Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

August 19

Category:19th-century Norwegian people

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: beholde (keep) Erik9 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: What is this supposed to mean? The people are not necessarily connected just because they lived in the same century. Vastly underpopulated, and likely to remain so. Consider this a test case. Delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep as part of an established pattern. Underpopulated? Populate it. Hmains (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What is this supposed to mean?, at a wild guess I'd imagine it's people who lived in the 19th century who came from Norway. Keep per Hmains - part of an established group. Lugnuts (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was somewhat taken aback by this hierarchy, but I don't think nominating one single subordinate category within it is constructive. __meco (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we do split categories by century on occasions. It is obviously Norwegian people of the 19th century, though I have never understood why "people" gets included when Norwegian is a perfectly good English noun for a person of that nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One reason, as I understand it, is that that style of wording makes the category more inclusive. It can contain articles on people associated with Norway but who are not necessarily of Norwegian nationality. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of an established pattern. It is for people from Norway who lived and were notable in the 19th century. Some people live in more than one century but are only notable for actions in one century. If this is a "test case" then the nominator should be aware this case was tested just 5 days ago. Another point made then is that "by nationality" is a good way to break-up each century of people. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above wo mentioned "established system of categorisation", in one way or the other. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains. It's obvious what group of articles this category belongs on, and it's a useful category to sort articles into. --Falcorian ^(talk) 14:43, 25 August 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:Arts by place

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: keep. Killiondude (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary layer of categorization. The sub-cats are already appropriately parented in Culture and Country/Continent categories. Otto4711 (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An alternate view which is exactly what category schemes allow. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree: seems useful and straightforward navigational link between top-level Category:Arts and Category:Arts by continent and Category:Arts by country Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree completely with nominator, and also because this category is too small with no perspective.

Another two things: why should both "per continent" and "per country" be here? If "per country" should be here, then perhaps so should all individual countries? I know this is a weak argument, but on the other hand, it is not completely without merit. And lastly, it should be "per location", not "per place". Debresser (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shawn. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 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:Electoral Wards of Belfast

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 per nom Erik9 (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Electoral Wards of Belfast to Category:Electoral wards of Belfast

Nominator's rationale: "Ward" is not a proper noun. Mooretwin (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:24, 25 August 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:Films based on short stories

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 per nom Erik9 (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Films based on short stories to Category:Films based on short fiction

Nominator's rationale: Merge - not seeing the functional difference between these two categories. Otto4711 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's a discussion now underway at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator (after reading the discussion also). Debresser (talk) 14:20, 25 August 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:Chief justices of the Hawaii Supreme Court

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 Category:Chief justices of the Hawaii Supreme Court to Category:Chief Justices of the Hawaii Supreme Court. --Xdamr^talk 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chief justices of the Hawaii Supreme Court to Category:Chief Justices of the Hawaii Supreme Court

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match capitalization in other subcategories of Category:State supreme court chief justices in the United States. This got rejected for speedy renaming. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 14:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename Because different people have held the post, chief justice is a common noun, not a proper one. The phrase would be capitalized when used in the title of a specific justice, but not when used to refer to office-holders collectively. I notice that a lot of other categories have this same mistake. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename for exactly Stepheng3's reason. We should avoid unnecessary capitalization. Better to change the other categories with the extra capitals. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for now for consistency. Since it refers to a specific office in a specific court, I think using capitalization could be appropriate here, though probably it's not absolutely necessary. But since the other ones use this format, we should probably conform them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator and Good Ol’factory. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 25 August 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:German-speaking Italians

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 Category:German-speaking Italians to Category:Germanophone Italians. --Xdamr^talk 20:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:German-speaking Italians to Category:Germanophone Italians

Nominator's rationale: Listed are first language German speakers. 'German-speaking' does not necessarily suggest as a first language, whereas 'Germanophone' does (as in Category:Francophone Canadians, for example) Mayumashu (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename Sounds like it would avoid some confusion (and create a little confusion for those who don't know what "-phone" means, but there doesn't seem to be a succinct title that would avoid all confusion). JohnWBarber (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categorizing people by their first language and nationality is OCAT. Just waiting for someone who'll want to categorize various Americans as Category:African American Vernacular Anglophone Americans and such baloney. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is a German minority in Trentino Alto Adige alias South Tyrol. The category will be appropriate to them. I also reject Germanophone as a neologism. If the concern is over the inclusion of Italians who have learnt German at school, it can be dealt with by a capnote for the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The rename might be more correct, but sounds too complicated. I prefer the more straightforeward present name, even if a little ambiguous. Debresser (talk) 14:18, 25 August 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:Deaths among active Total Nonstop Action employees

