Category:Creatures of belief as per the account of the travelers from the era of Colonialism
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. There is an unambiguous consensus that this category should not be kept. There is disagreement about merging, but assuming that what is meant by "merge" is ad the articles that were in this category to the other category mentioned, there is of course nothing to stop anyone who thinks that is a good idea from doing so. There is nothing to merge from the category page.
JBW (
talk)
20:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
As the articles are also being nominated for deletion, this category discussion may soon become moot. If kept we should shorten the category name.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Second comment: merge instead of rename, per Johnbod below. The element of "per the account of the travelers from the era of Colonialism" is too specific for a category and "creatures of belief" equals cryptids.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
04:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge anything left after the deletions to
Category:Cryptids, where they belong. Or probably better yet, merge to
List of cryptids. I'm not very impressed by the nominator's shopping list of policies either - these don't really apply. Incompetent article & category creator meets incompetent deleter.
Johnbod (
talk)
11:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose The category under consideration has been created to provide a class of creature (the creature of belief) that resists any otherwise convenient characterisation as creature of myth/legend/lore due to the essential formative/genetic ambiguity related to the undecidability regarding the divided/dual sources - imagination/error; it is structurally almost analogous to their lack in objective existence; the necessary impossibility of verifiability; same is true for their interstitial/liminal status; now, why they have to remain securely proprietorial to a pseudoscience/ subculture (in the strict non pejorative sense) of cryptozoology is a question that cannot be dismissed that easily; it is probably more just to have a separate category for a class of entities that troubles, disturbs, interrupts, challenges any effort of comfortable categorisations; while doing so preserves our shared cultural memory.
I don't see anything that can be merged. All the articles in the category are either at AfD and quickly headed to deletion or are drafts. //
Timothy :: talk13:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I'll elaborate.
This category has three elements: 1) Creatures of belief, 2) as per the account of the travelers, 3) from the era of Colonialism
WP:NONDEF"One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics"
WP:OCLOCATION"directly related to the subjects' characteristics"
WP:OCTRIVIA"Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability"
Johnbod Since your "not very impressed by the nominator's shopping list of policies" and consider me an "incompetent deleter", perhaps you can enlighten everyone as to why you think these guidelines (not policies) "don't really apply". It seems like you agree with me but you just felt the need for some reason to throw out some insults. //
Timothy :: talk22:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I am sorry but you are not making it any clearer. In case it is not immediately obvious how the cited guideline applies to the nomination, it does not help just citing from the guideline, instead you should clarify how the guideline is applicable to this particular nomination. For example
WP:OCTRIVIA, does that in your opinion refer to creatures of belief (which I do not agree with) or to account of travelers (which I agree with).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment attempting further explanation.
WP:NONDEF"One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics"
as per the account of the travelers is not a defining characteristic of a mythical creature. Who mentioned it is irrelevant to its characteristics. The time in which a mythical creature was mentioned from the era of Colonialism is not a defining characteristic of a creature. The time it was mentioned is irrelevant to its characteristics.
WP:OCLOCATION"Geographical boundaries may be useful for dividing subjects into regions that are directly related to the subjects' characteristics"
If as per the account of the travelers it is intended to mean an area that was being explored by Europeans colonialists (which I think the creator does) it is not directly related to the subjects' characteristics.
WP:OCTRIVIA"Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability"
Being a Creature of Belief, being mentioned as per the account of the travelers, and that it was mentioned during the era of Colonialism are unrelated or whole peripheral to any supposed notability.
I'm sorry I can't make it any clearer than this. But it apparently won't affect the outcome because no one is arguing for keep, so end result of this nomination will be the category being removed, regardless of the rationale. //
Timothy :: talk09:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, if you "can't make it any clearer than this" that just confirms my original thoughts. Some of these, insofar as they have any validity, are arguments for renaming or merging rather than deleting. You don't seem to have considered those possibilities, a common mistake by inexperienced nominators.
Johnbod (
talk)
17:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for not answering, that just confirms my thoughts. I don't see anything that can be merged or redirected. All the articles in the category are either at AfD and quickly headed to deletion or are drafts. Could you indicate which articles you'd like to merge or redirect? //
Timothy :: talk13:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Most of them have references, though there are questions over the use of them. These could go to
List of crytids. I know you "don't see anything that can be merged or redirected", that's what I'm complaining about, along with citing inappropriate policies.
