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: All other subcategories of
Category:Literary scholars by writer ([edit:] except
Category:Homeric scholars, though I'd make the same case about that one) use the bare name of the author, not an adjective based on that name. "Shakespearean" is not in widespread use in academia and has a bit of an old-fashioned, pretentious feel. All of this also applies to
Category:Shakespearean scholarship.
blameless 19:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. "Shakespeare scholars" sounds wrong to my ears - "Shakespearean" is definitely the more widely used and known adjectival form - but more importantly the only reason it seems out of place is that with most of the other scholars there is no recognised adjectival form - there's no such word as "Dostoyevskian", "Ibsenic", "Iqbali" or "Poevian" (and before you mention in, both Lovecraftian and Kafkaesque have completely different connotations).
Grutness...wha? 03:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Clear common name. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:56, 11 March 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:Wikipedia community 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge. –
FayenaticLondon 14:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Unclear (e.g. the category text says "aa") and unnecessary. DexDor(talk) 20:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, lacking a definition of "community" templates as opposed to other templates.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:29, 10 March 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:Sportspeople from Oroville, California
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:keep. –
FayenaticLondon 10:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
feminist (
talk) 17:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - seven is enough for a category IMO, especially given that it's one that could expand later. There's now a second occupation category for the town's eight politicians with articles. Rename the occupation parent to
Category:People from Oroville, California, by occupation (with second comma) which seems to be the US standard naming system.
Grutness...wha? 03:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - per Namiba, the target category (Sportspeople from Oroville, California) has been adequately populated, the parent cateogry (People from Oroville, California, by occupation) has already been upmerged and deleted.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 19:10, 12 March 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.
Victorian-era ships of Canada and Australia
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, same rationale as in the discussion below, the Victorian era is unrelated to the history of other countries but the United Kingdom. However, this is a separate nomination because Canada and Australia are Commonwealth countries so the outcome may be less obvious.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: "the discussion below" is (I think)
this. DexDor(talk) 19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
feminist (
talk) 17:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
DexDor: are you okay with merging this discussion into the main discussion? I no longer expect that anyone will use the Commonwealth argument to treat these two countries differently.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:49, 10 March 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:People with coronavirus disease 2019
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: I don't believe that simply having the virus is
WP:DEFINING to the individual. The vast majority of people who catch it will recover, just like any cold or flu. Now, if they die from the virus, that's a different matter, and there's
this category. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support The disease is extremely short-lived, and besides being a maintenance nightmare, as nominator states, in no way is this
Wikipedia:Defining.
Greenman (
talk) 17:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
BLP applkies to recently dead people. This is because even though they are dead the privacy of living relatives can still be impacted.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support or at least rename as "People who were diagnosed with Covid-19" to make it a historical category.
84.43.93.98 (
talk) 10:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support as above, this is not a defining thing for which we will remember or identify Tom Hanks or Callum Hudson-Odoi in 20 years time, as for most cases it is a transient viral infection. The deaths category however is clearly something different.
2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:CD66:8E4:10BB:B558 (
talk) 14:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support This is a non-defining characteristic, and if estimates turn out to be correct, we could see half the world's population meet this criteria. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 14:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Abishe (
talk) 19:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I would note for those saying 'redundant to the list', that the list is also
up for deletion. Personally, I think it's justifiable to keep it by parallel with the rest of
Category:People with infectious diseases, but I recognise consensus seems to be against me here.
Robofish (
talk) 23:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I also doubt we need this. A list might be acceptable. If kept, the scope should be people who have become ill, not people who are currently ill, so that we do not need to remove those who recover.
Category:Deaths from COVID-19 would be an acceptable category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Supportplease delete as soon as possible. This is an appalling category, whose sole purpose is stigmatizing living victims of a frightful disease.
NedFausa (
talk) 00:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support - The category of deaths from the disease is fine, but simply listing the people who caught the virus is unnecessary, as many of them will survive it. –
numbermaniac 08:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support - Not only is it not defining, but because tests are still under development and may vary in accuracy, it's entirely possible that someone might have a false positive result. It's also possible that a positive result might be falsely reported, e.g. for political reasons.
