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 Option B, due to the Italy states issue, C2C, etc. No prejudice against a followup nom to propose splitting all the HRE cats to german states/italian states/etc. - jc3722:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
There wasn't anything like "German states" within the Holy Roman Empire. For example, Bohemia and the Southern Netherlands did not have a separate status as non-German.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Option A -- "Germany" is a convenient term for the HRE (in full: "the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation") and was one in common use at the time. Any reference to what the Emperor did would be limited to lands under his direct rule, including Austria and Bohemia. What is now Belgium was a Spanish possession in 17th century and Austrian doe most of 18th. These can be dealt with in sub- or sibling categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)reply
In the Middle Ages the Holy Roman Empire came into existance as the merger of the Kingdom of Germany, the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Burgundy. But here we are talking about the early modern period when a large part of Italy is still part of the HRE while the medieval kingdoms were no longer distinguished. Calling Italian states German states is quite awkward.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Additional comment The problem of some Italian states being part of HRE can be dealt with by them being
Category:17th-century executions by Italian states. In general executions will have taken place under the authority of German (or Italian) princes, rather than the Emperor, except in Austria, Bohemia, and other Imperial lands. After the creation of Switzerland, it and the Imperial lands lay between German states and Italian states. However we might
Category:17th-century executions in the Holy Roman Empire as a container for German, imperial and Italian subcategories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:21, 6 March 2021 (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:Inventions invented through American science and technology
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: Most world's inventions are through science and technology. Apparently, for that reason there's no wider "Inventions invented through science and technology by country" categorization scheme. Only one article and three subcats inside.
Brandmeistertalk23:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Science and technology do not stop at national borders. I note that we have a
list of multiple discoveries — by which anything based on the
electrical telegraph, for instance, involves both British and American technology. The sole article,
Esky, does not mention the United States except in passing in a reference about the American company who acquired the brand. And brands are not inventions. 16:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete -- a wholly unnecessary category. The one article is about an Australian device, America not being mentioned. One of the categories concerns a video game or related device, but that and MS Windows can go into American inventions.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete inventions can be international collaborations. This category will just lead to needless clutter. We should categorize inventors by nationality (as we do) not inventions, because inventions are often collaborative. Also, to make things even more complex, something like radio or television went through multiple stages of development, so the work of Marconi or Philo Farnsworth is not the sum total of creating even the earliest applications of the given product in ways we would recognize under the term.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:19, 9 March 2021 (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.
I-Kiribati non-people categories
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:S.W.A.T.
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:Anglican priests
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 the Anglican churches these are pretty much synonymous as I understand it, except that deacons are counted as clergy but not as priests. If this is agreed a load of subcategories to follow. NB the merge could be the other way around, but I think clergy is the commoner term among Anglicans, and though we have very few articles about deacons it seems sensible to have a supercategory which includes them.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
If it's really treated as heirarchical clergy becomes a container category? Its not possible for a person to be just a clergyperson with no other office? NB having looked at the articles about deacons I doubt if any of them are notable as deacons.
Rathfelder (
talk)
20:08, 3 March 2021 (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:Harry Potter organizations
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.
People of Chaoshanese descent
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 I dont think we should have descent categories for regions unless we have an article establishing the notability of the intersection. NB there are some similar categories in Italy.
Rathfelder (
talk)
20:11, 3 March 2021 (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:Burials at Union Cemetery, (Steubenville, Ohio)
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.
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:WP:C2C, trying to reduce this overly convoluted structure.
Each of the parents has only one child, merge the child into the parents. (Oceania currently has only one country in it, and does not have the subcategory, but can remain for possible future expansion.)
Comment - it would be fairly standard to have a 'by country' subcat scheme for
Category:Administrative divisions in Europe as divisions which are not country (eg the EU is an 'administrative division', there's EFTA, Schengen etc) get lost in a slew of countries. Of course it was 'Country subdivisions', a more specific phrase. I prefer it when there is also a 'by something else' scheme.
Oculi (
talk)
14:48, 2 March 2021 (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:Judges who died in office
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 as
non-defining. Many judges are appointed for life, so virtually all of those will die in office. I seem to recall a semi-recent discussion about this or a similar category but I can't find the link.
User:Namiba13:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per the recent outcome of
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 5#Category:People who died in office, which is likely the discussion to which the nominator refers. The outcome of the discussion was to subdivide
Category:People who died in office, of which judges are one of the major subdivisions. The nominator is incorrect in stating that "virtually all" judges with lifetime appointments will die in office. In fact, the vast majority of those retire or resign point prior to death. Of the 50+ Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who have left office in the past century, for example, only twelve died in office. The reason we imagine judges dying in office more frequently than that is because it is so newsworthy when they do, which is precisely what makes it defining.
