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.
Support per nom, as in similar nomination above. However, I wouldn't mind if some of these is left alone under condition that contain more than just few people names.--౪ Santa ౪99°12:57, 7 October 2022 (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.
Category:Competitors in athletics with limb difference
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 Province of Alberta did not exist until September 1, 1905. The events in these categories mostly belong in the District of Alberta (1882-1905) which was part of the Northwest Territories. A very few of them occurred in other districts of the NWT, as the province is larger than its namesake district. These outliers can be removed manually. NB We also need separate categories for both the district and the province for 1905, depending on whether event occurred on or before August 31, or on or after September 1. 67kevlar (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really, really don't grok why a thing changing its status from "district" to "province" required any of this. Was there some other Alberta prior to 1905 for this Alberta to have been confused with, such that we can't keep the simplest possible names on disambiguation grounds? Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat has a fair point. The category names as nominated are unnecessarily precise. An alternatve view could be that we should not have year by district categories at all, but that would result in a completely different discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The precedent for this is categories in Midwest of USA. I think we changed categories on pre-state districts to match the polities of the time. In some cases, the pre-state districts or territories were larger than the subsequent state, so that the use of the name of the subsequent state is misleading in respect of places later included in other states. We therefore categorised according to the name of the time. In this case, the province was bigger than the preceding district. For 1905 we probably need two categories one called province and the other district. Previously the district was only part of the province, so that it does not matter, provided that content relating to the District of Athabasca is purged into an appropriate sibling. This nom is probably going to be used as a precedent for the other two prairie provinces, also created in 1905, but there the situation may be even more difficult. My inclination is to support the nom, but I am not Canadian and this is thus only a comment. There certainly is a case for not changing categories before 1905, on the basis that Albert in 1900 meant the District of Alberta, but (if so) content from areas beyond the district's boundaary must be purged. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The year categories currently do not use {{YearcatCanadaprovince}}, but e.g. Category:1884 in Ontario does so, and links to the existing name. If all of the nominated categories were redirected, this would aid incoming navigation from other provinces/districts. However, the template would need amending if it were to be used on e.g. 1884 in the District of Alberta. @BrownHairedGirl: do you have any wisdom to offer on this nomination, or comments on the work that it would require to maintain links afterwards? – FayenaticLondon14:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be possible, but quite complex. {{YearcatCanadaprovince}} assumes that all the entities listed are provinces or territories, but AIUI the District of Alberta was actually a subdivision of the Northwest Territories. So including the the District of Alberta wouldn't just involve checking for redirects etc; it would also involve creating several variants of display to the extra level of sub-divisions, with different variations displayed depending on which year was involved.
Personally, I think it would be much better to avoid that complexity. If cat header templates are wanted for the districts, then they would be better implemented as a new {{YearcatCanadaDistrict}}; that would be a lot simpler than trying to treat a district as a province. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. Per the nominator's own rationale, there is no ambiguity that a reference to 1904 in Alberta, or the 1880s in Alberta, refers to the District, not the Province. The propose change therefore does not seem to make things clearer or easier to navigate. Better is the enemy of good. Place Clichy (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question. It seems to me that this decision hinges on the statement by the nominator that the province is larger than its namesake district and on @Beacat's comment that they really, really don't grok why a thing changing its status from "district" to "province" required any of this. In my view, if this was only a change in status, then Bearcat is right. Similarly, if the change in boundaries was small, then the extra precision is probably unhelpful. OTOH, if the province is more than say 25% bigger in area or population than the district, then the name should probably reflect the distinction. However, neither the article District of Alberta nor the article Alberta gave me any hint of the extent of those territorial changes. So my question is: does anyone have any info on that actual difference in territory between the District of Alberta and the province of Alberta? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the District of Alberta was a non-self governing entity within the NWT and was less than half the size of the later Province of Alberta. The change to a province was of major political and administrative importance. For those who don't know, Canadian provinces are among the most powerful federated governments in the world relative to the central government, whereas as a district, Alberta had no government apart from that the NWT. The exact names and boundaries of the provinces created in 1905 were hotly contested. The Province of Buffalo plan was preferred by many locals to the creation of the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, but the central government insisted. 67kevlar (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Alberta 1882-6 may have been smaller than Alberta after 1886, both being smaller than the 1905 province. District of Athabasca was created in 1882, enlarged in 1886 and then split between the three prairie provinces in 1905. However the fact that Alberta refers to a district can be dealt with in a headnote, rather than cluttering up the category name. Category names are best kept brief. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is as Alberta can refer to the Province and District, and having different name pre-1905 is unnecessarily complicated for the many categories by year etc involved ¬¬¬¬ Hugo (my keyboard is not working properly!)