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is redundant to Category:Professional wrestling deaths, which is for "people who died during or as a result of a professional wrestling match". These are very similar, with both categorising premature and unexpected deaths in pro wrestling. This is almost identical to the current Category:Deaths_among_active_World_Wrestling_Entertainment_employees CfD, just with a different wrestling company. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Professional wrestling deaths should be enough, especially since there's only one item here. No need to focus on the company unless there's a spate of these and the company is under some kind of suspicion where readers would find this useful. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the person died during a match, put them in the wrestling deaths category. Otherwise "dead" and "employed by" is a non-notable intersection. Otto4711 (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous CfD on WWE employees and numerous other deleted "dead wrestlers" categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Professional wrestling deaths. Debresser (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sole article is already in that category. Otto4711 (talk) 21:56, 26 August 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:Wikipedia flagged revisions

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: Keep. --Xdamr^talk 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia flagged revisions to Category:WikiProject Flagged Revisions

Nominator's rationale: I have created an associated WikiProject -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what has one to do with the other? 76.66.192.144 (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I believe that the current pages in Category:Wikipedia flagged revisions should be MOVED to Category:WikiProject Flagged Revisions, BUT also believe that the former category should remain and be used for pages that are currently under Flagged Revision control. Yes? or should it merely be Category:Flagged revisions -- Mjquin_id (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I support keeping the current name, as these pages are primarily related to a proposed Wikipedia feature, not a WikiProject. (Yes, they're related to the WikiProject too, but WP:Flagged revisions came first, then WP:WikiProject Flagged Revisions.) This category is a parallel to others like Category:Wikipedia edit filter and Category:Wikipedia rollback feature. Perhaps we should do something different with it once Flagged Revisions is actually up and running, but for now it should be left as it is. Robofish (talk) 14:13, 25 August 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:Agricultural supply stores

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: Keep. --Xdamr^talk 13:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Agricultural supply stores to Category:Farm & ranch supply stores of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. While these chains are are in the US, it would be best to have that defined by the name since it rolls up to a US category. Also, the farm and ranch name is more appropriate and descriptive based on my experience with these stores. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Farms and ranches get supplies from every type of store, as they need many agricultural and non-agricultural supplies. Furthermore this category ought to also include stores that cater to orchards, vineyards, nurseries, greenhouses, gardens, and hatcheries-- that all need agricultural supplies-- but are not known as either "farms" or "ranches." "Ranch" also seems to be a US term that is included in the term "farm"-- and thus not needed, even if we did drop "agricultural." ^{Carlaude:Talk} 13:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you also oppose to adding US to the name? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to fit the tree better without the "United States only" status. I do not currently see any need to add United States to the name but if there is a good reason to do so, I am glad to hear it. Even if many may be based in the the US, they could have many outlets in Canada. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Companies are normally categorized by the place where they headquartered and not where they do business. If kept, a subcategory should be created to address the issue with the parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Carlaude. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you also oppose to adding US to the name? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The category ought to contain non-US stores, so that the US ones might by a subcategory of this. I suspect that in the UK we call them agricultural merchants, but they are no doubt essentially the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we were to rename this, we should avoid the "&" character. Debresser (talk) 14:15, 25 August 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:RahXephon albums

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategory/small category with no growth potential: Category contains only 1 article (Already included in RahXephon) and 4 images (Already included in category:RahXephon images). G.A.S ^talk 05:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support agree on both over categorization & too small with zero growth potential. Side comment: the list of album is too many non-free images. --KrebMarkt 11:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Too narrow, unlikely to grow. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support too few articles to justify a category, and little to no growth potential (in plain English: per nom and other supporters =P ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the albums are in one article and not on their own. If even one of the albums were in its own article, then it would keep as being part of the larger albums-by-artist tree. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't part of the albums-by-artist tree, though, this is a category for albums related to the Japanese anime series RahXephon, and as such, could conceivably contain albums from a number of different artists. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:14, 25 August 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:Connecticut Supreme Court judges