BD2412T16:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
First, most judges in the United States are elected or appointed for terms rather than being appointed for life. Those who are appointed for life may retire or resign from office on a schedule of their choosing, thereby controlling, to a degree, the appointment of their own successors. Judges who die in office are deprived of that control, which can therefore lead to substantial and demonstrable political consequences.
BD2412T18:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
No judge is notable for dying in office. Judges are notable for what they do in office, not whether or not they hold office when they die. Their deaths are usually trivial, except in cases when they are killed for being a judge.--
User:Namiba17:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Clueless or bad faith nomination. The nominator here was the nominator of the recent discussion, which concluded to the contrary: there was consensus in favour of such a category existing, but the nominator either pretends to be unfamiliar with the details, or has somehow totally forgotten them, even though he was the one who created it, and even though it's not hard to find. Don't try to overturn recent consensus by pretending that it doesn't exist or by refusing to look for it.
Nyttend (
talk)
19:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
There is no recent consensus. This category did not even exist when that nomination began AND that nomination did not seek to delete any category, just to rename it.
User:Nyttend seems to be either clueless or responding in bad faith. I don't want to assume which it is.--
User:Namiba20:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I have read the close; it is in line with BD2412's arguments, and at variance with yours. If you continue these arguments, I will request sanctions.
Nyttend (
talk)
20:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I have no idea why you are being so hostile, but you are free to request anything you'd like. Try not to disrupt this discussion.--
User:Namiba20:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete US federal judges have lifetime appointments and lifetime pay. (see
United States federal judge) Until recently, dying in office was the norm and retirement the exception. Nowadays, judges after a period may "retire" or take "senior status" which encourages those whose faculties or energy are declining to keep their 'office' and 'pay' for life but make room for the president to nominate fresh judges. (
United States federal judge#Retirement). Upon taking senior status a judge remains a judge and still dies 'in office'. Nothing notable about that.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
23:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Carlossuarez46: where are you seeing that this category is limited to "US federal judges"? Or to "US" judges at all? Your vote appears to be contingent on that understanding.
BD2412T00:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
BD2412: because a substantial section of the judges who are dying in office are lifetime appointments, it seems particularly non-defining. Similarly were we to have
Category:Monarchs who die in office, while nowadays many abdicate in continental Europe, and Edward VIII, and a few deposed - over the last few thousands of years, the norm was dying in office. "The king is dead, long live the king!" The judges are little different; for judges who are elected for a fixed term of years we have
Category:Politicians who died in office.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Carlossuarez46:Category:Politicians who died in office already contains over 2,000 articles, and is in need of division into categories by type. Presumably, if it is to contain elected judges who died in office, that would be one obvious subcategorization. As for the rest, the non-elected judges who died in office would still be categorized in
Category:People who died in office (unless someone wants to argue that judges aren't "people" or that they are not "in office").
BD2412T19:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - seems to be a pretty clear case of
WP:NONDEF. In addition, a reader would probably not find the category useful for navigation, for the only common thread is very broad and is rarely the subject of coverage in reliable sources. A list article could perhaps be made for the Supreme Court justices - there's probably analysis of SCOTUS deaths in office even if it's non-defining for categorization purposes.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)reply
There has already been a discussion on
Category:People who died in office which resulted in that category being kept and subcategories established. It is therefore clearly not possible to prohibit the addition to that category of any subjects in the encyclopedia who were a) people, and b) in office at the time of their death. Absent an overturn of the previous consensus on that category, upmerging these articles into it would be automatic upon deletion of the subcategories.
BD2412T21:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-defining. In the cases above, the judges are appointed for life or until they retire, so dying while holding office is one way to leave it. In elected positions, that's different, and it is unusual and recognized when an elected official dies during their term. --
Masem (
t)
16:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)reply
A category "Elected officials who died in office" may be more appropriate for that. Whether they were judges, legislators, executive/presidents, or the like, that would come from cross categorization. --
Masem (
t)
21:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is not just about modern US judges. Historically speaking most people and most judges died in office. Dying is, so far, universal, and hardly ever defining for occupation.
Rathfelder (
talk)
20:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep -- but merge the two supreme court categories, which ought to be duplicates. People can retire and in some jurisdictions there is an age limit on sitting as a judge. We decided to keep the parent but it needs containerising, which a deletion here would disrupt.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The two categories are not duplicates, one is for federal judges and the other for state judges. About containerization, that would limit the use of this category to American judges only, it is not clear what the benefit of that would be.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete since in the US federal judges are appointed for life this is inherently a non-defining issue. True, some retire before death, but death in office is not rare enough to be categorized by.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Johnpacklambert: Is your !vote contingent on the category containing United States federal judges? It also contains several hundred elected state court judges. Incidentally, it also contains Article I federal judges who were appointed for a term of years.
