Category:Victims of Communist repressions in China[edit]
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. POV category with only one article in it (Falun Gong). The title is not neutral and barely grammatical, and its very premise can never be neutral. If this is a serious category, then where are Uyghurs, Tibetans, country people during the 1950s, everyone during the Cultural Revolution, all the individuals who were purged, all the rights lawyers and others who have been detained, etc? This category is clearly only here to slyly push a point. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 23:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rjanag's reasoning--Edward130603 (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and precedent of other "repression"/"persecution" categories. Although the point being pressed is definitely correct. Debresser (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Catgeory:Victims of repression in People's Republic of China to reflect rest of category structure and title of parent article. I agree that there are many missing articles and if the nominator has a serious interest in dealing with supposed "POV" issues based on absence of articles that are felt to be missing, simply start adding them. In addition to the blatant bad faith claim that has discerned the purpose of the category, a claim of a grammatical error as a justification for deletion would certainly qualify as a rather bad joke. Alansohn (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 'victims of xxx' is generally a bad idea for categories. --Soman (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently POV and apparently very selective or narrowly defined in the mind of its creator. (btw, not to bring up [[WP:OTHERSTUFF} here, but it's time to de-weed wp of quite a few of these pet-project-categories that seem to have been created in the spirit of "here's where this article belongs in my view of the world" or "sort your brain according to me"...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Peter, but note that the closing admin on the successful CfD of the U.S. sister category has called the whole category tree into question as too POV. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletebadly-named category; next we'll start getting cats like 'Category:Victims of Capitalist repressions in America' One article doesn't a category make. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - category as it currently exists is placed on only a single article, which is the central article of a subject currently on ArbCom probation. The title of the category could be seen by some as an effort to insert POV into the article, which would be contrary to the ArbCom ruling. I also support the rationales of many of the others who support deletion of this category above regarding how such categories fail NPOV. John Carter (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Colipon+(Talk) 16:34, 17 September 2009 (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:American influence in post-WWII Europe[edit]
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 result of the discussion was:rename. Jafeluv (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative agree with rename. Debresser (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2009 (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:Rename - "genre type" is redundant and ungrammatical. Otto4711 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to avoid duplicative repetition. Alansohn (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category header says "This category is for articles on various types of Christian literature by genre", and all the contents except the 2 music subcats fit this. I think it weould be better to remove these, & rename to Category:Christian literary genres or Category:Types of Christian literature (more accurate really), restoring the original scope. Otherwise, rename as nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about girdle book, but the other two are certainly genres. If you think they are not genres, why is renaming to Category:Christian genres better than Category:Christian literary genres, when they are certainly all about books? I suggested Category:Types of Christian literature above, though girdle book just doesn't belong here, being a form of binding/covering for any type of book, though normally used for breviaries etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2009 (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. Not defining. Being the guest of honor at a convention may be 'earned' by notable actions, but being the guest of honor is not in and of itself defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has already survived one attempt to delete, you really should indicate that, include a pointer, and notify previous participants in the discussion.Shsilver (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad you saw that since I was not aware that it had. Thanks for the pointer to the old discussion that was a no consensus and not a keep as your comment implies Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a defining characteristic of those categorized. This is akin to an honorary degree awarded by a university. The person receiving the honor is notable and defined by achievements that are unrelated to the honor itself. The honor itself does not appear to be the subject of any great level of critical or popular attention. Otto4711 (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are all aware that some honorary degrees are awarded by universities based on the levels of donations, and by relationships with the university boards, as well as by merit. So this argument seems a little thin. