Category:Dr. West's Medicine Show and Junk Band songs
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:Bouloussou family of Yanam
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.
Vehicle categories containing only redirects
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 with dementia
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 or at least purge the biographies (containerize in Wikispeak). Although this doesn't have instructions explicitly calling this category as being temporary, this seems to be a temporary category and probably not what makes a person notable (e.g., not-defining) - in a quick sampling it seemed these folks are notable first and have dementia later.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
22:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose These seems as a defining category, as is typically linked to the mental decline of the individuals concerned. I do not think is nature is temporary.
Dimadick (
talk)
16:10, 12 February 2021 (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 after Slave Owners
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.
@
LevitatePalantir: When I first started editing in Wikipedia, I naturally just copied what other people were doing which generally worked but, in same cases, that meant I was inadvertantly violating editing guidelines and then I would proceed to make
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. I wish I would have taken a quick read of
WP:OC sooner. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
10:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not copying other people. Y'all can cite whatever examples that make you feel like you're doing the right thing. There's clear bias on this site. Have fun!
LevitatePalantir (
talk)
16:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Per Nom. Even though Capitalization is not a Reason for Deletion it hurts My Eyes so Much and Appropriately fits the Qualities of this Category. There was also a recent CfD about barracks named after Confederates IIRC.
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SHAREDNAME. There may be limited cases where the origin of a name is significant. Places with German names in Romania would in some cases be the result of Germans having been settled in that part of Transylvania, which would be significant, but would be better dealt with by a more narrowly defined category. However this is not a case where that applies.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:14, 14 February 2021 (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.
Broadcast station 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: Eliminate redundant categories to reduce overcategorization. Duplicate entries can be purged. Need help with tagging.
Mvcg66b3r (
talk)
23:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge or listify. Unless I am missing something extremely obvious about the cultural significance of low-power broadcasting and digital-subchannel broadcasting, a single category for affiliates transmitters of these TV networks should do fine.
Place Clichy (
talk)
15:15, 8 February 2021 (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.
People from Arcadia, Peloponnese
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: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT. This concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or few-article categories. Proposal B is to merge all to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, so in this case we keep subcategories for:
Tripoli, Greece (31,000 people) and
Leonidio (4,000 people). Proposal A is to leave some places alone that used to have a larger population and for which we now have 9 (the first one) or 5 articles (the other three categories), although meanwhile they turned into tiny villages.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Support A — We assess categories based on the amount of articles that are/can be included. Other factors, such as the population, act as an indicator for the former. These would be considered edge cases, due to their former significance but their current low population, but the amount of articles already in them shows that the categories are viable. Apart from that I will note that none of these categories refer to single villages, but to collections of towns/villages which have historic and current ties (dimotikes enotites). As is said in the article,
Iraia "consists of 27 villages". --
Antondimak (
talk)
05:51, 11 February 2021 (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:Administrative territorial entities by 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.
with
Category:Lists of countries by language to be deleted after manually merging. Most of the articles in this subcategory have "countries and territories" in both name and content, and are specifically "official language".
Alt proposal rename to
Category:Countries and territories by official language; a language used without legal status is not easily defined, then rename the child categories accordingly. E.g., see
Category:English-speaking countries and territories that has countries such as Brunei, Eritrea, India, Rwanda, Hong Kong, etc. because English is an official language even though not the language of the majority. If this was really to categorize where English is spoken, I think we could find reliable sources showing a higher percentage of Dutch people, Swedes, and Israelis speak English than do people in Eritrea, India, Rwanda, etc.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
23:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Adding "official" is not exactly what the category is currently about, to a large amount it is used for ethno-linguistic minorities territories. Implementing "official" by purging would probably result in many smallcats.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I prefer keeping the lists and categories and probably deleting these because of the impossibility of defining them objectively short of by official language - which, of course, some countries like the USA don't have although some states (AZ, I think) do. And these change from time to time (Rwanda) making them less defining.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
06:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep but purge (or merge). Africaans is spoken largely only in South Africa; Vietnamese in Vietnam. We might merge the latter's cat to Vietnamese language, but that will have an odd look. Conversely, the Punjabi category fulfils a useful function in bringing together the Indian and Pakistani provinces/states where it is a main language.
