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:Sportspeople by city or town in Greece
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.
Why would we want to separate sportspeople from cities from those from other kinds of locations? In most countries there are only cities, but in Greece there are also islands. I'm quite content with By location, but that would involve renaming some other categories.
Rathfelder (
talk)
19:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)reply
There is a wider issue here. I dont see any good reason for splitting off people by occupation from cities for people by occupation from other sorts of places, within a country. I am pretty confident that many biographies state that the subject came from a a city when in reality they came from somewhere nearby which is or was outside the municipal boundary. Most people, apart from politicians, dont pay much attention to municipal boundaries.
Rathfelder (
talk)
14:32, 9 December 2020 (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:Lists of Polish gminas
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:Defunct Right Opposition Marxist–Leninist parties in the United States
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 this is too small a category. I have to admit I do not think for category purposes it makes sense to split by whether the parties still exist, but that is a discussion for another day.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:04, 10 December 2020 (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:Software that uses installCore
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.
It’s true that installCore is not a programming language, and it shouldn’t be grouped in with them. On whether it’s
WP:DEFINING, I guess I’d break that into specificity and common use. I’d argue there’s no problem with ambiguity, as the software either uses this library/package or it doesn’t. In this case the use is also user-visible. For usage as a way of defining software, an analogous example would be listing the engine for a video game, eg
Quake (video game). (I initiated this category page).
Conflatuman (
talk)
23:03, 24 November 2020 (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:Starman films
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:Fossil insects of Africa
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.
Paleontological conventions and authorities use the term Fossil, and we should follow nomenclatural convention, rather than lay expectation.--
Kevmin§21:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Irrespective of the current situation or how it has grown, I would expect "fossils" to be used for articles about individual fossils (geological), versus "prehistoric animals" for articles about species of prehistoric animals (biological). So in that sense I support the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)reply
However, that is not how paleontological conventions and authorities use the term, and we should follow nomenclatural convention, rather than lay expectation.--
Kevmin§21:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
However, that is not how paleontological conventions and authorities use the term, and we should follow nomenclatural convention, rather than lay expectation.--
Kevmin§21:24, 14 December 2020 (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.
Armenian diaspora categories
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: Our categories currently separate people of "full" and "partial" Armenian descent. Not only is this unlikely to be followed in practice, the idea that anyone is purely one ethnicity is basically a myth.
[1] I feel more strongly about the merge than the target location, but as Place Clichy pointed out
here, "Fooian people of Booian descent" is the usual pattern and should be followed for consistency. See also the
2018 CfD in which "Armenian Americans" was merged. (
t ·
c) buidhe08:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge. The existence of a separate Fooian Booians tree, for Armenians only, seems to be originally relying on this
this 2008 CfD attended by 4 editors. Since then, the latter format has become the widely accepted standard for ethnic and national origin, as in
Category:People by ethnic or national descent. As mentioned, assumptions of full vs. partial ethnicity or ancestry are too tricky to be a sane basis for categorization. They are also likely to be applied very inconsistently by our numerous uncoordinated editors.
Place Clichy (
talk)
14:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge (except Lebanese, Turkish, Syrian, and perhaps central Asian countries) -- We decided on the format booians of fooian descent a long time ago. However, for the exceptions Armenian is an ethnicity within countries into which Ottoman Empire was divided. This also applies to Assyrian and perhaps a few more Ottoman Empire millets.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Making exceptions for ethnic categories in former Ottoman Empire countries is very reasonable. However this requires rewriting the page headers.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete a bunch of non-defining descent categories suffering the usual problems: objectively why is it defining, objectively how recent/remote must/may it be to be defining, objectively what percentage is sufficient, and what reliable sources tell us all the above. There's a list at
Armenians in the United Kingdom, which could use improvement with the definition and sourcing, and a category is the wrong way to go.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose The problem is that in reality a lot of these people are Armenians more in the way Jews are Jews. It was an ethno-religious designation within the Ottoman Empire. Within the Russian and Soviet Empires it was also something complex. The same really goes for Iran. For now I would say we should hold off on merging for any former Soviet entity, Iran, and Greence and any other country that used to be part of the Ottoman Empire. In practice many of the people in categories like
Category:Goegian Armenians really should be in
Category:Soviet Armenians and
Category:Imperial Russian Armenians (which should be renamed to
Category:Russian Empire Armenians. Our Jewish category would be just as messy if the people in 1947 had chosen Judea instead of Israel as the name for their country.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:10, 10 December 2020 (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:Conspiracy theorists
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 are three main problems with this category.
