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: The hidden category lists transclusions of {{Infobox spacecraft}}; a function which is redundant to
Special:WhatLinksHere; and other than that, it appears to serve no useful purpose. W.D.Graham 22:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete as redundant mentioned above. Infoboxes shouldn't sort into categories, hidden or otherwise. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 03:27, 2 May 2012 (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:Law enforcement agencies by geographic area
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 there is no reason why we need subdivisions other than the "by country" one.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:08, 3 May 2012 (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:Children's charities based in the Republic of Ireland
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:Upmerge & delete.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 12:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge there is no reason to have a one-article category. If someone does find another article to put here, recount my vote as keep.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:09, 3 May 2012 (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.
Comedians
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: It seems the standard in this category tree is to differentiate women, but there doesn't seem to be a need to differentiate men. --
KarlB (
talk) 14:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment there are also australian irish british etc male comedians categories. Given the rationale stated above surely they should also be dealt with in this discussion?
RafikiSykes (
talk) 14:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Whether we need to have
Category:Women comedians is probably a debateable issue, but I don't think the same arguments can be mustered in favour of male comedians. If the women are carved off we don't need a corresponding carve-off for the men—they can just reside in the general parent category.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom. I would also like to see Women comedians merged as well. I really don't see how it's pertinent to being a comedian what genentalia you possess.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 11:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: I went to the trouble of pasting links to previous CFD discussions above, so that you could easily find out why gender was accepted as pertinent before. As it happens, genitalia were not important. –
Fayenatic L(talk) 13:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: That there are fewer woman who are comedians is not sufficient to establish the need for a separate category. It seems to me that consensus is trending towards having one category and treating men and women exactly the same. We don't have a 'nurses who are male' category, so I don't see why we should have one for women (or men for that matter) as comedians.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose there is no reason to differentiate male and female comedians, any more than there is a reason to differentiate male and female actors. However since we are doing it, it would be the extreme of sexism to assume that the true comedians are the males and the females are a lesser subdivision, which is what this proposal suggests. I will support the upmerge of all comedians into a non-gender specific category, but until that is on the table, I will support having seperate male and female categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
comment per
WP:Cat gender a female category need not be balanced by a male one, especially in areas (for example, comedy) where there is a strong majority of men. For example,
Category:Female heads of government. It's probably a good point about male nurses, per
Men_in_nursing we should have a category for them (men only comprise 5% of those in nursing). We have for example,
Category:Male feminists for a traditionally female-dominated field. Also this nom is for the 'men' categories; if you want to debate whether we should have
Category:Women_comedians please nominate that separately, I explicitly didn't nominate the women here.--
KarlB (
talk) 13:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I oppose dividing this by gender at all, but until other people accept that there is no reason to divide by gender, I will support all gender divisions.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 21:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep usually very relevant to their acts/material.
RafikiSykes (
talk) 18:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge. There are very few occupations where being male is a point of surprising differentiation, and this isn't one of them.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 04:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose.
Wikipedia:Cat_gender is unpersuasive to me, I disagree. Unless one gender is an extraordinary exception to the norm, having both genders equally distinguished is more aesthetically pleasing. Comedians, unlike actors, are a special role/occupation/performance-act, and are almost always distinctive personality single person acts. Searching for a particular one is a challenge, and division by gender is helpful. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 11:05, 24 May 2012 (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:Drawers
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: The lead article is drawing; I think the only article for artists noted for this is at drafter, which starts A drafter, or draughtsman, prepares technical drawings.... Nevertheless, the most-populated category so far for these artists is
Category:Draughtsmen. The "by ethnicity" sub-cat is for deletion as its only member is up for merging (
CFD April 30) into the related nationality. –
Fayenatic L(talk) 13:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename this is not about furniture or pants.