Category:Gaeltacht places similarly serves a useful function in bringing together those part of the Republic of Ireland where it is a major language. The Italian category would be better if it categorised the Swiss cantons speaking Italian, rather than the whole country.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
This isn't nominated for deletion. Likewise, purging isn't what we are discussing, and won't be known until choosing whether these should be "languages" or "official languages".
Category:Lists of countries by language is proposed for upmerging, so this response must be agreement. Other subcategories are not up for discussion here. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
12:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)reply
@
William Allen Simpson: two different issues are mixed up now. One issue is a broad versus a narrow (official) categorization. This is an issue of consistency, as the subcategories are currently not restricted to official language. The other issue that
User:Peterkingiron raises is a smallcat issue, but that would require a fresh nomination to propose deletion of the involved subcategories (e.g. of the Afrikaans, Slovak and Vietnamese subcategories).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
13:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Agreed, hate it when the discussion goes off topic. As I'd mentioned in response, only 1 related sub-category is up for discussion now, raised earlier (and tagged). We'd need further nominations later, once we figured out the scope. I'm interpreting the request for pruning to be a narrow scope. That matches Carlos, and my general inclination for narrow well-defined scopes. Editors don't read restrictions written into category text, often don't even see them (using any of the cat scripts). William Allen Simpson (
talk)
13:20, 19 February 2021 (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:Wikipedians who use Flow on Metawiki
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:Armenians of Romania
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.
Rename but this should not be a precedent for wholesale renaming. There is a difficulty here in that the present Armenia is Ex-Russian Armenia. A lot of Armenians were Ottoman subjects and are dispersed in many parts of former Ottoman Empire.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:38, 14 February 2021 (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:Abandoned amusement parks 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.
Nominator's rationale: "Defunct amusement parks in the United States" is the preferred category as it is inclusive of all former amusement parks. How does one determine how long a park is "abandoned" for? Therefore, it is tough to gauge what articles belong under this category. Additionally, it is not used as often as "Defunct amusement parks in the United States". Astros4477 (
Talk)14:43, 10 February 2021 (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 categories named after subdivisions of the United Kingdom
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 to delete. That said, there doesn't seem like much of a strong policy-related arguement to keep these either. So no prejudice against a follow-up nom, which takes the concerns in this discussion in consideration. - jc3701:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Once upon a time, I heard some editors made claims like The
Eiffel Tower is somewhere under
Category:France (true), the Eiffel Tower is not a country (also true), therefore
Category:France can't be under any country categories without miscategorizing the Eiffel Tower (Ummm...) and preceeded to orphan categories left and right. That argument missed that we often categorize by the main article and it obviously lost the day since
Category:France is currently under 6 country cats. Even if you disagree with my opinon though, let's work it out and come to a consensus instead of creating (non-administrative) adminsitrative categories that are really alternative navigational categories (that are hidden so readers can't navigate by them). -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
10:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
WP:EPON gives the example of both
New York City and
Category:New York City in
Category:Cities in New York (state) so putting
Category:County Down in
Category:Counties of Northern Ireland is correct on ENWP. The
Category:Counties of Northern Ireland defines the content of
Category:County Down that is to say it says that the content of that topic category should be for the county not that all of its content is of counties in Northern Ireland. I think this rule is to make it easier to fine such categories for example some topic categories lowe down such as
Port Charlotte you will likely know its a village on Islay but on the German Wikipedia the category is under Rhinns of Islay and people might not know its there or expect that topic category to exist. With the English Wikipedia's method I think it does make things easier in general but since as noted not all the things in a topic category belong to its parent set category this may cause problems when using tools to scan the tree but this doesn't seem like a major issue. Another issue that sometimes arises is that
Renwick, Cumbria is in
Category:Kirkoswald, Cumbria since its part of the parish but not village but Category:Kirkoswald, Cumbria is also in
Category:Villages in Cumbria so it may show up as redundant categorization. The 3rd issue is when you have a topic category that applies to a set category but the topic category is also sub divided by that set for example there is
Category:Kirklees>
Category:Geography of Kirklees>
Category:Geography of Batley but
Category:Batley also is geographical so should the "Batley" topic category be in the "Kirkees" category of the "Geography of Kirklees" category and if it is in the latter should "Geography of Batley" be in both "Geography of Kirklees" and "Batley" or just "Batley"? Crouch, Swale (
talk)
21:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete All (fine with review) Having a visible category and a hidden category do the same thing is redundant and administrative categories need to have an administrative function per
WP:PROJCATS. (Willing to help with manual review.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
10:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Keeping some sort of organization among eligible eponymous categories is helpful. If we want to abandon such a way of organizing things, a much larger omination is required.
