Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 19



Category:Jorge Alberto Rodriguez

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting jorge alberto rodriguez
 * Propose deleting gilberto rodriguez orejuela
 * Nominator's rationale: new editor created these, appears to have been confused as to how to use categories, but did not reply to a message on her talk page six months ago. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: see also Articles for deletion/Jorge Alberto Rodríguez. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The articles are appropriately categorised as part of the Cali cartel. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Stub categories for deletion

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting stub categories for deletion


 * Nominator's rationale: Leftover from a process that was closed in July 2012. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I though that stub categories were now dealt with at CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Acts of the Parliament of India by year

 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 04:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Acts of the Parliament of India by year to Category:Indian law by year
 * Nominator's rationale: The format "[Country] law by year" fits all the other categories under Category:Law by year; example Category:South African law by year. Also, its sub-categories should be renamed as "[YYYY] in Indian law" from the current "Acts of the Parliament of India [YYYY]". This will serve the purpose of falling in-line with other category trees; example Category:1758 in British law. And this will also be useful for including articles related to laws passed by state legislatures and not just the Parliament of India. For example the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 is passed by the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and I don't see much value in creating year-wise categories for all state legislatures of India. These articles can sit in one category if named "[YYYY] in Indian law". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Why not just make each category a subcategory of a new "#### in Indian law"? For example, Category:Acts of the Parliament of India 1999 could be a subcategory of a new Category:1999 in Indian law. But that wouldn't require a CFD to implement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Majority of "AotPoI YYYY" have only 1-2 article and then it will be just overcategoriztion. Hence proposed renaming and increasing the scope of inclusion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – the nom as it stands takes everything out of Category:Acts of the Parliament of India so an upmerge to this parent is also necessary. Oculi (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, at least until a better solution is found. Acts should be classified by the legislative body. "Indian Law" will also include ordinances and administrative notifications -- the former needing Presidential notification while the latter is just ministerial notification, but they also have the force of law. In essence, Acts of Parliament are just a subset of Indian Law and should be kept at least as a subcat. I'm open to bundling up by decade or Prime Ministerial terms or another meaningful option, but removing these isn't a solution.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By legal definitions, an act, ordinance or notification would be different in their jurisdiction and powers. But for the categories purpose these all should be clubbed under "law" and the difference is to be set out in the content of the article. Bundling under decade isn't much useful and many laws/acts/whatever are already covered in respective Category:Administrations of Prime Ministers of India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But the point is that these need to be demarcated, so the Acts of Parliament moniker is necessary. How that is bundled within is something we should discuss. Also, CAs and Acts aren't the same either, that's another point that ought to be clarified given the mass addition of both under the PM administration categories. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Statute Law is only 1 source of Law. The Constitution is itself Law. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get what you're trying to say. Can you please rephrase it? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are 3 sources of Law: Statute, Constitution and Common. "Indian law by year" is the parent for all 3. Each can have its own contribution and cateogry if necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Based on Dharmadhyaksha and SpacemanSpiff's rationale, I have a suggestion to make: Keep Indian Law by year as the parent category. Keep a sub cat as National/Central or Paliamentary Law or something for Laws of the Parliament and State-name Law by year for the states. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- India has national parliament and state assemblies. I expect that (according to British tradition) case law is also relevant.  This rename would be as stupid as putting the acts of the Oregon legislature in the same category as those of the US Congress.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.