BD2412T21:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Johnpacklambert: I actually overestimated the number. It is fewer than 200, so not "several hundred"; my apologies for that. I am curious what proportion of elected judges you think that represents.
BD2412T02:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: I note that a large number of !votes in this discussion appear to be contingent upon a miscommunication about what this category actually contains.
BD2412T21:19, 9 March 2021 (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:Engish Anglican priests
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.
Merge per nom. Are there any English priests in the Episcopal Church of Scotland? There were plenty of English priests in the Church of Ireland. Do we care?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
13:24, 3 March 2021 (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:Executive branch of the Government of Afghanistan
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:Valdez–Cordova Census Area, Alaska geography stubs
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'm not really sure how "waiting to hear back from the person organising the permcats" — i.e., you RadioKAOS — is "dropping the ball". Once you tell WPSS that the permcats are sorted it'll be easy to assess the stub split. Have you finished it yet?
Grutness...wha?00:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)reply
What Grutness said. The discussion at
WPSS:Proposals has not been closed, mainly because its resolution has not been determined. Contrary to the uncomplimentary view expressed by OP, stub sorters are "doing their job", busily enough that the assistance of other editors is greatly appreciated...when given. Her Pegship (?)
18:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
RadioKAOS expressed concern at that TfD discussion that they did not "see any notice of either XFD at WP Stub Sorting". The WP procedure for changes and deletions of stub templates and categories was transferred several years ago to this venue and TfD.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Article alerts just listed this alert on March 2, and it's possible that stub sorters like myself did not see the alert until today. (P.S. RadioKAOS did post a note on the
WPSS talk page implying that something should be done, as they were too busy and uninterested to "do the work", but without making clear what they thought should be done.) Her Pegship (?)
18:24, 10 March 2021 (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:B'Tselem
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:Worst United States Supreme Court decisions
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 overly subjective, as critics originating from different viewpoints will have very different lists of which Supreme Court decisions are the "worst".
BD2412T04:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Its funny how the same decisions keep making external "worst lists". There seems to be a fair amount of convergence on what the top 10 or 20 are. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Noloader (
talk •
contribs)
04:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Offensive to whom? If CPAC, the ACLU, and the Chamber of Commerce each list the decisions they find most offensive, you'll get three very different lists.
BD2412T04:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - no objective way to assess this. While a few (Dred Scott, Korematsu, Plessy) are almost universally reviled, most of the rest are subject to reasoned dispute. A sizable number of academics (and Justices) believe Bush v. Gore reached the correct outcome. Ditto for Citizens United and Bowers. And I just the other day read a principled defense of the Lochner decision. We have no business picking the worst cases when there is no scholarly consensus about which ones they are. See also
this AfD. (For what it's worth,
thesecategories serve as decent substitutes for this one.)
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
04:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete This category smacks of POV. What objective standard was used to make the list of cases in that category? It appears to be simply Nolader's opinion was the standard. That's not a legitimate standard.
SMP0328. (
talk)
05:51, 2 March 2021 (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:Anglican bishops by diocese in Ireland
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 stand by my suggestion. The Church of Ireland is the manifestation of the
Anglican Communion in Ireland. It does not operate anywhere else. Its missionaries in other countries would serve under the local Anglican hierarchy.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:08, 6 March 2021 (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:Irish Anglican priests
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.
(Changed vote) -- I think on the whole the best solution is for WP to apply the precedent of alumni categories, where the alumni of a renamed or merged or merged institution are deemed to have attended the successor. In this case, the pre-reformation and post-reformation Anglican bishops in Ireland would appear under Church of Ireland container categories. There may be a case for using 1869 as a split date for priests (only) as this must be a very large category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:14, 6 March 2021 (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:Recipients of the Ludwig Order
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 German Grand Duchy of Hesse established the
Ludwig Order (German: Ludwigsorden) and intended it to be for "meritorious soldiers and civilians". Either the award wasn't used that way or such recipients aren't notable because these categories consist almost entirely of foreign officials like
Nicholas I of Russia,
Prince George of Prussia, and
Napoleon III who tend to mention the award in passing with other honours. (I'm not sure if this served as a diplomatic award or dynastic order though since the recipients were often distantly related.)
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:Grand Crosses of the National Order of San Lorenzo
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.