Place Clichy (
talk)
19:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Question -- This is tagged as an administrative category, which implies that it should be facilitating WP admin. What function does it serve? If none then delete.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Incorrect.
WP:EPONYMOUS explicitly states: "An eponymous category should have only the categories of its article that are relevant to the category's content." None of these categories would ever be on its main article, so they must not be on an eponymous category.
CfD is the
Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. All changes are discussed here, before recording in the guidelines. This centralized discussion prevents missing those that otherwise would take place on Talk pages of subpages of what was (at the time)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) with many subpages.
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:16th-century executions by Germany
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 precedent of "16th-century execution by Italian states". No state of Germany existed in the 16th century. Executions within the Holy Roman Empire were carried out by states within that Empire, not by the Empire per se. Would also be OK with "in German states".
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
11:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Support -- I do not think the Emperor carried out executions except in the territories where he was the actual ruler. However Germany is a convenient shorthand for Holy Roman Empire, so that I regard the present name as acceptable.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:46, 14 February 2021 (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:People executed by Italy
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 precedent of "16th-century executions by Italian states". Most of the contents are various Italian states. The exception is the current state of Italy, although that's still an Italian state. Would also be OK with "by Italian states".
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
11:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:People executed by Italy or Italian states some of the 19th & 20th executions were "by Italy" not an Italian state as we have been using the term. I'm not sure that reliable sources would include
Italy, the nation state, as among the
Italian states (which redirects to a list starting with the definition that "Italy, up until the Italian unification in 1861, was a conglomeration of city-states, republics, and other independent entities." Thus marking a difference between Italy (post 1861) and Italian states (pre 1861).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete and stop grouping people by executing state on the fact of which states would later become a uinified country in the future. We need to cut back on presentism in Wikipedia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I would be happier if each country, at the time of the execution, had its own category. I dont think historical perspective is improved by giving false impressions of continuity. NB the boundaries of what is now Italy were not the boundaries of the Italian states.
Rathfelder (
talk)
19:56, 14 March 2021 (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:Airlines in Alaska
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: Opposed speedy, because apparently this category should include airlines operating in Alaska regardless of where they were based. I do not see how it would be
DEFINING for airlines to be categorized along not only to the place they are based in, but also all the places they serve (good luck for some airlines), or why airlines landing planes in Alaska should be treated differently than other
Airlines of the United States by state (
WP:C2C in principle applies). I know how aviation is important to Alaska, but the nuances of Alaskan airlines from Alaska serving Alaska from elsewhere will probably be better covered in article
List of airlines of Alaska than in a hotchpotch category. @
RadioKAOS,
Good Olfactory,
Hugo999, and
Funandtrvl: pinging contributors in speedy discussions.
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose — This is a repeat of a previously unsuccessful speedy nomination and should have been taken to full discussion instead of being brought back here. The nominator spends all their time on Wikipedia working on categorization matters and appears to desire "one size fits all" under their myopic view of the encyclopedia. OTOH,
this shows that the category as created was intended to include airlines operating in Alaska regardless of where they were based. Editors with topical knowledge were not invited to participate in the first discussion, as if it were an attempt to game consensus.
