Category:Stub template redirects
Category:Mayors of an arrondissement of Paris
- 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. –
Fayenatic
London
16:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: The current "an" makes it hard to find this category through the search bar. There is no problem with putting the plural in the title like
Category:Mayors of places in France (and every other country), it does not make the reader think that the mayor was in charge of more than one place.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
21:55, 18 February 2022 (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.
- The result of the discussion was: Moved to an RfC. I withdraw my nomination of this category since a wider RfC is needed. Please follow up on this at
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Categorise_male_footballers_in_the_same_way_that_we_categorise_female_footballers.
Mike Peel (
talk)
20:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: The category seems to have separated male and female football players into different categories, but has kept male footballers as the main category. Suggest moving most articles to
Category:Swiss male footballers to match the female subcategory.
Mike Peel (
talk)
21:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - this is standard for all countries, I believe. Moreover there is no
Category:Male footballers.
Oculi (
talk)
01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Procedural oppose per Oculi. No objection when and if there is broad consensus at
WP:FOOTBALL to split all countries.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
Giant
Snowman
12:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - this needs wider discussion at
WT:FOOTBALL, and further to consensus at
this CfD which overwhelmingly said such categories should not be split.
Giant
Snowman
12:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Comment responses at the
English footballers CfD opposed a split of one country's category, but supported discussion about splitting
Category:Association football players.
TSventon (
talk)
13:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Can we split all the footballer categories into male and female? They are operationally speaking seperate sports, as far as I understand it. This works for actors and actresses.
Rathfelder (
talk)
15:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Procedural oppose per Oculi.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
15:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Procedural oppose but wider nom needed -- There are few sports where men and women compete together. They do in equestrian sports and shooting, but hardly elsewhere.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:14, 19 February 2022 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Category:Washington Football Team draft navigational boxes
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 21#Category:Shopping center management firms
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Template:Horse-stub
Category:Films directed by Alan Smithee
Template:4-polytopes-stub
- 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. –
Fayenatic
London
14:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Not sure why this should be pluralised, especially considering {{
Polyhedron-stub}}. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
21:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
User:力 (powera,
π,
ν)
04:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagging the category as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Fayenatic
London
09:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Not sure that was needed, since only one of these is usually discussed in the case of stubs, but thanks anyway. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
03:50, 19 February 2022 (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:Bangladesh Liberation War poems
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Category:Sport in Canada
Category:Software that uses Lenslok
Category:Video games using code wheel copy protection
Category:Animation controversies in film
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Category:Animation controversies in film
- 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. The later participants set out the policy justifications for deletion, and considered that these outweigh the earlier arguments presented for keeping the category. Note: I will selectively add some contents to some parent categories. –
Fayenatic
London
14:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, the category is mainly populated with people associated with
Bathsheba which we avoid per
WP:OCASSOC.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
-
-
- @
Marcocapelle: Restore what you moved out of this category, and there are more than enough items in the category as is.
WP:OCASSOC does not apply when you have direct relationships and sources citing the subject. All subjects in the
Hebrew Bible are inherently connected to each other. According to you you may as well delete thousands of similar Biblical and Jewish categories. Stop cherry picking targets to delete just because
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
IZAK (
talk)
22:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
04:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep -- With the possible exception of
Lemuel all those appearing are part of the story of Bathsheba. This is different from the vague associates of a modern person or movement.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as an inappropriate eponymous category. People merely being associated with some character (whether real, legendary, or entirely fictional) is not sufficient grounds for an eponymous category, and categories shouldn't be genealogical trees either... There are otherwise no sub-topic articles about the eponymous subject which could possibly justify an eponymous category (unlike, with, say, the exception that proves the rule,
Category:Albert Einstein, or any other highly-notable figure [which this is clearly not]).
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
05:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
02:12, 18 February 2022 (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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. –
Fayenatic
London
14:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:OCEPON, the relevant articles are about the
Book of Esther and already part of
Category:Book of Esther or
Category:Paintings of Esther. We do not need an eponymous category of someone who was not even the main character in a relatively small book.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Apart from what has been mentioned before there are
Artaxerxes II and
Xerxes I in the category but "Ahasueras" is not a defining characteristic of them. They are very well known among historians as Persian kings and the fact that they are mentioned by biblical scholars as a possible identification with Ahasueras is completely trivial to these kings.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
reply
-
-
-
- @
Marcocapelle: Restore what you moved out of this category, and there are more than enough items in the category as is.
WP:OCASSOC does not apply when you have direct relationships and sources citing the subject. All subjects in the
Hebrew Bible are inherently connected to each other. According to you you may as well delete thousands of similar Biblical and Jewish categories. Stop cherry picking targets to delete just because
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
IZAK (
talk)
22:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
04:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
02:12, 18 February 2022 (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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. –
Fayenatic
London
14:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, the category mainly consists of people associated with
Ahab, which we do not categorize per
WP:OCASSOC plus a few tangentially related articles. The only proper article in the category is
Battle of Qarqar.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
-
-
- @
Marcocapelle: Restore what you moved out of this category, and there are more than enough items in the category as is.
WP:OCASSOC does not apply when you have direct relationships and sources citing the subject. All subjects in the
Hebrew Bible are inherently connected to each other. According to you you may as well delete thousands of similar Biblical and Jewish categories. Stop cherry picking targets to delete just because
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
IZAK (
talk)
22:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
04:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as an unnecessary eponymous category, as there are simply not enough articles about individual sub-topics of this person to justify a category. Categories are not supposed to be genealogical trees either, which is however the only purpose this seems to be serving.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
05:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
North America
1000
02:09, 18 February 2022 (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:Books by Helga Kuhse
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Category:Books by Helga Kuhse