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some GoH are selected based on book sales. Otto4711 (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcon GoHs are not selected based on book sales. If you have evidence that is the case, please cite rather than using weasel words. Shsilver (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having co-chaired two Worldcons and therefore been part of the selection process, I can confirm that GoHs are selected on the basis of contribution to the field over a lifetime of work. Some of the honoured individuals do have large book sales, and others don't, but that isn't a selection criterion. Worldcon GoH status is the closest thing we have to a Lifetime Achievement Award, and the list to date is a very good representation of those who have contributed most to the SF genre since the 1930's. VJDocherty (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't chaired a Worldcon but I have participated in GoH selection three times. Never once heard a mention of book sales. Avt tor (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how many of those honorary awards have categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's only relevant if the original comparison with Honorary Degrees is valid. Perhaps a better comparison would be to Category:Halls_of_fame_inductees or Category:Award_winners which seem to cover many types and levels of awards, not just a small number of world-famous ones. For most Worldcon GoH's, I think it is a key measure of their notability. VJDocherty (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. Debresser (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in the fields of science fiction and fantasy this is not a convention but rather the convention and being named its guest of honor is a singular, defining moment in a writer's career. The honored guest is often the focus of significant media attention because of this. See Surridge, Matthew (July 31, 2009). "Anticipating Gaiman: science fiction fans to gather in Montreal for Worldcon". The Montreal Gazette. for a recent example. Indeed, I think Neil Gaiman makes the argument in that article as to this honor's importance better than I can hope to express. - Dravecky (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gaiman's argument in its entirety is “It’s a big thing for me and it’s made a little bit stranger, and a little bit more exciting, and feels somehow slightly more of a responsibility, since it has been pointed out to me that I’m essentially the first member of my generation to be a Guest of Honour at Worldcon. … It definitely has significance for some people that I’m doing this. And it has significance for me, I think. It’s a wonderful and remarkable thing." Which is pretty much boilerplate that could be applied to any honorary degree or selection. As for being the focus of significant media attention, I'm not seeing it. Sure, it gets mentioned in stories that are about the convention but it's hardly the focus of attention that's being suggested here. Otto4711 (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gaman's 'argument' is his expression of how much it meant to him. Many, many other Worldcon GoHs have said the same, his is simply the easiest to find. Having known some of them I can attest that they are not using boilerplate. This is important to them.
You made two errors in your search. One is that the media generally uses the proper name of the convention, the World Science Fiction Convention. The other is that if you focus the search on the last five years you'll see how much the media attention is growing.
A GoH Being mentioned in the press indicates that the press thinks that the GoH is of enough importance to be mentioned.
And measuring the importance of being a Guest of Honor at a Worldcon by only looking at the popular press drastically skews the results. A lot of the attention is from people within the community, who often then bring it to the attention of people outside the community. There are reasons that the GoH is listed on the first page of any Worldcon website.
Even if one chooses to ignore all of that the list is useful in and of itself. If you want to get an idea of who has contributed to the field of science fiction this is where you start. Kovar (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep see above -Kovar (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The guest of honour frequently influences the direction the worldcon programme takes and, in certain cases, actively contributes to publications. Certain choices are also of historical note, such as the Strugatsky Brothers being invited to attend the 1987 worldcon, reflecting the break up of the FSU. Stripping these details out of Wiki entries serves no purpose whatsoever, other than the loss of what many would regard as significant background details. Ghostwords (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is being proposed to be stripped out of articles! Clearly if the award is worthy of mention, it would already be included in the article text. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Worldcon committees typically chose the Guest of Honor for their convention based on a lifetime's achievement in the field. It is not an honor that is bestowed lightly, and is one that is treasured by the GoH, often above individual awards for particular works. It "defines" a person's place in the sf/f field, not just over the period of one year but over a generation or more. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A defining characteristic for those honored and included in this category. Alansohn (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wouldn't necessarily call it a "defining characteristic"; but particularly for the Fan Guests of Honor, this is a pointer towards a significant figure in the field whose importance is not necessarily well-recognized outside the culture of science fiction. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is akin to a lifetime-achievement award in the field of SF and Fantasy. Indeed, some years ago, when there were proposals to create a Hugo Award for Lifetime Achievement, a number of the the arguments against the proposal took the form of, "You don't need a Hugo Award for this, because we already have a lifetime-achievement award in the form of a Worldcon GoH-ship." And while Worldcons may and do use their Guest of Honor choices in their marketing, the selections are foremost an honor, not a marketing tool. Kevin Standlee (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the reasons noted above. JohnPomeranz (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete -- It is far from clear to me what this category is actually about, but it seems essentially to be an awards category. The usual solution to these (except a few very major awards) is to listify. This has the advantage that the awards can be placed in chronological order. It is also feasible to ahve a collumn saying a little about their achievements. If kept, a headnote must be provided to indicate what the category is about and link it to a main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last point is a good suggestion, so I have added a head note, based on the text in the linked main Worldcon article. VJDocherty (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic, per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I withdraw my delete vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mostly for the reasons noted above but also because I don't believe the nominator's rationale has any merit. Being the Guest of Honor at the World Science Fiction Convention is a defining moment for a person. --Lmv4321 (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this; note that I was a Guest of Honor of the 2005 NASFiC (a slightly lesser honor than a Worldcon GoH), and it was a defining moment of my life. Kevin Standlee (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep For the reasons above and in the 2007 AfD. The honour - the defacto SF 'Lifetime Achievement Award' given by peers - is clearly defining for most of those given the honour, (almost all of whom are themselves notable), is referenced as such in published works and is sufficiently verifiable in the external media. VJDocherty (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per reasons outlined by Kevin Standlee and others above. I am amused at Kevin's story about him being FGoH at the 2005 NASFiC, but I have also heard several authors describe being Author GoH or "Pro" GoH as a key milestone, possibly the key milestone in an author's career. Avt tor (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The World Science Fiction Convention is a capstone moment for that year's genre related events, and the Guests of Honor become a unique group. I'll note that the Hugo Award winners have categories and subcategories of their own. The Guests of Honor at those same awards ceremonies should have a place as well. And I do not believe that Categories in Wikipedia are so scarce and precious a commodity or tidiness at such a premium that we cannot spare one for something as notable and identifiable as this. It is arranged under a larger category of World Science Fiction Conventions, as it should be. --Wolfram.Tungsten (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. I can't even imagine why anyone would think this is not notable. Edit: and note that it's a natural category, not like "WorldCon Guests of Honour who vote Democrat", which would be an unreasonable synthesis of information to make some sort of point. Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2009 (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:rename as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thunderbird (B-17) is not a list. Are there no other surviving individual planes (with articles)? [There are others, eg Glacier Girl.] I agree that 'surviving aircraft' is better than 'Survivors (aircraft)'. Occuli (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and purge - I'm inclined to keep this category for the list articles and categorize the individual examples elsewhere. "Surviving" just strikes me as an odd way to categorize an individual plane and it brings up definitional issues as to when a plane passes from "continuing to exist" to "surviving". Otto4711 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, these are valid points. I wonder whether the aquatic community have come up with a means of categorising aged but extant ships. Or the locomotive lobby for steam engines. Occuli (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Otto4711 (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all three are already in a sub-category of Category:Individual aircraft which seems sufficient, but if editors more invested in the idea think there's a need for a separate "preserved" category that's fine. Otto4711 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative agree with rename. Debresser (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This rename does not accurately reflect the category's contents. Of the 22 articles in the category, 19 of them are lists and only three are individual aircraft. Otto4711 (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Alansohn. This better reflects the content, and will discourage the addition of relatively modern aircraft, which are still in use or stored in the deserts of America in case they are occasionally needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne is an historic aircraft in every sense of the word and it is modern so it deserves inclusion. Now we can quibble over the aircraft vs space ship, but it does fit into both categories. In the next few years, the first business class jet that will fly at supersonic speeds will be flown and that will be historic, especially if it can really do Mach 1.15 over land. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This is a category of lists. The articles can be moved per the above discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2009 (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.
This doesn't need discussion. The category has simply been renamed, so we're not actually talking about deleting a category. The category links in the articles should simply have been changed, rather than new cats added. The only wording needs to be removed before the old cat. name is deleted.
