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.
Comment -- This is certainly a performance by performer category. It would be legitiamte for the proprietors of the franchise and others who have devoted mcuh of theri careers to the franchise, but not mere voice actors.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:10, 22 August 2013 (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:Reincarnation in novels
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.
Oppose. Why should it be renamed? The current category is about "reincarnations in novels", i.e. the novel may contain one or more characters that reincarnate, while the plot may be about something completely different. But your suggested name "Novels about reincarnations" implies that the novel itself is centered around reincarnations.
De728631 (
talk)
20:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment the scope of the two is different, since the current name can cover articles about elements from novel(s) (such as character articles), while the suggested name would only allow novel articles. --
76.65.128.222 (
talk)
07:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment For what it is worth, all 4 articles currently in the category are on novels. Whether this is how we went it to be, I do not know, but it is how things are.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete not a notable genre; suffers the usually failings of "about" categories: how much about the subject must it be and who tells us (reliably sourced) that it's at least that much.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
15:20, 27 August 2013 (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:Users opponents against Persian wikipedia administrators
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:Delete. This category is purely divisive and based on a personal grudge against Persian Wikipedia. If
Sonia Sevilla has a problem with the content and attitude of the Persian Wikipedia she should discuss it over there, preferably addressing the administrators in question, but not create sectarianism within the Wikimedia Community.
De728631 (
talk)
19:45, 21 August 2013 (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 from Chadbourn, North Carolina
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:Recipients of the Colonel John H. Magruder III Award
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.
Reply. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the category meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for categorisation. It is not about the merits of the Marine Corps (about which editors many have widely divergent personal views), so please refrain from trumpeting its motto. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Reply. The comment is made because the Marine Corps is a highly notable organization with a long history, whether you agree with it's mission or not. Viewed in isolation, it’s one of the biggest militaries in the world that has fought some of the largest battles ever fought in defense of freedom. I recommend not making this personal. Semper Fi!
FieldMarine (
talk)
12:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The question of whether the Marines fight "in defense of freedom" (as you put it) is a POV issue which has nothing to do with the categorsiation. Please leave your politics at the door. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. This ranking of this award in USMC's hierarchy of awards is not the issue, unless the category is being viewed solely through a USMC lens. However, Wikipedia is written for a general readership rather than for the USMC and its fans, and WP does not exist to promote one particular viewpoint. Per
WP:OC#AWARD, the question is whether the award meets
WP:DEFINING, and I see no evidence that it does so outside of the USMC universe. This sort of factoid may be mentioned in an article (without giving it
WP:UNDUE prominence), and it may also be listified as the nominator suggests. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Reply - to your comment above, Wikipedia also has
Category:Recipients of the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and other awards specific to the Marine Corps, some of which are far more common then the Magruder Award. Also, IMHO, you are expressing your personal viewpoint by your comment above by stating it's only of interest to the USMC universe. The award is of interest to those in the museum or military history communities as well. Semper Fi!
FieldMarine (
talk)
12:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Please read before replying. I did not express a viewpoint. I noted that "I see no evidence that it does so outside of the USMC universe". If you have any such evidence, please present it so that others can assess it. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is just one of a plethora of categories for non-defining awards, citations, etc. that Wikipedia is drowning in. And I'm not just talking about military-related awards, though that field is certainly one of the worst offenders in my estimation. (For a prime example of Award-Category Proliferation, check out the article for
Konstantin Rokossovsky, which I just came across by chance a little while ago.)
Cgingold (
talk)
14:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete This is not a defining award for those involved. Plus, I have to say there are lots of other awards we have categories for that we should not, so other stuff exists is a very poor argument in this case.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:48, 21 August 2013 (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.
Historical regions in country to Historical regions of country
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: This is standardization move to a more clear name (within
Category:Historical regions by country there already are some categories using the better, IMHO, "of" format). For example, for Poland, a number of regions included in the "in" category are no longer within borders of Poland, so of is more correct than in. This is likely true for a number of other countries, and thus should be more correct in general, and less controversial for some nationalistic edit warriors. I started with Poland, than decided to fix this problem with other categories, and so I am listing all "in [country]" here. There are also few others in the parent category of
Category:Historical regions by country that use different wording (ex. Fooian historical region) that could use standardization if somebody feels like finishing this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here05:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. The headline of the nomination proposes deleting one category, but the well-reasoned rationale sets out a case for renaming a total of 24 categories. The nomination should be restructured to reflect that, but the nominator may not know how to do this. May I go ahead and do it? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Please do. Even after being on Wikipedia for 10 years and doing a good amount of wikignome work I find the process of dealing with multiple categories daunting (hint: CFD is very very very not user friendly). So thanks for your help! PS. Does anyone know how to propose a Commons cat for deletion? I want to start a discussion about
[1] but can't even figure out how, nobody's bothered to reply to me at
[2]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here12:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose Realistically these categories are based on the historical region now being within the boundaries of the country involved. It is not clear whether they were ever actually egions "of" that country.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Uh, I just explained in the op that many of the "in" categories contain places that are not IN the given countries. Outside Poland, examples include Czech Republic, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Slovakia, Lithuania. Those are just countries from the region I am familiar with that certainly include at least one entry in that category that is totally outside their borders. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here02:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Since current national boundaries have only been stable since WWII, and articles may relate to regions abolished centuries ago, "in" is much more satisfactory. This particularly applies to Poland, where Silesia and East Prussia were not part of the pre-1939 republic.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment My take is if there are places in the Poland category that are not within the current boundaries of Poland, they should be removed from the category. To say a historical region is "of" a certain country is just asking for complex edit wars. While if we use "in" and hold to the current boundaries we have a clear yes or no answer. This is especially true of Eastern Galicia which historically had a Ukrainian majority population, and there was outright fighting over where the boundary should be placed. We should do a simple "is it within the current boundaries of the country" and then place it with that. There might also be some room for the "of" categories (although not with Czech Republic and other clearly modern names), but I definitely do not want to change the current system to an of system. Maybe we can have both, but I see reasons to have the current one.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Just looking at the Poland category, the first thing to jump out at me was
Free City of Danzig, which was if of anywhere of Germany, not of Poland, but it was clearly in Poland, as in in the current boundaries. These categories are connecting historical regions to current boundaries. I think the system works, although I am guessing we should remove some things that are not within the present boundaries of the country involved, such as why is Macedonia under Turkey?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose, per the previous comments. The only way to have a clearly delineated inclusion threshold for such categories is to accept current borders, hence per JPL we are talking about historical regions "in" a specific modern country. Poland has been brought up, Turkey's "historical regions" predate the existence of any form of "Turkey" by millennia, Greece and Bulgaria have had wildly ranging borders, etc. If cases exist where a different criterion has been applied, e.g. "historical regions related to Polish/Russian/etc history", then they should be removed.
Constantine ✍ 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose "in" means what you'd think (that the historical region now lies "in" Fooland). "of" means that the historical region was a part of then-Fooland. There may be overlap, because borders change. Alsace-Lorraine is both a historical region in France and of France, but it's also "of" Germany as well. On the other hand, Ionia, Lycia, and Lydia clearly are historical regions in Turkey, certainly not "of" Turkey; while Bosnia was "of" Turkey but is not "in" it.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
15:26, 27 August 2013 (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.