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: Of the 25 articles and 2 sub-category. 12 articles treat this category as if it means functionalism (social theory). (These fit the category description). 5 articles and 1 sub-category treat this category as if it refers to
Functionalism (architecture). The remaining 8 articles and 1 sub-cat, are to do with
Functionalism (international relations) (3 articles),
Functionalism (philosophy of mind) (2 articles, 1 sub-cat) and the functionalist perspective in linguistics (3 articles). This split chooses the versions which would be most populated. 8/25 articles and 1 sub-category would not fit this split. But this split would group only relevant articles together and make things a bit clearer. imo it would be worth the split into 5 categories.
Brad7777 (
talk)
22:05, 28 June 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.
Years in Botswana
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.
While I don't prefer such one-sided historical perspective (both the historical reality, and the current situation, should be reflected in categories, since both are valid and informative groupings for our readers), it doesn't do much harm in such one-on-one situations (it gets a lot more complicated when the historical country doesn't match the current one). I would prefer the current categories to remain, but as long as they are easily navigable (so that readers get the older cats and the newer cats together, not as two separate groups) I don't have strong objections to the proposed renames either.
Fram (
talk)
07:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename -- The polity should ave its contemporary name. However the change of name ought not to require the creation of a new parent. They can satisfactorily remain sub-cats of a Botswana parent, possibly with the addition of a head note there to explain this, since the colonial protectorate and the independent nation are coterminous.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
oppose; what about this
Category:43 BC establishments in Italy and many other anachronisms in that by country and year tree. While I appreciate the effort for historical accuracy, either we do this right (meaning do it everywhere), or we accept anachronism for simplicity. I vote for keeping it simple.--
KarlB (
talk)
21:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom and Peterkingiron. I think this is a more straightforward case than
Category:43 BC in Italy, largely for the reason noted by Fram: Botswana is the direct and immediate historical and territorial successor of Bechuanaland Protectore, but the same cannot be said of Italy and the Roman Republic. Even in that case, I support a change; however, that's a more complicated case that should be considered in another discussion. -- Black Falcon(
talk)05:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. The fact that
Category:43 BC establishments in Italy exists is not an issue here since
other stuff existing is not an accepted argument here. If that category is a problem, it can be nominated and discussed on its merits. For me historical accuracy is more important then getting it wrong in order to keep it simple which in the end ends up being the most confusing option.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:56, 5 July 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:Kemetic Orthodox Wikipedians
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:Caucasian Wikipedians
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 vague. Many people in the world at large would object to having the full spectrum of caucasian be classified as caucasian (ie. people from the Caucuses, Indian subcontinent, of semetic/arabic origins are frequently not called caucasian by more restrictive definitions, that also sometimes reject Slavic peoples) --
70.49.127.65 (
talk)
04:54, 29 June 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:English independent ministers of the Rebellion period
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.
I don't think that this is eligible for speedy renaming, since neither one is a
topic category and there does not appear to be a head article for
Commonwealth period. I'd be happy to move the categories to a full discussion if there're no other factors of which I should be aware. -- Black Falcon(
talk)07:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)reply
REname all (including
StAnselm's discoveries. I would prefer "Commonwealth" to "Interregnum", but either is better than "Rebellion", which displays a Cavalier POV. The term "Commonwealth" is well understood by British historians and should be by any one who did English hisotry at school.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment but if you use "Commonwealth", then that could be interpreted to be the Post-WWII period when the British Empire transitioned into the Commonwealth...
70.49.127.65 (
talk)
07:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Rename all - period is the key word; the Commonwealth period is clearly distinct from the other Commonwealths (around Britain, Mass. etc.) that currently exist.
Ephebi (
talk)
21:24, 30 June 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:1960s Radical Activists
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.
Keep. The point of creating this category is that there was none for the radical element of activism. There were plenty of "negative" activist categories -- American anti–Vietnam War activists, American anti-war activists, Anti-poverty advocates, Anti-racism activists, etc. But nothing which properly captured the radical element within activism. Alternately, this category could also be a sub-category under Category: American activists, i.e. American Radical Activists, if the objection is not having a link to a Parent category (article). --
10stone5 (
talk)
22:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete -- The problems with this are multiple: did they only become radicals after 1959 and cease to be radicals in 1970? We have deleted "conservative" and "liberal" categories (save for membership of parties using the word), becaue they are too vague and a person may be liberal in one area and conservative in another. WE maight possibly have "Radical Activists" as a parent-only container category for more specific forms of activism, but this is at present far too woolly.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:40, 29 June 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:Trinity College, Hartford
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:Armoured fighting vehicles of Australia in active service
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: "In active service"/"Current"/"Modern" categories are not something that is encouraged, and consensus at CfD has been that they should be eliminated. Here's more of them, with the same reasons as always for their removal: that 'in active service' is something subject to change, and, in some cases, the removal from active status is something difficult to verify (and also hard to define - is the reserves 'active service' when they can be called up in short order?).
The BushrangerOne ping only02:19, 28 June 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.
Modern military vehicles
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: More nebulously-defined "modern" category, of the sort that is frowned upon greatly. How, exactly, is 'modern' defined? It's a subjective and non-defining definition that changes over time; therefore these categories should be deleted or upmerged. need to be renamed to clearly define their scope and avoid the "modern" trap.
The BushrangerOne ping only02:16, 28 June 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:Wikipedia rollbackers open to recall
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: It has only had one person in it since it was created in December 2011, and doesn't seem to serve any purpose...I could not find any explanation of the category's purpose. —JmaJeremyTALKCONTRIBS01:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete the rollbacker user group is not adminship, and is gained through a different process. This category serves little use. - jc3701:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep. Absolutely no harm, and of symbolic purpose to the member. If you want to persuade him otherwise, do so with reasoning, not by deletion. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
08:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Even if your assumption is correct, the user is in no way discouraged or prevented from reaching this "symbolic purpose" by declaring (via text or a userbox) on his or her user page that he or she is open to recall. Such a declaration does not require the use of category code or the creation of a separate page—a category. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)reply
That's a discussion to have with the member, not with me. My position is that if one user has a valid use for a category, then don't delete it without at least talking to him. User categories do not need the same restrictive use rules as do mainspace visible categories. That said, if deleted, it should be upmerged. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
02:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Ay, there's the rub. :) My contention, and I suspect the others' as well, is that this case does not constitute a "valid use [of] a [user] category". Indeed, the purpose of a CFD is to determine whether a certain category is valid or not; we should not simply presuppose validity.
Nonetheless, I agree wholeheartedly that one should talk to a categorized user when it is practical to do so. A case such as this one, in particular, is suited to such an approach since the category contains only one member. That being said, I must stress again that this approach is not always practical – for example, the user in this case is semi-retired and last edited on 3 June. Still, I commend the nom
for notifying the user of this nomination so that he or she might be able to join the discussion. -- Black Falcon(
talk)03:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete - I don't think I've ever seen a rollbacker "recalled" before. I would guess that it is pretty clear when a rollbacker is abusing the tool, and it is easy for an admin to remove the right if that is the case, without some weird recall process. Besides, I see no reason to treat the rollbacking right as if it were something important. It's not. Twinkle gives you nearly the same thing, plus a bunch of extra tools, and I'll laugh when I see the category Twinkle users open to recall :-) ~
Adjwilley(
talk)22:05, 28 June 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.