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 23:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Watchlists, revision histories and
Special:Contributions exist for a reason, namely transparency. I'm tired of seeing one editor's choice of narrow specialization proving detrimental to the contributions of other editors or the project as a whole over and over again, inevitably followed by the knee-jerk invocation of
WP:AGF,
WP:CIVIL,
WP:NPA and similar as a shield to excuse it away. Forum shopping to avoid a larger community consensus epitomizes bad faith. United States topics especially suffer from this mentality by categorization specialists, where the 50 states are merely venues to push one size fits all and any context unique to those states is treated as irrelevant. Why are people so hellbent on sidestepping the purpose given when this category was created, especially when I pointed it out again? It's yet another attempt at an
WP:OWN hijacking of this entire namespace.
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 04:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Half the world's airlines might choose to transit Alaska; that would not be a defining thing; it would be the subject of a nice list. Being based in Alaska, however, is indeed notable and defining.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
11:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Support - per nom. This category could be very long if it included every airline that has a stop in Alaska, and it isn't notable. I agree with the other supporters.
Microwavedfork (
talk)
18:57, 10 February 2021 (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:Russian Empire people of Moldovan descent
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: This category is wrong on 2 accounts. 1°) It was created for
Sergei Rachmaninoff, whose article informs us that "the family name can be traced back to the 1400s when Yelena, the daughter of
Stephen IV of Moldavia, married the eldest son of
Ivan III Vasilyevich,
Grand Prince of Moscow. A son named Vasily was nicknamed "Rachmanin", meaning "lazy" in
Old Russian." A single 15th-century ancestor and last name etymology are not defining in terms of descent. 2°) In English, the terms
Moldova and Moldovan are used only for the modern country and its predecessor the
Moldovan SSR, created in 1940 on a part only of the larger region of
Moldavia (adj. Moldavian). Any use of Moldova/Moldovan for events or people before 1940 is therefore anachronistic and incorrect.
Place Clichy (
talk)
09:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete on as applied grounds. There may be strong arguments to have a category
Category:Russian Empire Romanians/
Category:Russian Empire people of Romanian descent. It should however encompass Romanians without regard to which specific area they came from. However I am not sure enough such people lived outside Bessarabia to make such a category worth while. When Bessarabia was under Russian Empire control many non-Romanians lived there, but that is a different issue. During the time of the Russian Empire ethnic populations in the Balkans lived side by side in very complexed ways. Many of the leaders of the Principalities that merged to form Romanian considered themselves Greeks, the areas lived in by Romanians and Serbians overlappped, as well as Romanians and Bulgarians, which is why both those boundaries were matters of dispute, and Transylvania had large numbers of Germans and Hungarians as well as Romanians. So we have to be careful not to assume a Russian Empire resident who had a parent migrate from somewhere that is today Romania would in fact have Romanian ancestry.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:13, 10 February 2021 (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:Mayors of Berbera
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:WP:SMALLCATs with just one or two entries. As always, every city in existence does not automatically get one of these the moment it has just one or two mayors to categorize; mayors do not get an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors, so there's no guarantee that a mayors category is actually expandable to the minimum size. So a city needs to have four or five mayors with Wikipedia articles, not just one or two, before a dedicated "mayors of city" category is warranted.
Bearcat (
talk)
06:18, 10 February 2021 (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:Mayors of Jever
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:WP:SMALLCAT for just two mayors of a small city. Jever (pop 14K) is not large enough to guarantee the "inherent" notability of all of its mayors under
WP:NPOL #2 (even one of the two mayors who is here now has been flagged for basic notability issues), so it's far from certain that this category is readily expandable. As always, every town and city does not automatically get one of these the moment it has one or two mayors with articles -- it needs to have at least five, and a city this size has no guarantee of being able to get there.