70.49.124.225 (
talk) 06:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge and Rename. Upmerge all the Drawers by nationality categories to 'Draughtsmen'.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 11:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge all these articles (a grand total of 2) into
Category:Draughtsmen. We do not need to subdivide every profession by nationaity.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
No objection to upmerging; the member pages are already otherwise categorised by nationality. If the closer upmerges these one-page cats, I'll come back with a separate nomination of
Category:Welsh draughtsmen either to be upmerged into
Category:Draughtsmen or merged with English into British. –
Fayenatic London(talk) 12:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge all to a new
Category:Draughtsmen. I agree that there's not enough to justify breaking it down by ethnicity or nationality at this stage.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Really the whole scheme, including
Category:Draughtsmen, should be deleted as non-defining. Drawing was for centuries the basis of the training of all artists and architects, and taught to many others, including surveyors, designers and naval officers for example. All these categories contain a handful of minor figures who are best known for other things. None of the relatively few people who are really known for their drawings are in any of them.
Johnbod (
talk) 13:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)reply
You make a good point. However,
Joseph Farey's biography does identify him as "a talented engineering draughtsman",
Franz Caucig is noted for his 2,000+ drawings, and as you refer to others who are known for drawing, I suggest that it is worth keeping. It would be appropriate to remove some others who are more noted for other arts especially if these are closely related, e.g. engravers or architects. –
Fayenatic London(talk) 16:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Farey I grant you, but 2,000 is a high but not exceptional number of drawings for an old master artist to leave. If you were to do a
Category:Artists known for their drawings it would have a few hundred people, beginning with Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael and Rembrandt and carrying on from there. I'm not sure it is defining for Caucig.
Johnbod (
talk) 19:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)reply
As he created only 30 oil paintings and over 2,000 drawings, it is defining. --
Eleassarmy talk 12:40, 11 May 2012 (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:Yes (band) Yessongs album covers
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 is no precedent for creating a category just for the liner notes and album artwork for a single album, nor is it necessary. In fact, most of these are nominated for XfD (by me) because they lack a fair use rationale: it is not necessary to show every piece of the album artwork, nor are they all discussed critically with third-party sources in the article. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Note: Other covers deleted per XfD guidelines, leaving only the actual front cover. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 07:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete and merge contents to
Category:Yes (band) album covers if the files survive deletion. It looks like overcategorization by me, and is part of the recent overcategorization of the Yessongs album.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:58, 1 May 2012 (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:Sibling marriage or relationship
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 & salt.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 09:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is not a category for the concept but is defined as "People in a sibling marriage or relationship". Categories for marriage status have been discussed many times in the past, and nearly every time there has been a consensus that we will not categorize by marriage status or by identity of marriage or sexual partner(s). This is another example of the same sort of thing. See a related discussion going on
here.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep, It is a very unusual often stigmatised relationship, hence would need either a page on it or a category. Although first-cousin marriages can also be unusual i dont think it carries the same stigma thus is not as notable. Therefore i believe this category is certainly notable enough.
Pass a Methodtalk 06:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
It may carry a stigma today, but in almost all cases it did not in the societies those currently in the category lived in. It was not a "stigma" for
Emperor Bidatsu,
Elpinice,
Cleopatra VII, and so forth. Marrying a sibling was customary in ancient Egpyt and in other societies. So why are we categorizing by it? Why is this to be treated differently than
Category:Polygamists, which has been deleted several times? Polygamy is also often stigmatized but has been common in some societies, so "current stigma" seems like a poor standard.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Hence my statement that polygamy is "often" stigmatized. It's not a universal stigma.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
It's a type of relationship that wasn't stigmatized, but was in fact quite normal and customary, in the cultures that were actually lived in by the people who've actually been filed in it so far. At any rate, we don't typically categorize people by sociocultural characteristics of their sexual or romantic relationships, as it's not a defining characteristic of the people involved. If we had separate articles about the marriages themselves, distinct from our articles about the individual people, then such a category might be warranted — but as it stands, we don't (and most likely never will.) Delete.
Bearcat (
talk) 08:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
delete per nom. --
KarlB (
talk) 15:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
delete and salt. Category will never be filled, and will always be incomplete.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 11:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom & Bearcat. No use salting I think; there are too many possible names for this category.
