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 main article about this artist and its other related pages have been moved, and so the categories about them need to be renamed as well. Keivan.fTalk23:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose (was Mild support but oppose speedy). The RM was not consensual, closed as no consensus after a single opinion expressed (an opposition), and the article boldly moved a year later. However it does seem that her work is indeed marketed as Helena Paparizou in the latin-script world, despite it not being how one would usually transcript her Greek name. I'd like the article to better explain why, but you can't always get what you want.
Place Clichy (
talk) 13:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Changed to oppose on second thought. The renaming was not consensual and goes against consensus established on the talk page that Elena Paparizou is her name and that Helena is the name of her act. I have reverted it.
Place Clichy (
talk)
23:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Which consensus are you talking about? There was a single vote on the talk page! I wouldn't call that consensus. Not to mention that there are no English references that call her Elena in an official capacity. But, since everyone's demanding a discussion I started a move request / discussion on the talk page. You're welcome to participate. Keivan.fTalk16:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
See discussions
here,
here and
here at least. Nobody contends that her legal name is Elena Paparizou, and that she started using Helena as an artist name ca. 2004 (not at the start of her career), and it is described as such in the article. Let's follow the RM, the categories should follow the name chosen for the article anyway.
Place Clichy (
talk)
22:04, 16 May 2020 (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.
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:Merge per
WP:RCAT. This category is exclusively redirects, so the redirects should be in a redirect category, not an article category.
Hog Farm (
talk)
18:37, 13 May 2020 (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:Peers nominated by Paddy Ashdown
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. Unnecessary disambiguation for most of them, and inaccurate in the case of Margaret Thatcher, who also nominated three hereditary peers.
Opera hat (
talk)
10:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- No new patents of hereditary peerage have been granted by any of these, except
William Whitelaw by Mrs Thatcher and she knew this would in effect be a life peerage, as he only had daughters who would not inherit. The other exception was
Earl of Stockton to which
Harold Macmillan was entitled (by precedent) as a past Prime Minister.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
(new !vote is below) Oppose per Peterkingiron. I would also favour deletion or upmerger. The
WP:DEFINING characteristic here is that the person got a peerage, thereby entitling them to sit in the
House of Lords. The issue of who nominated them is a relatively trivial detail, which should be captured in lists. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
09:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The reason I started creating these categories was as a means of demonstrating which leaders have appointed the most/least peers. The House of Lords is often criticised as being one of the largest upper houses in the world, and I thought it would be interesting to know the extent to which different PMs contributed to its size; once fully populated these categories would provide this. Lists I've encountered previously only show total number of creations per prime ministerial term, and do not filter out peers nominated in a resignation honours list or by opposition leaders.
Opera hat (
talk)
08:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I totally missed the fact that some of the peers that Thatcher nominated were hereditary peers, not life peers. I created the parent category
Category:Life peers created by Elizabeth II, and re-categorized these categories accordingly, as a result of that mistake. I propose that we just remove the intermediate level I created, upmerge the above categories to where they were before, and then close this discussion with no other action. There could be some value in keeping the current categorization by nominator. (But that's a weak keep, so I won't object if they are removed altogether.)
HandsomeFella (
talk)
11:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Going to give this some time to let some of the respondents here comment on the merits of merging per BHG. It's clear at least that there's no consensus to rename according to the nom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac1518:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I was asked to comment by Fayenatic london above; but I don't know which is the more notable association: the PM who nominates a peer or the monarch who creates one. So, nothing to add.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge to either
Category:Peers created by Elizabeth II or
Category:Life peers created by Elizabeth II. Elizabeth II is the UK's longest-reigning monarch and her reign has seen a marked increase in the annual rate of peerage creations. There have been about 100 creations of hereditary peers and about 1,300 of life peers during the current reign. This would mean that the merge target category would end up having more articles than several of those in
Category:Overpopulated categories.
Also, I don't agree with
User:BrownHairedGirl's description of these categories as trivial or non-defining. A nomination to a permanent seat in the legislature is about as significant a piece of political patronage as you can get, so I think the identity of that political patron is always going to be important to the biography of a peer. Who has nominated whom always causes comment in the media around the times the honours lists are published.
Opera hat (
talk)
16:27, 16 May 2020 (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:Letters by alphabet
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.
Support.
Category:Letters by alphabet is the older one, and its page history should be moved over the target page. The same duplicate categories have been copied into Arabic and Vietnamese Wikipedias, see Wikidata items
[1] &
[2]; I volunteer to merge them if this is agreed in enwiki. –
FayenaticLondon20:49, 13 May 2020 (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:Wikipedians who have the Dubious – discuss template imitated in their signatures
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 purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia
. This category groups users who seek to disrupt discussions by using their signatures to mimick a cleanup tag, so it's an impediment to collaboration, and as such it's a clear no-no.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: the category's creator,
Rebestalic posted
[3] on their talk to say I don't mind if it's speedy-deleted.
Delete while I'm not necessarily adverse to the template itself—I thought it rather clever the first time I saw it used by an editor who is well-known to be both highly dubious and much discussed 😏—a user category based upon its usage appears, frankly, as an exercise in self-indulgence and navel-gazing. Thanks to BHG for filing.
serial #12:27, 13 May 2020 (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:First Secretaries of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU
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:Guggenheim Fellowships
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:Evening Standard Awards
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 and purge per nom. No objections in principle to listifying, provided that any such lists are fully sourced and meet the notability criteria at
WP:NLIST. A bare dump in article space of a category's contents will be deleted at AFD, as I repeatedly found when making such lists after closing a CFD nomination like this one. I suggest that a listing of each category's contents dumped on the talk page of this CFD log may be some help to anyone who wants to create such lists … but actually making valid mainspace lists is a non-trivial task. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:32, 13 May 2020 (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.