BlackcurrantTea (
talk) 09:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Many people are asymptomatic, so having the disease is non-defining. For the same reason I think we should delete the list.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete category pertaining solely to diagnosis and not death per all others. CaradhrasAiguo (
leave language) 19:55, 16 March 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:Korean-American movement activists
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: Small category unlikely to grow.
TM 13:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, neither Korean-American movement nor Asian-American movement is a defining characteristic of these articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete -- unless the scope of the category is more precisely defined (with a rename) and it is populated with at least 3 more articles (making 5). I suspect the scope is intended to be
Category:Korean activists in America, but that may not quite define it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:39, 15 March 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:Social security ministries
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:merge as
WP:SOFTDELETE and redirect, due to low participation. –
FayenaticLondon 16:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Large overlap in content. No real definition of either category, and the scope of these ministries varies considerably over time.
Rathfelder (
talk) 08:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Query - isn't the former a subcat of the latter? Our article
Social affairs is not impressive but
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/policies/policy-areas/social-affairs the EU states "Social affairs covers decent jobs, social security, protection and inclusion, poverty reduction, gender equality, people with disabilities, the needs of children and families, young people, older people and minorities such as Roma, access to health, justice, education, culture and sport, volunteering and active citizenship".
Oculi (
talk) 08:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, there are currently (apart from an overview article) articles with social security ministries of only three countries (China, Jamaica and Zambia). Insofar social affairs ministries should be split,
Category:Labour ministries makes a better subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I dont much mind which way it goes. And if I ever get my act together I might try to populate Social security ministries, but at the moment the social affairs category has a wider scope.
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:44, 14 March 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:Foremost disciples
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.
Agreed --
Ten Principal Disciples seems to be the main article, but itself indicates that other traditions name 8 or 11 of them.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:43, 15 March 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:Wikipedia requested photographs in Smyrna, Georgia
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: Too narrow. Smyrna is a city of less than 60,000 in Cobb County, which currently has a total of 6 requests—hardly enough to warrant splitting the category. (Courtesy pinging the category's creator,
User:Mr. Guye) --
Black Falcon(
talk) 03:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support merge sounds reasonable enough. Follows convention, too. Thanks for the ping. —Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs) 16:50, 10 March 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:Actor-model stubs
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: Stub categories for a non-
defining intersection of two otherwise unrelated occupations. There are already stub templates for country-actor-stubs and country-model-stubs, which most people here are already templated for (and anybody who isn't should be) -- but there's no need to also have a stub category in place for the intersection of actor with model.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - yeah... there's no permanent
Category:Actor-models either. Ideally I'd like to see the templates go as well, to be replaced by the standard actor-stub or model-stub, or national subtypes of either/both.
Grutness...wha? 03:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. We certainly shouldn't have a stubcat without a corresponding permcat. Stubcats have got out of control - it would be better (e.g. to discourage busywork) to roll them all up into just one category for stubs; editors would still be able to find stubs on a particular topic by using category intersection or by using wikiproject (talk page) categorization. DexDor(talk) 12:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Having arrived on the scene when they were in just that, I'd definitely disagree. The category was already so big it was causing problems for everyone... and by now it would be an order of magnitude greater. The current system is sprawling, but it works very well thanks.
Grutness...wha? 02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)reply
What problems was it causing? Everyone?! Was that before category intersection (and stub-class talk page categorization) existed? DexDor(talk) 06:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)reply
It was slowing the servers down. Also, if you think that the Stub-Class talk page categorisation is equivalent to the stub system, then you need to read up on both. But in any case, this isn't really the forum to discuss it.