LeSnail (
talk) 02:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Your point about salting is a good one. This is not exactly the name I would have expected for this category.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete this is just asking for libelous placement of living people that will lead to suits. If it was just "sibling marriage" it would be ok, but the "relationship" opens it up to all sorts of under-sourced libelous attacks.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:17, 3 May 2012 (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: The hidden category lists transclusions of {{Infobox spacecraft}}; a function which is redundant to
Special:WhatLinksHere; and other than that, it appears to serve no useful purpose. W.D.Graham 22:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete as redundant mentioned above. Infoboxes shouldn't sort into categories, hidden or otherwise. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 03:27, 2 May 2012 (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:Law enforcement agencies by geographic area
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 there is no reason why we need subdivisions other than the "by country" one.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:08, 3 May 2012 (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:Children's charities based in the Republic of Ireland
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:Upmerge & delete.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 12:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge there is no reason to have a one-article category. If someone does find another article to put here, recount my vote as keep.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:09, 3 May 2012 (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.
Comedians
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: It seems the standard in this category tree is to differentiate women, but there doesn't seem to be a need to differentiate men. --
KarlB (
talk) 14:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment there are also australian irish british etc male comedians categories. Given the rationale stated above surely they should also be dealt with in this discussion?
RafikiSykes (
talk) 14:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Whether we need to have
Category:Women comedians is probably a debateable issue, but I don't think the same arguments can be mustered in favour of male comedians. If the women are carved off we don't need a corresponding carve-off for the men—they can just reside in the general parent category.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom. I would also like to see Women comedians merged as well. I really don't see how it's pertinent to being a comedian what genentalia you possess.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 11:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: I went to the trouble of pasting links to previous CFD discussions above, so that you could easily find out why gender was accepted as pertinent before. As it happens, genitalia were not important. –
Fayenatic L(talk) 13:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: That there are fewer woman who are comedians is not sufficient to establish the need for a separate category. It seems to me that consensus is trending towards having one category and treating men and women exactly the same. We don't have a 'nurses who are male' category, so I don't see why we should have one for women (or men for that matter) as comedians.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose there is no reason to differentiate male and female comedians, any more than there is a reason to differentiate male and female actors. However since we are doing it, it would be the extreme of sexism to assume that the true comedians are the males and the females are a lesser subdivision, which is what this proposal suggests. I will support the upmerge of all comedians into a non-gender specific category, but until that is on the table, I will support having seperate male and female categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
comment per
WP:Cat gender a female category need not be balanced by a male one, especially in areas (for example, comedy) where there is a strong majority of men. For example,
Category:Female heads of government. It's probably a good point about male nurses, per
Men_in_nursing we should have a category for them (men only comprise 5% of those in nursing). We have for example,
Category:Male feminists for a traditionally female-dominated field. Also this nom is for the 'men' categories; if you want to debate whether we should have
Category:Women_comedians please nominate that separately, I explicitly didn't nominate the women here.--
KarlB (
talk) 13:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I oppose dividing this by gender at all, but until other people accept that there is no reason to divide by gender, I will support all gender divisions.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 21:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep usually very relevant to their acts/material.
RafikiSykes (
talk) 18:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge. There are very few occupations where being male is a point of surprising differentiation, and this isn't one of them.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 04:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose.
Wikipedia:Cat_gender is unpersuasive to me, I disagree. Unless one gender is an extraordinary exception to the norm, having both genders equally distinguished is more aesthetically pleasing. Comedians, unlike actors, are a special role/occupation/performance-act, and are almost always distinctive personality single person acts. Searching for a particular one is a challenge, and division by gender is helpful. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 11:05, 24 May 2012 (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:Drawers
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: The lead article is drawing; I think the only article for artists noted for this is at drafter, which starts A drafter, or draughtsman, prepares technical drawings.... Nevertheless, the most-populated category so far for these artists is
Category:Draughtsmen. The "by ethnicity" sub-cat is for deletion as its only member is up for merging (
CFD April 30) into the related nationality. –
Fayenatic L(talk) 13:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename this is not about furniture or pants.