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 Category:Connecticut Supreme Court judges to Category:Connecticut Supreme Court justices. --Xdamr^talk 20:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Connecticut Supreme Court judges to Category:Connecticut Supreme Court justices

Nominator's rationale: Rename, "justices" is the proper designation in the Connecticut Supreme Court. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Let's name things correctly, if we can. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Eastlaw and Quasirandum. here's the confirmation JohnWBarber (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a majority of Supreme Court judges over all the states are called "judges" and not "justices", then I am not sure it is so good an idea to change this because of the particular usage of a few states. After all, they are judges. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 25 August 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:Royal suicides 1880 to present

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:Royal suicides 1880 to present to Category:Royalty who committed suicide. --Xdamr^talk 20:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Royal suicides 1880 to present to Category:Royalty who committed suicide

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are not so many articles in Category:Royalty who committed suicide that these cannot be merged, and if they are going to be subcategorized, 1880 seems to be an arbitrary cut-off date. By-century would make far more sense, but even then there is no real need to subcategorize these. If it does get to the point where it needs subcategorization, it seems far more logical to do it by nationality or country, as in Category:Chinese royalty who committed suicide. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree with Good Ol'factory JohnWBarber (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:09, 25 August 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:Tyrannicides

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:Tyrannicides to Category:Assassins.

A number of interesting suggestions for alternative schemes of categorisation. On examining the contents of Category:Tyrannicides I think that it would be best to adopt a year zero approach and create any replacement(s) from scratch - the variation and dissimilarity in this category's contents do not lend themselves to a quick and simple rename. --Xdamr^talk 20:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Tyrannicides to Category:Assassins