Grutness...wha? 03:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. (Also, trying to use category intersection to find a stub only works if there are categories assigned to an article - let alone inaccurate categories. Just saying.) Her Pegship (
I'm listening) 15:57, 15 March 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: All other subcategories of
Category:Literary scholars by writer ([edit:] except
Category:Homeric scholars, though I'd make the same case about that one) use the bare name of the author, not an adjective based on that name. "Shakespearean" is not in widespread use in academia and has a bit of an old-fashioned, pretentious feel. All of this also applies to
Category:Shakespearean scholarship.
blameless 19:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. "Shakespeare scholars" sounds wrong to my ears - "Shakespearean" is definitely the more widely used and known adjectival form - but more importantly the only reason it seems out of place is that with most of the other scholars there is no recognised adjectival form - there's no such word as "Dostoyevskian", "Ibsenic", "Iqbali" or "Poevian" (and before you mention in, both Lovecraftian and Kafkaesque have completely different connotations).
Grutness...wha? 03:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Clear common name. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:56, 11 March 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:Wikipedia community 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge. –
FayenaticLondon 14:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Unclear (e.g. the category text says "aa") and unnecessary. DexDor(talk) 20:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, lacking a definition of "community" templates as opposed to other templates.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:29, 10 March 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:Sportspeople from Oroville, California
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:keep. –
FayenaticLondon 10:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
feminist (
talk) 17:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - seven is enough for a category IMO, especially given that it's one that could expand later. There's now a second occupation category for the town's eight politicians with articles. Rename the occupation parent to
Category:People from Oroville, California, by occupation (with second comma) which seems to be the US standard naming system.
Grutness...wha? 03:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - per Namiba, the target category (Sportspeople from Oroville, California) has been adequately populated, the parent cateogry (People from Oroville, California, by occupation) has already been upmerged and deleted.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 19:10, 12 March 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.
Victorian-era ships of Canada and Australia
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, same rationale as in the discussion below, the Victorian era is unrelated to the history of other countries but the United Kingdom. However, this is a separate nomination because Canada and Australia are Commonwealth countries so the outcome may be less obvious.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: "the discussion below" is (I think)
this. DexDor(talk) 19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
feminist (
talk) 17:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
DexDor: are you okay with merging this discussion into the main discussion? I no longer expect that anyone will use the Commonwealth argument to treat these two countries differently.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:49, 10 March 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:People with coronavirus disease 2019
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: I don't believe that simply having the virus is
WP:DEFINING to the individual. The vast majority of people who catch it will recover, just like any cold or flu. Now, if they die from the virus, that's a different matter, and there's
this category. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support The disease is extremely short-lived, and besides being a maintenance nightmare, as nominator states, in no way is this
Wikipedia:Defining.
Greenman (
talk) 17:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
BLP applkies to recently dead people. This is because even though they are dead the privacy of living relatives can still be impacted.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support or at least rename as "People who were diagnosed with Covid-19" to make it a historical category.
84.43.93.98 (
talk) 10:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support as above, this is not a defining thing for which we will remember or identify Tom Hanks or Callum Hudson-Odoi in 20 years time, as for most cases it is a transient viral infection. The deaths category however is clearly something different.
2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:CD66:8E4:10BB:B558 (
talk) 14:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support This is a non-defining characteristic, and if estimates turn out to be correct, we could see half the world's population meet this criteria. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 14:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Abishe (
talk) 19:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I would note for those saying 'redundant to the list', that the list is also
up for deletion. Personally, I think it's justifiable to keep it by parallel with the rest of
Category:People with infectious diseases, but I recognise consensus seems to be against me here.
Robofish (
talk) 23:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I also doubt we need this. A list might be acceptable. If kept, the scope should be people who have become ill, not people who are currently ill, so that we do not need to remove those who recover.
Category:Deaths from COVID-19 would be an acceptable category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Supportplease delete as soon as possible. This is an appalling category, whose sole purpose is stigmatizing living victims of a frightful disease.
NedFausa (
talk) 00:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support - The category of deaths from the disease is fine, but simply listing the people who caught the virus is unnecessary, as many of them will survive it. –
numbermaniac 08:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support - Not only is it not defining, but because tests are still under development and may vary in accuracy, it's entirely possible that someone might have a false positive result. It's also possible that a positive result might be falsely reported, e.g. for political reasons.