It expresses in WikiVoice an unattributed judgement that, per
WP:BLP, must be always attributed
The term is a pejorative one, therefore, inherently expresses a POV. For example, a belief in foreign interference in domestic affairs can be variously described by sources as a plausible explanation of facts or a belief in conspiracy, depending on the source's point of view, and this discussion should be tackled in individual articles rather than by slapping categories of this type.
Mislabelling. A theorist is "someone who develops an abstract idea or set of ideas about a particular subject in order to explain it" (Collins Dictionary
[2]), "someone who develops ideas about the explanation for events" (Cambridge Dictionary
[3]). Keyword: develops. However, the category lists mainly people who merely voice support to a given belief and are thus not even remotely theorists.
Oppose, this is largely a container category (and so it should be in order to avoid BLP problems), this category correctly contains subcategories of "Foo conspiracy theorists". If there is an issue here then the issue is in the subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This is useful as a container category. For few articles are presumably organisations propounding conspiracy theories (I have not checked). I do not see why the salafist
Abu Qatada is not this category. His views are (or were) obnoxious and he conspired in various terrorist mischief, but that make him a conspirator, not a conspiracy theorist. He should be moved to an appropriate subcat or simply removed. This is the only bio here.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I would have not said this even 5 years ago, but with the growing boldness of some to engage in cancel culture if we allow this to stand it will be in a short time used to categorize people who believe that there are actual physical differences between men and women and other ideas that are even less histircally objectionable. This very category is a violation of NPOV rules. I say this with a full understanding that there are many true nuts out there, but after the SPLC went after groups that only engage in law suits and never in violance as "hate groups" I know not to trust people to show actual restraint is using these terms.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep This category has had a long history of being a container. Moreover, this category is present on many other Wikipedias, including the Spanish one.
Paleontologist99 (
talk)
02:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep – more so over the proposed deletion of all the daughter categories. Some while say that this category is
WP:NONDEF, if you look at articles such as
David Icke,
Kate Shemirani, and
Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist), their advocacy of conspiracy theories are central to their notability. The nominator claims that the title is misleading, but while conspiracy theories are not actual theories properly speaking, per
WP:COMMONNAME I can't think of any term that is suitable as a replacement.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
03:43, 14 December 2020 (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:Banijay Group franchises
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:People murdered by the Kansas City crime family
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 three biography articles in this category are all organized crime figures in the Kansas City area, all three are already under
Category:Kansas City crime family, and all three met a violent end. Maybe I'm being naïve here, but none of the murders were ever officially solved and this category appears speculative about who killed them. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:05, 5 December 2020 (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:Places named for Christopher Columbus
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.
Copy of Contested
WP:G4 Speedy Deletion Nomination
This category may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. See the
previous discussion.
This page should not be speedily deleted because... no reason for deletion given except a link to a 2006 discussion of a multi-category nomination regarding only cities. Seems like a reasonable and diversely populated category. --
Randy Kryn (
talk)
13:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)reply
That was a brief discussion by what looks like
four editors in 2006, three of them suggesting putting the topics in a list. Since Wikipedia guidelines say that lists, templates, and categories are three different ways to group things and are separate and complimentary things, that negates the discussion right there. I don't understand "not defining", as the entries are places or things named after the principal topic (maybe a name change to "Places and things named for...") which is what the category collects.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
21:22, 11 November 2020 (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.