Nominator's rationale: Merge. To be a "tyrannicide", the person in question must kill a "tyrant". We would delete a category called Category:Tyrants just as we have deleted Category:Dictators, so I'm inclined to think this category should be deleted as well. Deciding which assassins qualify as "tyrannicides" is an essentially POV exercise. I would bet that most assassins of political office holders think that their victims are tyrants who deserve to be killed, and it would probably not be too difficult to find voices that would support such a claim. Tyrannicide points out that John Wilkes Booth probably thought his assassination of Lincoln made him a tyrannicide; I know living Americans who would agree. Better to just keep these with Category:Assassins. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, "tyrant" and "tyrannicide" are value judgments, and therefore POV (unless of course we are talking about the tyrants of ancient times, but that is another matter entirely). --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I see the POV concern in the arguments above, Tyrannicide has a long tradition as both a practice and a politico-philosophical position (as seen in File:FirstCommitteeGreatSealReverseLossingDrawing.jpg) which goes beyond Assassination (see especially the OED definition quoted in the latter article). So I am feeling it is better to keep rather than subsume the category, but subject to monitoring for any POV mis-attachment of the category. AllyD (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Hopelessly POV, per Sic semper tyrannis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two possibilities a)Rename to Category:Tyrannicides of the ancient world, or b) We have Category:Regicides, and a parent Category:Assassins of heads of government would be useful & encyclopedic; I would not mind including attempts either. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea: where would assassinations of heads of government fit in? While I have no specific examples in mind, I'm thinking about prime ministers which are heads of government, not state. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, amended from "state" to "government" above. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form, these are not all tyrannicides of the "ancient world": Rigoberto López Pérez, Walter Audisio, and Romanian Revolution of 1989 are included. If this were renamed, some pruning would need to occur. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are leaning more to Category:Assassins of heads of government, which I think all fit - otherwise yes. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm not sure if that's a good fit either. E.g., the head of government of Romania in 1989 was the Prime Minister, Constantin Dăscălescu, not Nicolae Ceauşescu, who was the "tyrant" and head of state. I would guess most of these "tyrants" would be better classified as heads of state than heads of government. Isn't a Roman Emperor more of a "head of state" than a "head of government"? I would have thought a "tyrant" being a head of gov't rather than a head of state would be the exception, rather than the rule. Even Mussolini had elevated himself from HOG to HOS before he was killed. It would probably be OK for a new category but I'm not seeing the logic for a straight rename in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanian one, not being a bio category, won't belong under any version. A Roman Emperor, like a US President is both head of state and of government (in fact whether the PM was the head of government in Romania in 1989 is questionable - as with France, where the President usually represents France at meetings for "heads of government"). We are losing "tyrant", so please forget about that. Do you still have problems? Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't seem like a logical rename. Why would we want to categorize those who assassinated Roman Emperors as "assassins of heads of government"? Category:Roman emperors is a subcategory of Category:Ancient Roman heads of state and doesn't enter the Category:Heads of government tree at all, so I don't think they are commonly thought of as "heads of government". It would seem to me to make more sense to manually create a category for assassins of heads of state and add articles in a case-by-case basis if they fit. A "heads of govt" one could also be created, but honestly I don't see the need for it if all we are considering are these articles in this category. In my view, there's no need to twist a delete into some sort of rename when it's just easier to create the category being proposed from scratch. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would be the point of that if it ends up with just the same contents? Personally I don't see why those assassinating Emperors (in fact a minority of the ancient ones here - Julius Caesar was not an Emperor) aren't in Category:Regicides, but there we go. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be the same at all. Unless someone did some manual building, it would be pathetically incomplete, which is why a straight rename is inappropriate. And as I said above, I don't think Roman emperors or other ancient "tyrants" are best considered to be "heads of government". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are not allowed to call them tyrants, it's hard to know how else to describe the Greek ones, & JC was a) certainly not head of state, but b) certainly ran the government. Who would be missing, apart from John Bellingham & anyone they may convict for Olaf Palme? Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People who killed these guys. (I actually thought Category:Tyrannicides of the ancient world was a better possible solution, since certain of the ancient ones might be able to accurately be referred to as "tyrants", per tyrant and the category Category:Archaic tyrants. It would still exclude a great number that are currently in the category or otherwise in a potentially broader category, including JC's killers.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the first 5 articles I looked at there, only Dimitri Tsafendas has an article; in I think 3 cases the killers were not even named or known. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't search out any all of these in detail, but off the top of my head, there are a bunch of convicted assassins of Indira Gandhi, and I recall seeing individual articles for each of them. Yigal Amir is out there. Lee Harvey Oswald. Charles J. Guiteau. Leon Czolgosz. Zvezdan Jovanović. There's certainly enough for a category, and I believe I could easily double the number in the nominated category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the existing Category:Assassinated politicians provide a useful model for what we might do here? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so, though I wouldn't think that there is a need at this stage to break the assassins of politicians down by nationality. Certainly it could be done into those who killed heads of state and those who killed heads of government. Really, my only point in the above extended dialogue was that if either or those categories are wanted, this ain't it in any meaningful sense and so a straight rename is probably not the best solution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:09, 25 August 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:Matriciders

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 Category:Matriciders to Category:Matricides. WP:IAR. --Xdamr^talk 00:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Matriciders to Category:Matricides

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A person who kills his or her own mother is a "matricide", not a "matricider". This is probably speediable but I'm bringing it here b/c it's not, strictly speaking, a "spelling error". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename agree with Good Ol'factory JohnWBarber (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename Don't agree that this is "not, strictly speaking, a 'spelling error'," but whether it's a no-brainer or not it's a good idea to go through the process. --Getheren (talk) 23:47, 19 August 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:Institutions named after Grigore Moisil

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by shared name. We typically delete categories that group things named after particular individuals. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per first argument of nominator, overcategorisation. Debresser (talk) 14:07, 25 August 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:Indiana Supreme Court cases

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, duplicate of Category:Indiana state case law. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 00:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather we delete Indiana case law, than this category, as Indiana Supreme Court cases is a better description of two articles. There was used to be more articles in Indiana case law.. I wonder where they went? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But, there is already an existing naming convention for subcategories of Category:United States state case law. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:43, 19 August 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:Marshall-Wythe School of Law 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: rename per nom Erik9 (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Marshall-Wythe School of Law alumni to Category:William & Mary Law School alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the modern name of the school, William & Mary Law School (official homepage). Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 00:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator JohnWBarber (talk) 18:32, 19 August 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.