Question for those wanting to keep as is: are they aware of the constitutional differences between a district (no distinct status whatsoever, just an administrative division within the also not fully self-governing North West Territories) and a province (self-governing)? Or the fact that the province is twice the size of the old district? Does that change their opinion? If so, why not? 67kevlar (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there would be no problem for things established within the district. If things were established within the present provincial boundary but outside the district, then there's an anachronism, but this potential problem my not arise in practice.– FayenaticLondon07:22, 14 October 2022 (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.
Weak keep -- The modern Hungary was a creation of the post-1918 treaties, which left significant Hungarian populations in neighbouring countries. In each case there is a significant Hungarian population, though in some cases this information is unverified (though not offending against OR or POV, as it may well be verifiable). That these are Hungarian (or partly Hungarian)-speaking areas is surely an notable characteristic. Some of these areas were part of pre-WWII Slovakia, but added by USSR to Ukraine. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom - it feeds into nationalistic POV pushing, not to mention we have no parameters to definitely conclude why is some territory Hungarian just because volume of populace speaks Hungarian.--౪ Santa ౪99°00:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yes, per example set by Marcocapelle, certain territory outside Hungary can have majority population speaking Hungarian, but there should be no doubt that the same population speaks Slovak as first language as well! So, what makes that district-category eligible for such an appropriative name?! Nothing. It's a territory of Slovakia where majority of population is bilingual, and should be named as such (whatever, "Hungarian speaking population outside Hungary" > "Hungarian speaking population in Foo", etc. - this is from top of my mind and could be awkward as well).--౪ Santa ౪99°00:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I too noticed, later, that tree begins with Countries and territories by language, which complicating things. However, I checked and noticed that only most controversial, vis-a-vis nationalism, contain sub-cat named Foo-speaking territories (Hungarian, Hindustani, Turkish and Italian). If largest languages like English, French, and Spanish don't have sub-categories Foo-speaking territories, maybe we could merge those who have into their parent cats and delete subs? ౪ Santa ౪99°10:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge too. In fact in this case they are all territories (except Hungary as the only country) but for the sake of consistency across the tree it makes perfect sense to keep it as "countries and territories". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2022 (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 result of the discussion was:delete/no consensus.
Sorry, missed him. He's not a vibraphonist, anyway. Couldn't find any mentions of him playing the instrument outside of the standard percussion requirements for college. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no vibraphonist that is not both a jazz and classical player. Absolutely none. I've checked. And the latter category is also nominated for deletion as its subcats usually contain, at most, five players. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should've been clearer. All classical vibraphonists are jazz based, but not all jazz vibraphonists are classical based. Which bascially means that there's no need for the classical category which means there's not a need to specify jazz for that category. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Séjourné is a jazz musician, too (played some modern jazz with Friedmann [1] among others). And no, it doesn't mean that classical needs to be a subcat, in my opinion. It just means that classifying vibraphonists by their genre helps little when nearly all crossed genres. It especially doesn't help to make classical a subcat of jazz as the two genres are often seen as opposites. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, in the case of Séjourné, he's given clinics on improvisation and written jazz compositions. He's a jazz musician. Same for everyone else in the parent category. Like, literally. And there's only two people in the classical category. Tommy Vig, who is in every vibraphone category already, and Séjourné, who I've established is also a jazz vibist. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anyone not a vibraphonist in the category, it's just that the classical category has two people that fit equally as well into the jazz category, rendering their separation useless. And if there's no classical versus jazz distinction to make, then what is the point of the jazz category? There's like, what, around 120 vibraphonists on Wikipedia total (based on the List of vibraphonists)? I don't think that it would be too large of a category to have. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I finally understand why it makes sense to delete the classical category. The two articles are still in another classical category, so merging in that direction is not needed. With the Jazz vibraphonists category, that is still another issue, because by upmerging that to Category:Vibraphonists the content will disappear from the Jazz category. Or should we then reparent the whole of Category:VibraphoniststoCategory:Jazz musicians?Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there are Vibraphonists who are not jazz at all, eg rock and pop, so reparenting would be wrong. I do not believe User:Why? I Ask has a firm grasp of categorisation. Oculi (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bold statement there, Oculi. There's like two non-jazz vibraphonists at most (Ollie Halsall and potentially Craig Peyton (although, he studied with Gary Burton who is like the Michael Jordon of jazz vibes, so he can probably be considered one, too)). Really, if the result comes out that the parent category vibraphone will contain the "non-jazz" persons and there's still a jazz subcategory, I'd live with that. I just don't see the purpose of a "classical vibraphonist" category when basically no one fits in it. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2022 (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: delete, after in an earlier discussion populated places by former raion categories were deleted, these are a few last places by still existing raion categories. There are only very few of them and they are poorly populated. A merge is not needed, all content is still contained at oblast level. Note that the nomination does not intend to touch the villages tree (Category:Villages by raion in Ukraine). Marcocapelle (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - inclined to oppose -- We adopted the formula "populated places", becasue of the difficulty in determining what was a village and what was a town. If anything the villages in foo raion should be renamed or merged to the categories of the type under discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Peterkingiron: again, I am not against putting it all in "populated places" in general, but implementing this principle in just this nomination will leave 5 raion categories out of sync with the 76 others. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Upmerge per Fayenatic London's suggestion above. Conceptually sympathetic to Peterkingiron's proposal but that requires a larger future nomination. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2022 (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: There is a distinction between an amputee and limb difference: amputees only cover those with acquired limb difference and not those with congenital limb difference. In the world of disability sports, the two compete in the same category (usually called the amputee category, limb deficiency or limb difference category). This is not a categorisation problem where the category itself is used as a distinction (Category:Amputee category Paralympic competitors), but it is a problem for the various sportspeople categories describing the people as amputees. Several people in these categories have not undergone an amputation but were simply born with a limb difference (e.g. Carson Pickett, Jim Abbott). Given that this group of categories contains people like the aforementioned who are neither amputees nor competitors in amputee category sports, broadening the stated scope to "fooers with limb difference" will resolve the issue while avoiding the need to create separate category trees for people with acquired and congenital.
Keep all --Referring to such people as having a limb difference is political correctness gone mad: I would have expected that to be a euphemism for people with a malformed limb, such as thalidomide victims. There may be scope for splitting between leg and arm amputees, since a person without a hand may be able to run almost as well as a fully limbed person. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Renaame all per nom - will broaden the scope as per Fayenatic london argument, which is good argument and better consequence, which leaves Peterkingiron's argument in "political correctness gone mad" limbo, a realm from which usually weakest arguments come from.--౪ Santa ౪99°06:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If amputees and those with congenital limb difference compete directly against each other it makes perfect sense to have them in the same category with an overarching category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2022 (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: This tracking category for ISSN numbers has either been superseded by Category:Pages with ISSN errors, or have never been in use. I can't find it in any of the places that might need tracking of invalid ISSN numbers:
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.
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.
A speedy procedure only makes a difference in terms of speed of implementation. For effort of nominating (listing and tagging) a speedy procedure does not make a difference and I guess that is what you are after? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if a bulk speedy is opposed (even on frivolous grounds) the effort of tagging has to be repeated for a full cfd. Oculi (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2022 (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:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) alumni
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:speedily renamed already, partly because the category page was not tagged with any link to this discussion. – FayenaticLondon14:02, 11 October 2022 (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: This category should never have been named as it is. All the items it categorizes are related to Philadelphia Main Line, a very prominent region of suburban Philadelphia. There is no such thing as Pennsylvania Main Line. An article properly exists on the Philadelphia Main Line, and every article in this category references Philadelphia Main Line but has been burdened by this misleading Pennsylvania Main Line category name. It should be renamed. Keystone18 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2022 (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:Articles containing Aramaic-language text
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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Category:Competitors in athletics with limb difference
– Fayenatic London 21:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