Bearcat (
talk)
06:04, 10 February 2021 (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:Victims of domestic abuse
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 a quick read of the lead section of our article
domestic violence to which
domestic abuse redirects, shows that nearly anything could be seen as being included such things and being grounded as a kid, forced to go to church as a kid, chores, spanking, and basically anything that one can conceive that may have been coercive or unhappy in one's childhood counts. Therefore, not defining, as within such an expansive view of what constitutes being a victim of this, my guess is that a vast majority of people are encompassed by this category. Given its more heinous forms, it presents the
WP:BLP problem because many of the abusers may still be living and while the abuse they may have inflicted was making the victim wash dishes or take out the trash, that is tossed in the same category as physical violence and spousal murder.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Yet we find Victims of human rights abuses and Victims of police brutality to be OK? Both are also somewhat subjective. I believe the word domestic is intended to mean "in the home" and of one adult by another, not punishment of children for not doing household chores.
Philafrenzy (
talk)
09:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
This is a problematic category, also problematic in real life, because it usually depends on the account of the victim only. If kept, the category might be limited to victims of cases in which a conviction took place.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Extremely bad idea, Marcocapelle. Letting the legal systems decide on whether someone experienced abuse rather than reliable sources?
Dimadick (
talk)
16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
We do the same for perpetrators ("people convicted of") so the idea is not that bad. The point is that, in most instances, reliable sources do not make a claim about someone being a victim of domestic violence, they rather make a claim about someone asserting that they are a victim of domestic violence. If my idea is not workable then deletion is the alternative.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:02, 12 February 2021 (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:Practical aesthetics actors
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: Single-entry
WP:SMALLCAT for a non-
defining characteristic. While practical aesthetics does exist as an acting style, it's far from clear that an audience can readily pick out "practical aesthetics acting" as a distinctive type of acting that changes the finished product; it's not, for example, as though you could watch a film or TV show and tick off which actors were trained in "practical aesthetics" and which ones weren't just from observing their acting itself. So it's just not a good basis for a category, because it doesn't define the acting in a visible-to-the-viewer sort of way.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:19, 10 February 2021 (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:Sleepy Wikipedians
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 I would argue sometimes the sleepy are the hard working not the lazy. However in either case this is not a valid grouping that would in any way assist in building up the encyclopedia so I see no reason for the category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:18, 10 February 2021 (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: As far as I am aware, no extinctions of insect families have been happened in the modern age, and therefore the scope of this category completely overlaps with that of Category:Extinct insect families, I therefore propose a merge.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
23:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge "History" has more to do with a time-line of before and after human recordation and is probably inappropriate for taxonomy categories generally. What is notable about the insect families is that they are extinct; whether they did so before or after humans wrote about them is not defining for the families.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - the rapidity of losses in insect populations suggests that the rationale of that cat is reasonable to be seen as high potential for growth. --
Just N. (
talk)
15:27, 16 February 2021 (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:Similarity and distance measures
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 presumably similarity and distance are inverses or negative/positive differentiators from one-another; I don't like
Category:Distance measures suggested above, because the normal thought process of a reader is that it would include meter, foot, furlong, angstrom, and such.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:52, 27 January 2021 (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 directed by Fred Allen (editor)
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: After the page move of
Fred Allen (editor) to
Fred Allen (film editor), the category should hold the same name as the article. All films that were in this category already have the new name as red link. Therefore please delete this page after the move, so it does not get used accidentally anymore.
Sprachraum (
talk)
00:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks very much
Lugnuts – but when does the old category get deleted? Once this request is closed? Or do I have to request that separately? No articles were linked to the old category anymore, and there are not going to be any external links to a category like this (which is the stated rationale for leaving redirects from article moves in place). But if it left in existence, future links to it would appear blue to the linking user, who might not even realize that he/she should be linking to a different category. --
Sprachraum (
talk)
21:04, 11 February 2021 (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:Recipients of the Order of Mehr
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
Order of Mehr is an award to "to honor the status and the position of women in the Islamic Republic of Iran". The category only contains one article on
Monireh Gorji, who was the only women elected to Assembly of Experts for Constitution right after the 1979 revolution, which is remarkable accomplishment. Getting this award decades later just reflects that prominence though and the article doesn't even mention winning it. (I'm not going to argue
WP:SMALLCAT here though since there are other winners who hopefully won't stay redlinks.) There is already a list right
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:06, 10 February 2021 (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:Order of the Croatian Cross recipients
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.