BlackcurrantTea (
talk) 09:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Many people are asymptomatic, so having the disease is non-defining. For the same reason I think we should delete the list.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete category pertaining solely to diagnosis and not death per all others. CaradhrasAiguo (
leave language) 19:55, 16 March 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:Korean-American movement activists
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: Small category unlikely to grow.
TM 13:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, neither Korean-American movement nor Asian-American movement is a defining characteristic of these articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete -- unless the scope of the category is more precisely defined (with a rename) and it is populated with at least 3 more articles (making 5). I suspect the scope is intended to be
Category:Korean activists in America, but that may not quite define it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:39, 15 March 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:Social security ministries
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:merge as
WP:SOFTDELETE and redirect, due to low participation. –
FayenaticLondon 16:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Large overlap in content. No real definition of either category, and the scope of these ministries varies considerably over time.
Rathfelder (
talk) 08:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Query - isn't the former a subcat of the latter? Our article
Social affairs is not impressive but
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/policies/policy-areas/social-affairs the EU states "Social affairs covers decent jobs, social security, protection and inclusion, poverty reduction, gender equality, people with disabilities, the needs of children and families, young people, older people and minorities such as Roma, access to health, justice, education, culture and sport, volunteering and active citizenship".
Oculi (
talk) 08:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, there are currently (apart from an overview article) articles with social security ministries of only three countries (China, Jamaica and Zambia). Insofar social affairs ministries should be split,
Category:Labour ministries makes a better subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I dont much mind which way it goes. And if I ever get my act together I might try to populate Social security ministries, but at the moment the social affairs category has a wider scope.
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:44, 14 March 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:Foremost disciples
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.
Agreed --
Ten Principal Disciples seems to be the main article, but itself indicates that other traditions name 8 or 11 of them.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:43, 15 March 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:Wikipedia requested photographs in Smyrna, Georgia
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: Too narrow. Smyrna is a city of less than 60,000 in Cobb County, which currently has a total of 6 requests—hardly enough to warrant splitting the category. (Courtesy pinging the category's creator,
User:Mr. Guye) --
Black Falcon(
talk) 03:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support merge sounds reasonable enough. Follows convention, too. Thanks for the ping. —Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs) 16:50, 10 March 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:Actor-model stubs
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: Stub categories for a non-
defining intersection of two otherwise unrelated occupations. There are already stub templates for country-actor-stubs and country-model-stubs, which most people here are already templated for (and anybody who isn't should be) -- but there's no need to also have a stub category in place for the intersection of actor with model.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - yeah... there's no permanent
Category:Actor-models either. Ideally I'd like to see the templates go as well, to be replaced by the standard actor-stub or model-stub, or national subtypes of either/both.
Grutness...wha? 03:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. We certainly shouldn't have a stubcat without a corresponding permcat. Stubcats have got out of control - it would be better (e.g. to discourage busywork) to roll them all up into just one category for stubs; editors would still be able to find stubs on a particular topic by using category intersection or by using wikiproject (talk page) categorization. DexDor(talk) 12:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Having arrived on the scene when they were in just that, I'd definitely disagree. The category was already so big it was causing problems for everyone... and by now it would be an order of magnitude greater. The current system is sprawling, but it works very well thanks.
Grutness...wha? 02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)reply
What problems was it causing? Everyone?! Was that before category intersection (and stub-class talk page categorization) existed? DexDor(talk) 06:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)reply
It was slowing the servers down. Also, if you think that the Stub-Class talk page categorisation is equivalent to the stub system, then you need to read up on both. But in any case, this isn't really the forum to discuss it.
Grutness...wha? 03:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. (Also, trying to use category intersection to find a stub only works if there are categories assigned to an article - let alone inaccurate categories. Just saying.) Her Pegship (
I'm listening) 15:57, 15 March 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.