Civil Administration System. Israeli-occupied territories term came into use later and notably also added southern Lebanon, where Israeli Army supported local Lebanese Christian militias via military deployment. In 1999, the UN added a new concept "Palestinian territories, Occupied" to specifically refer to areas A,B,C of the PNA.GreyShark (dibra) 07:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that since 1 October 1999, Palestinian Territory, Occupied was the ISO Short name and the ISO Official name was Occupied Palestinian Territory if that's any help. Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer Option D Occupied Arab territories. However, I would prefer not to use this for southern Lebanon, where the occupation was relatively short and in cooperation with Christian allies. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Occupied Arab territories is problematic as it would include the Golan, Sinai (until 82), and South Lebanon. There might be good cause to unlump Gaza and the West Bank into separate cats - but lumping in additional territories isn't a good idea. Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is continuous discussion about the article title of Palestinian territories but until now the consensus is apparently that this is the common name. I would rather prefer to keep the category names consistent with the article name, especially since this is a very controversial topic (note that the article talk page begins with: WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
option E - split to Category:1983 in Gaza and Category:1983 in the West Bank. This leaves political designations (well - it would endorse West Bank, but that's under the bridge per WP:WESTBANK) out of it and whether Gaza and West Bank are one entity or not for different years) out of the category name - leaving us with a well defined geographic descriptor. OPT and/or Israeli Civil Administration area can be built as parent cats.Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Golan & Sinai - only prior to 1982 (as Israel pulled out of the Sinai completely in 1982, and the Golan Heights Law, annexing the Golan to Israel, was passed in 1981). For the most part - establishments are area specific - but if an org is established at the same time at both locations (and not a few years later) - then it would be in two cats (an issue one would assume with other areas and organizations that span a few areas). Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1982 disestab is mainly Sinai. Kanaf is wrong - as the ICA was not active after 1981 in the Golan. I would disbundle 1967-1982 as well (to Gaza, West Bank, Golan, and Sinai) - which might be consistent with 1949-1967 for Gaza and the West Bank at least (under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation).Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer Option D renaming all 1967–1993 to occupied Palestinian territories. The defining characteristics of the Palestinian territories are that they (West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip) were all part of the British Mandate for Palestine and since the end of it in 1948 to the present day, they have been occupied (not always by Israel).Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Israeli Military Governorate (1967-1981) also included Golan and Sinai, which are clearly unrelated with Palestinian territories.GreyShark (dibra) 07:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support original nomination as Palestinian territories, but would alternatively support option D (occupied Palestinian territories) with a lower preference, per common name and preference for geographical designations over political ones, especially little-known short-lived ones. Place Clichy (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2018 (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:Lists of people by institutional affiliation
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 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:Railway stations served by Gatwick Express
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.
Nominator's rationale: No need for this as Gatwick Express has already merged with Govia Thameslink Railway so this train operating company doesn't exist on its own anymore. There is no need for a category about the railway stations served by a former TOC that doesn't exist on its own anymore. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending centralised discussion. I think that it would be wisest to have a centralised discussion (probably at WT:UKRAIL) about categorisation by TOC in general (current, future, sub-brands, TOC or franchise, etc) rather than the current approach of CfDing individual categories from within the tree in isolation. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should have both or neither, I started the discussion to find out which option has consensus. I don't currently have a strong opinion which I prefer, but I don't think we should not be deleting categories before we get an answer. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2018 (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:Railway stations served by Arriva Trains Wales
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.
Delete. I don't think categorizing stations by TOCs (which can be very short-lived compared with station lifetimes) is good categorization. This information (assuming it is sufficiently important and referenced) should be in the text of the articles (with dates etc), but doesn't afaics need categories. DexDor(talk)07:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would require a change to the consensus that these categories are useful - they exist for every current UK TOC and have done for a number of years. Feel free to start the discussion if you want, but ad-hoc deletion of one category from the set is not appropriate. And, yes the information is sufficiently important, trivially referenceable and is included in at least most station articles. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While there may be a decent argument for revisiting the structure of the stations by TOC categorisation, this should probably happen at WT:UKRAIL, or here in a centralised discussion, not on the discussion about one single category within that structure. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Amakuru, Thryduulf, and others. The franchises have somewhat greater endurance than TOCs. We might thus go for naming by franchises, where we can do this without also having the TOC's brand. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2018 (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:Fungi described in the 1750s
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.
Occuli, none have been emptied out-of-process. Fungi year categories were standardized 2 months after the closing of the 3.5-month-long RfC. Then, the notice for this CfD was placed on the decadal categories. I believe 3.5 months is a more than adequate discussion period, followed by 2 months of being 'on display', also without objection.
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:Football managers who never became players
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.
Nominator's rationale: I'm not even sure that this is a defining characteristic of a football manager, that they did not play the game but even if it is "who never" sounds incorrect. Maybe "who were not"? Egghead06 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF. Categorising by the absence of an attribute is generally a bad idea, and I don't see anything to make this an exception to that principle. Careers are mostly defined by what the person did, rather than by what they didn't do. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I Do not oppose delete, if that is consensus. However "Football managers who never played" would be a viable category, because it is relatively unusual for managers not to be ex-players. However the present category includes a chairman (who is not a manager), hence purge, if kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2018 (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:Daredevil seasons
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.
Nominator's rationale: The parent category, Category:Daredevil (TV series), is rather small - it has only the main article, a list of its characters, and a media file - 2 articles and 1 file. Perhaps this category should be merged into the parent category, as it doesn't yet seem necessary to split the seasons into a subcategory. – numbermaniac12:22, 13 October 2018 (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 who died in the Holocaust by occupation
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.
Nominator's rationale: manually* delete, unrelated intersection between occupation and cause of death. Note that I have removed politicians from this nomination, since the Nazis deliberately jailed socialist and communist political opponents in concentration camps. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Sory, I missed that. (facepalm) Thanks for the clarification.
Please could you amend the nomination to something like "anually delete" or "selectively merge" for those cats, so that the closer is clear that these should not just be fed to the bots? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Object -- I looked at the engineers item, where there were 3 "died in holocaust" and 8 "died in Nazi concentration camps". I do not think we need both trees, but I do think we need one. We should not be categorising those who died of old age or disease without imprisonment in extermination/concentration camps. Calling it "holocaust" is specific to Jews, excluding Poles, gypsies, imbeciles, etc. The two latter are unlikely to include professional people. I am not sure if we need to make any distinction between those "killed" or merely "died" in camps. Death from starvation or typhus was nearly as culpable as deliberate killing. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Calling it "holocaust" is specific to Jews, excluding Poles, gypsies, imbeciles, etc. The two latter are unlikely to include professional people." I am not sure how to read this. Nazis have imprisonned and killed people of all kinds of professions, mostly irrespective of their profession (exceptions discussed above), Why exactly would we need to diffuse Jews by occupation (and second question, why not Poles)? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It still says "delete" beside several cats where you say below that you mean "manual selective merge". It would be simple to be explicit if you wanted, so I oppose. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 15 October 2018 (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.
X
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 24#Category:Lists of people by association. ℯxplicit 00:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)