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 -- Potentially delete -- Great Britain is not and never has been a single jurisdiction. England and Wales was one jurisdiction; Scotland another. The whole policy of WP in treating England/GB/UK as separate polities is fundamentally flawed. The English Parliament did not cease in 1707: it continued, as it always had, except that it had admitted Scottish members; similarly on Irish Union in 1801. In the same way the departure of the Republic of Ireland in c.1921 did not create a new country. Likewise, the United States did not become a new country each time a new state joined the union. The last sentence of the headnote is almost certainly wrong. Criminal proceedings are in the name of the king, but do not require any action by him. Justiciary subcat is Scottish. The treason cases are English. The only case that is arguably a GB case is Warren Hastings, which was an impeachment in the House of Lords, though this would have been conducted according to English law. There was a unity of the Crown from 1603, the only change in 1707 was in the title of Queen Anne. The concept of king of GB goes back to James VI & I. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply By that logic, then Category:Trials in the United Kingdom ought to be deleted also. It is not true to say that a few more constituencies were added to the Parliament of England to cater for additions from Scotland & Ireland. After the Treaty of Union in 1707, Acts of Parliament passed in the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland created a new Kingdom of Great Britain and dissolved both parliaments, replacing them with a new Parliament of Great Britain based in the former home of the English parliament. So only the meeting place was the same. That two legal traditions exist in the same state is not to say that trials - under either tradition - do not take place in that state. There were trials in Scotland. There were trials in England. And from 1707-1801 there were trials in the newly minted state of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly there is no true or false in this discussion and is it just a case of two oppositie POVs. Regardless, Wikipedia has a history of categorizing by Kingdom of Great Britain and we should keep consistency with that. If anyone would like to nominate the whole tree of Category:Kingdom of Great Britain, just go ahead, but while the tree still exists we should not randomly create holes in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 15 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.
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:SMALLCAT: author is redlinked and category is only populated by two articles (I tried and failed to find more). They don't appear to have described many other species. Limited potential for growth. For more info about this and related categories created by this user, see discussion here. Enwebb (talk) 22:29, 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.
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:SMALLCAT: author is redlinked and category is only populated by two articles (I tried and failed to find more). She doesn't appear to have described many other species. Limited potential for growth. For more info about this and related categories created by this user, see discussion here. Enwebb (talk) 22:18, 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.
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:SMALLCAT: author is redlinked and category is only populated by one article. He doesn't appear to have described many other species. Limited potential for growth. For more info about this and related categories created by this user, see discussion here. Enwebb (talk) 21:27, 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.
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.
Indeed, the fact that these places were occupied in the past is probably not defining. We have Category:Military occupation for articles about occupations themselves, but if we started to categorize articles about places (i.e. every town, village and field) by every former military power which once held them, there would be no end to that. Place Clichy (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every article necessitates a category. Sufficient categories exist to record the tragic and desultory history of events in that corner of the world. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:47, 11 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.
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: Odisha, a state in India, was named Orissa until 2011. The parent chronology categories (option B) therefore use the name Orissa before that year. However, User:Johnpacklambert thinks we should use Odisha for all categories, and has created the establishments-by-year categories (option A). He opposes speedy renaming to match, hence this full nomination is required. – FayenaticLondon16:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all the Odisha to Orissa proposals. I think we should treat the name in unity. Odisha is a better reflection of long-standing local pronunciation standards and I do not think we should cause confusion by introducing the old spelling needlessly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I moved the above comment from the Speedy page where it was apparently placed in anticipation of the Option A nominations, during a discussion on my user page. – FayenaticLondon16:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option A. Now that {{Navseasoncats}} elegantly handles redirects, there is no convenience advantage to using anachronistic names. Just create category redirects for all cases, and the result is seamless navigaton with no anachronism. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was merely an observation: I am not suggesting that cfd should involve itself in the renaming of text within articles. Oculi (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True. What I meant to say is an RFC may result in using either Odisha or Orissa throughout, i.e. both in the text of articles and in the article titles and in the category names. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Orissa. I have been convinced that this is the best way to reflect the situation at the time. I still feel that many people are not appreciating the huge amount of work and close precision that is needed to split up this India establishment categories. I had to fill two sides of a paper with the exact creation date for each and every Indian state, and to mark which state that state was created from, to even begin to undertake this project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John Pack Lambert: your comments about the huge amount of work are unpersuasive, because a) you are not the only person doing that work; b) it's not that complex; c) you set low standards. You created a significant number of inadequately parented categories: some had only one parent. Even when this was pointed out, and your attention was drawn to {{EstcatIndiastate}}, you didn't go back to fix the mangled categories you had created. I fixed a bunch of them last night, which was six days after your attention was drawn to the problem on 5 March. Despite having left your own lazy errors unfixed for four days, on 9 March you hypocritically lashed out at FL[1] for civilly pointing out this naming problem. You wrote of attacks by lazy editors who do nothing but criticize those of us who actually put in the work. In summary, you have been making lots of errors, but have repeatedly responded with hostility to thoroughly civil comments about them. You have accused others of being lazy, even tho you are too lazy to fix your own errors. Then then you claim to be underappreciated ... but you don't seem to understand why. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A -- We have had this discussion many times over renamed countries e.g. Belgian Congo/Zaire/DRC. The solution is to avoid anachronism, by using the English spelling applicable at the time. However, since Orissa and Odisha are the same state, parents should not be split. According Category:21st century in Odisha should be the parent to Category:2000s in Orissa. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support option A - using Odisha prior to the name-change is ahistorical, problematic if we would apply same standard to Chennai, Mumbai, etc.. --Soman (talk) 12:56, 16 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.
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 last CFD suggested that it be deleted due to the need to specify which exact type disease was the cause of death, but that ignores the fact that many people are only said to have passed due to “heart disease”, and it also deletes a perfectly valid WP:CONTAINER category for the other heart diseases. Category:Deaths from cardiomyopathy was not spec the subject of the CFD —Prisencolin (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a too common and trivial cause of death. It is not something that biographies specifically elaborate on, nor is it worth elaborating on. (That applies to many diseases as a cause of death, by the way.) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 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.
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 set up the original category. At the time there were not many articles in it. Now that editors have made articles, it is apparent that the trend is to make articles for deployment by country, and not by the name of individual vaccination programs. Blue Rasberry (talk)15:57, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Do Not DeleteCategory:Kentucky colonels The category IS NOT WP:OCAWARD and NOT non-defining.Kentucky colonelcy has its roots in 1775 and includes over 20 American presidents and more than 1,000 celebrities. It is more than an award or honorific title, it is a civil status under common law and is awarded with letters patent. See my note at Category talk:Kentucky colonels. The Kentucky Colonel was responsible for the secession of the state from Virginia, founding the state as the 15th, as well as writing the foundational doctrine document the "Kentucke Magna Charta" which was incorporated in the United States Constitution and the constitutions of several other US States. "COLONELCY" in America is very significant inasmuch as it is/was and remains the "highest honorific title" that can be bestowed to a person who is not a Lord, Count, Baron or Duke, it is also the same title that took away the divine right of kings in America, likewise the Kentucky Colonel certificate today is awarded today to many of these same people and has the same rights and duties as the original title in common law. An alternative to simple categorization of (contemporary and historical) colonels and award recipients together will be to introduce a List of original Kentucky colonels article with citations, references and Wiki links. Problemsmith (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and exemplified by the "do not delete" argument; if 20 presidents have this award, and we didn't know it before being informed about it - it's obviously trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 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.
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 as well. Carlossuarez46 is correct to state that appearing in a certain event is non-defining for individual sportspeople.--User:Namiba02:58, 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:Recipients of the Order of the Crown (Württemberg)
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.
Deleting/Listify - hardly a defining feature for any of these people, but a list - either free-standing or within the key article - would be useful. Grutness...wha?00:19, 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.
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 Hilal-e-Kashmir is an award issued by Pakistani-administered section of the disputed Kashmir area. There is only 1 article in this category, Saif Ali Janjua, which could use some further editor attention. I can't really say the category contents are "listified" but that 1 biography is already linked in right here in the main article. For what's it's worth, that 1 article does mention the award in the lede but since the award and 1 recipient already link to each other, this category doesn't serve a navigational function and I can't find any other articles to add. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 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.