70.49.124.225 (
talk) 06:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge and Rename. Upmerge all the Drawers by nationality categories to 'Draughtsmen'.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 11:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge all these articles (a grand total of 2) into
Category:Draughtsmen. We do not need to subdivide every profession by nationaity.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
No objection to upmerging; the member pages are already otherwise categorised by nationality. If the closer upmerges these one-page cats, I'll come back with a separate nomination of
Category:Welsh draughtsmen either to be upmerged into
Category:Draughtsmen or merged with English into British. –
Fayenatic London(talk) 12:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge all to a new
Category:Draughtsmen. I agree that there's not enough to justify breaking it down by ethnicity or nationality at this stage.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Really the whole scheme, including
Category:Draughtsmen, should be deleted as non-defining. Drawing was for centuries the basis of the training of all artists and architects, and taught to many others, including surveyors, designers and naval officers for example. All these categories contain a handful of minor figures who are best known for other things. None of the relatively few people who are really known for their drawings are in any of them.
Johnbod (
talk) 13:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)reply
You make a good point. However,
Joseph Farey's biography does identify him as "a talented engineering draughtsman",
Franz Caucig is noted for his 2,000+ drawings, and as you refer to others who are known for drawing, I suggest that it is worth keeping. It would be appropriate to remove some others who are more noted for other arts especially if these are closely related, e.g. engravers or architects. –
Fayenatic London(talk) 16:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Farey I grant you, but 2,000 is a high but not exceptional number of drawings for an old master artist to leave. If you were to do a
Category:Artists known for their drawings it would have a few hundred people, beginning with Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael and Rembrandt and carrying on from there. I'm not sure it is defining for Caucig.
Johnbod (
talk) 19:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)reply
As he created only 30 oil paintings and over 2,000 drawings, it is defining. --
Eleassarmy talk 12:40, 11 May 2012 (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:Yes (band) Yessongs album covers
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 is no precedent for creating a category just for the liner notes and album artwork for a single album, nor is it necessary. In fact, most of these are nominated for XfD (by me) because they lack a fair use rationale: it is not necessary to show every piece of the album artwork, nor are they all discussed critically with third-party sources in the article. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Note: Other covers deleted per XfD guidelines, leaving only the actual front cover. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 07:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete and merge contents to
Category:Yes (band) album covers if the files survive deletion. It looks like overcategorization by me, and is part of the recent overcategorization of the Yessongs album.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:58, 1 May 2012 (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:Sibling marriage or relationship
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 & salt.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 09:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is not a category for the concept but is defined as "People in a sibling marriage or relationship". Categories for marriage status have been discussed many times in the past, and nearly every time there has been a consensus that we will not categorize by marriage status or by identity of marriage or sexual partner(s). This is another example of the same sort of thing. See a related discussion going on
here.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep, It is a very unusual often stigmatised relationship, hence would need either a page on it or a category. Although first-cousin marriages can also be unusual i dont think it carries the same stigma thus is not as notable. Therefore i believe this category is certainly notable enough.
Pass a Methodtalk 06:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
It may carry a stigma today, but in almost all cases it did not in the societies those currently in the category lived in. It was not a "stigma" for
Emperor Bidatsu,
Elpinice,
Cleopatra VII, and so forth. Marrying a sibling was customary in ancient Egpyt and in other societies. So why are we categorizing by it? Why is this to be treated differently than
Category:Polygamists, which has been deleted several times? Polygamy is also often stigmatized but has been common in some societies, so "current stigma" seems like a poor standard.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Hence my statement that polygamy is "often" stigmatized. It's not a universal stigma.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
It's a type of relationship that wasn't stigmatized, but was in fact quite normal and customary, in the cultures that were actually lived in by the people who've actually been filed in it so far. At any rate, we don't typically categorize people by sociocultural characteristics of their sexual or romantic relationships, as it's not a defining characteristic of the people involved. If we had separate articles about the marriages themselves, distinct from our articles about the individual people, then such a category might be warranted — but as it stands, we don't (and most likely never will.) Delete.
Bearcat (
talk) 08:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
delete per nom. --
KarlB (
talk) 15:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)reply
delete and salt. Category will never be filled, and will always be incomplete.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 11:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom & Bearcat. No use salting I think; there are too many possible names for this category.
LeSnail (
talk) 02:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Your point about salting is a good one. This is not exactly the name I would have expected for this category.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete this is just asking for libelous placement of living people that will lead to suits. If it was just "sibling marriage" it would be ok, but the "relationship" opens it up to all sorts of under-sourced libelous attacks.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:17, 3 May 2012 (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.