Johnbod (
talk)
17:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete and redirect any remaining category contents to
Category:Cryptids. The creator of the cat is also the creator of all its (as of right now) 23 articles about nonexistent "creatures of belief", all of which have severe problems with sourcing. That editor has also earned a temporary block for personal attacks and other errors
visible here. So there's a larger pattern of bogus content and poor behavior. Specifically about this cat, the name is obviously overly specific, would not attach to the existing cat structure anywhere that I see, and includes that phrase "creatures of belief" as if that's in common usage (it is not). Any legit member of this cat would belong in the Cryptids cat. --
Lockley (
talk)
21:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge -- to
Category:Cryptids; the current name is far too long, even without overlap. There is the basis of a genuine category here for a variety of semi-legendary beasts, but I do not think that the fact that they were recorded by colonial-era travellers, rather than in more recent times is a reason for making a distinction. Other cases occur in the writings of the Ancient Greek
Heroditus and in the Bible (e.g. Leviathan). Some of these probably relate to fifth-hand accounts of real creatures, where the description had been garbled through a "Chinese whispers" type phenomenon. Others will be mythical. A few may be real creatures, not yet known to science.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete; don't merge early travelers were easily convinced of the reality of various monsters. As I understand the category "Cryptids", it doesn't include mythological ones even though they are mentioned by credulous geographers and historians. Since no one can tell whether these are or aren't mythological in nature, they shouldn't be included in cryptids.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The purported necessity of establishing such a class due to the ambiguity of the interstitial nature of their ontological status that resists conventional classification is not in question. "creature of belief" is not a class of creature that is in use in any academic sources. Or simply put: nobody calls anything this.
Vexations (
talk)
22:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment on Merge There is nothing in this category to merge. All of the articles in the cat are at AfD and each one of them is going to be a Delete (the creator is the only !vote for keep). Merging articles that will be deleted in days makes no sense. //
Timothy :: talk04:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, because of your noms on spurious grounds. A merge is a delete, but preserving any content that is worth keeping. You have studiously avoided considering whether there is any of this, with, as here, strings of inappropriate policy links in your noms.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:57, 6 August 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:Nazis in comic book fiction
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.
Delete another "about" category on the verge of creation; how much is the comic book (objectively defined) about Nazism to be in the category and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Lots of media depict Nazis, but depicting people who are Nazis doesn't make the media "about Nazism" and more than having capitalist characters make the media about capitalism.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:56, 3 August 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:History of the English language
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.
@
TheChunky: - As stub sorting affects content across the entire encyclopedia, I believe the requirements for creating and naming stub types are necessary, thus the process outlined at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. I'm not denying the importance of the topic - just the logistics of creating stub types which haven't been discussed anywhere and which don't function within the category/stub category guidelines. Her Pegship (
I'm listening)
16:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Well, I agree your views but we are just at beginning. I think at least we should see the response for six months. I am taking this WikiProject seriously because hundreds of articles which are notable but they are not on wiki. Also you can see all the articles which are in this stub category are also in Jammu and Kashmir stub but they are not improved for years. I created this stub so that our Wikiproject team will visit each article and improve it as well, as this stub is a region under
Wikipedia: WikiProject Chenab Valley. So still if you thinks it is not important. Then you are welcome to merge it to Jammu and Kashmir stub . Thank You.—
The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)20:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. The WikiProject's concerns can quite easily be met with an assessment template rather than a stub type, which is the standard way of doing things.
Grutness...wha?04:52, 31 July 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.
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: per
WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 12 subcats of
Category:Suburbs of the Sunshine Coast Region, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
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.
Suburbs of Bundaberg smallcats
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: per
WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 5 subcats of
Category:Suburbs of Bundaberg, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
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.
Suburbs of Brisbane smallcats
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: per
WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 29 subcats of
Category:Suburbs of Brisbane, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
In each case, the head article is already in
Category:Suburbs of Brisbane (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in
Category:Suburbs of Brisbane (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
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:Panel Trucks
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 The rename is a clear speedy, but little discussion about its actual merits has taken place, which may be a discussion for another day. bibliomaniac1502:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Is this category really needed? That, for example, one of the configurations of the
Chrysler PT Cruiser is a
panel truck is hardly a defining characteristic. Note: The editor who created it obviously has little understanding of wp categorization. DexDor(talk)07:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It's obvious this should be renamed, but there also seems to be growing concern whether this is actually a defining cat. Would like to see some discussion on that front.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac1502:07, 30 July 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:Nose, respiratory system, and TC anatomy templates
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 to an title that can include the current contents plus some more, and reflects the current system-based template classification. This current title is very specific and what's more most editors won't know what TC refers to.
Tom (LT) (
talk)
07:32, 21 July 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.