[wow, that was unintelligible.] The cat is now empty, so I'll delete. I'll leave it to Twiceuponatime to move Cat:Haumea. kwami (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2009 (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:21st-century male basketball centers[edit]
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:merge (category was empty at close). The other similar categories were not included in this nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: no reason to cut by gender and by position. Many players change positions during their carreer. This inappropriate creation of categories happened in August. I am also suggseting we do the same for all other 21st century male basketball (position). Magioladitis (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge either to proposed target or as per Occuli suggestion, whichever is more popular Mayumashu (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2009 (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:No Consensus in this debate. As and when consensus on this issue is reached elsewhere these categories may be renominated. --Xdamrtalk 14:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Change the hyphen to a dash, in accordance with WP:ENDASH and to accompany the recently moved main article, Bachman–Turner Overdrive. The old name should remain as a category redirect to avoid creating duplicate categories. Jafeluv (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article. And tired of the dash/hyphen debate, which will inevitably play out below. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article. Occuli (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the use of non-standard keyboard characters as a barrier to navigation. The average editor is unaware of the hyper-technicalities of WP:DASH and is far more likely to search for categories using the standard single-stroke keyboard hyphen. This is change without purpose for the sake of it. Otto4711 (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A search using the hyphen version will find all versions (try eg searching in category space for for Russia-Senegal relations using the standard single-stroke keyboard hyphen). There might then be a need for a further click; not unduly onerous. Occuli (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a category redirect ensures that if a reader types in the hyphenated name, they'll be pointed out to the correct category, and if an editor uses the hyphenated category, a bot knows to fix the link to the correct spelling. I see no reason why this is different for categories than it is for articles. Jafeluv (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I asked, there was no bot running for this task and when one had been running the bot would only work if the redirect was created by an admin. Has that changed? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, RussBot (talk·contribs) is currently doing this (see task description in the RfBA). Jafeluv (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article, and the redirect at the hyphen will solve all problems. It's about time to start doing somthing about this. Weren't we going to make this a speedy criteria? Or even set a bot at it? Debresser (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Totally agree with Otto4711. Even if redirects will resolve the issue, why not simplify it all? The difference between a hyphen and dash is so very academic (and pointless)... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article, a standard we should follow regardless of the nature of the non-keyboard characters included. The "barrier to navigation" argument is entirely specious as readers navigating through categories don't type category names, with or without dashes of various sizes; Experienced editors, the ones who add catgeories to articles, are fully adept at the art of cutting and pasting, which remarkably works with non-keyboard characters as well as the ones that do appear on my typing device. This demand that dashes don't apply here only perpetuates the foolish and disruptive insistence that CfD does not operate by the policies and guidelines established in the real world of article space. Alansohn (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are not qualified to speak as to whether editors do or do not type category names into the search box. I for one frequently type category names into the search box and frequently type category names when adding them to articles. No one other than you is suggesting that WP:DASH or any other part of the Manual of Style does not apply here. What is being suggested is that WP:DASH, like every other part of the MoS, is a guideline and as such is subject to occasional exceptions. Calling the suggestion that category names should be an exception to a guideline "disruptive" ignores this simple truth, is untrue, and is itself disruptive to the process. Otto4711 (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no take on this CfD, I too frequently type the category names, for what it's worth. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I often type them manually in article text as well. When searching for this kind of category, I would most likely use a hyphen, and go through a redirect. When adding the category into an article, I would use the dash, which is conveniently available as a shortcut on the edit page. Jafeluv (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Otto4711, and the fact that redirects on categories are problematic. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that below on the CfD for Quebecois patriotic songs, as well. While you're editing as an IP you're clearly someone who's been around here for a while, in various capacities. Could you explain why category redirects are problematic, in your view? The endash/hyphen question as come up before, as noted above, and category redirects have been a long-standing part of the solution, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if this was me or not. But see my question above about some of the issues. So far no one has indicated that what I believe is incorrect. If what I recall is correct, redirects basically have serious issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only real problem that remains (as I understand it) is that having a hard redirect doesn't stop categorization via the page that is redirected. A bot could solve this the same way it currently deals with soft redirects. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:40, 24 September 2009 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous cat serving only to link the event's logo and its main article (and until I added the article thirty seconds ago, it only contained the logo!) Can be recreated in the future if it's ever genuinely needed. Delete for now. Bearcat (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too small. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is unlikely that there will ever be more than one article in this category. Arsenikk(talk) 09:11, 16 September 2009 (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: I seem to recall that we're not very big on "former" categories. Should we then upmerge to parent drama schools category, or move articles to the appropriate Drama school by country cat? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2009 (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. The phrase "second-party" is undefined in this context, as evidenced by the fact that only one item appears in the category, and its placement is likely erroneous as well. Note the lack of any definition in Video game development parties and the conflicting opinions on its talk page. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2009 (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:Upmerge to both parents. An unneeded level of categorization: contains nothing but main article Russia–Senegal relations. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parents. A neat way of circumventing the dash-debate. Occuli (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. It's unlikely that this would ever contain more than one entry. Jafeluv (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2009 (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:no consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename per master category Category:Quebec songs and for the reasons stated below at the CfD for Quebec websites, namely, that the commonly used English adjective is "Quebec." Moreover, if the intention is to suggest patriotic songs strictly for and by Pure laine French Quebecers, with the use of Québécois (word), then it's a bit ironic in that the current title is anglicized, missing the accents. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this should be an ethnic category. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're voting to keep as is, without the accents? It seems odd to me that the "correct" form of patriotic French-language ethnic category would be an anglicized word. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without accents is a form found in English. The form with accents is also sometimes used in English. Whether the English Wikipedia should allow terms with accents is a different question, since ASCII only titles would be best for categories. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One can easily create a redirect from the anglicized spelling, as discussed above in the Bachman-Turner-Overdrive hyphen question. It seems odd, perhaps verging on the offensive, to create a category for the French Québécois ethnic group but refuse to use the accented form -- which as you state is commonly used in English, too -- when a redirect can easily solve any user problems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Categoryredirects are a bad idea for general use, unless something in WikiMedia software has changed lately. As for accents, the un-accented form is also used in English. It is the more naturally "English" form, since this is the English Wikipedia, and not the French Wikipedia, or the pan-Europe Wikipedia (or the Slavic Wikipedia), the unaccented form would seem to be the one to choose. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename as an ethnic category. Alansohn (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Quebecois seems to me an acceptable ethnic adjective where an adjective is required. Quebec is a noun and might be taken to include anglophone residents, for whom the songs might actually be unpatriotic. But I am in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. There seems to be a lot of discussion here from users who may not realise what the words actually mean. "Québécois" and "Quebecois" is only generally used if the speaker/writer is trying to emphasise the separateness of Quebec from Canada—it's a POV usage, essentially. Not all of these songs are "patriotic" in the sense of Quebec being separate from Canada. "O Canada" is a Quebec patriotic song, but it's definitely NOT a Quebecois patriotic song, and it's included in the category. It appears to me that the creator meant to create "Quebec patriotic songs". Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:29, 21 September 2009 (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.
Comment is this an ethnic category? If it is, the correct form is Quebecois. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved One red paperclip to the Canadian websites master cat, as there was no reference to Quebec in the article. As for your ethnic question, Pornstar Académie features a participants from a range of ethnic backgrounds and Radio Jazz Plus is an internet radio station that features world music and jazz. So no, these are not all ethnically pure websites. And how can you say that the "correct" name for an ethnic French nation is the anglicized, corrupted version? Should we be renaming main article Québécois (word), in your view? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename per standard. Alansohn (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
REname but to Quebecois, as an acceptable anlicised adjective where an adjective (not a noun) is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. "Québécois" is only generally used if the speaker/writer is trying to emphasise the separateness of Quebec from Canada—it's a POV usage, essentially. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:26, 21 September 2009 (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:rename all. Jafeluv (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is another in a series of similar proposals. Propose changing "Danes" to "Danish people" and changing the format of some categories in order to standardize them and conform them with the parents Category:Danish people and Category:Danish people by ethnic or national origin. Not all nationalities have an appropriate "noun-form" that can be used, so using "Fooian people" is able to bring cross-category and cross-nationality consistency in these categories. I realise "Danes" is shorter than "Danish people", but in my opinion this benefit is outweighed by the greater benefit brought by inter-category constistencies. See Polish, Swedish, Swiss and Finnish discussions for more information. See also earlier discussion which prompted this one. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and recent precedents, for consistency. Occuli (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency and in line with precedent. Tassedethe (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per recent precedents. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. 'Danish' is more inclusive than 'Dane'. --Soman (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2009 (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.
