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. Note that
Category:Wendy (singer) songs is not being deleted; I have ensured that it is linked to and from the other current contents of the nominated category. –
FayenaticLondon 14:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: With only 5 related articles all already in their own songs subcategory, this is overcategorization per
WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'm surely not a fan of Korean pop and I'm even a little bit suspicious about the pushing of those pop biz products into Wikipedia (Are there strategically paid editors? Maybe even some hired freelancers outside South Korea? Lack of any proof.). But I'm a fan of logic (if not too formalistic) and I actually count 10(!) articles (two subcategories) and not only 5 related articles. This is not a SMALLCAT and surely no overcategorization. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Please read
WP:OCEPON. The song articles are already sufficiently categorized in their own category; audio and image files are not articles. There doesn't need to be a top level eponymous category for every music artist, so yes it is overcategorization and there is numerous precedent to support this. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The fact that
Category:Wendy (singer) songs contains a decent number of songs is wholly irrelevant because that category has not been nominated.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:47, 30 June 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:DYK/Pages/Documentation
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 14:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: All the templates in this category are also in the Administration one. The scope is much more clearer in that they belong to the administration side, as some of these have nothing to do with "documentation".
Gonnym (
talk) 20:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Duplicate as it seems. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:39, 30 June 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:DYK/Pages
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. –
FayenaticLondon 14:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: A category which has no real scope. All templates/pages in the category are already placed in one or more other Did you know categories so no need to upmerge anything.
Gonnym (
talk) 20:30, 24 June 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:Medieval Flemish nobility
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:split. –
FayenaticLondon 14:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Fair point, I fixed that in the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:11, 2 July 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.
Shia–Sunni secterian violence by country
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.
Political party leadership elections
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: to clarify that the scope is limited to political parties, and excludes both election to public office and elections to other types of non-governmental organisations such as trade unions, campaign groups and sporting organisations.
Discussion and survey of Political party leadership elections
add your comments and !votes here
Support, on the basis the categories I've looked at have been in the "Political parties" parent categories for a long time, indicating the original intention was to categorise political party leadership elections. I'm assuming the number of articles for other leadership elections are minimal and that the current categories haven't been emptied of significant number of non-political party election articles.
Sionk (
talk) 13:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
That's my reading of it too: that these cats were intended for political party leadership elections.
I have not done any removals, but I haven't checked for any other removals.
As to their leadership elections, I doubt we have any articles on trade union elections etc, and I reckon that the most likely errors would be with articles on elections to public office such as the example I posted above of
1897 Philippine Supreme Council elections. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 14:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Support – the proposed cat. names are much clearer in scope. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 14:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Support. I don't do much work with cats, but this sure makes sense to me. The current name is misleading and the proposed new name (while somewhat verbose) is certainly more descriptive. --
RoySmith(talk) 15:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Note. Yesterday I created and populated
Category:Political party leadership elections by year+subcats, with
by-decade and
by-century parents. That seemed to me to match the most likely outcome of this discussion ... but if there is not a consensus to rename the nominated categories as proposed, then I will speedily rename the by-year/decade/centuries cats. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 12:13, 25 June 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:Persons charged under the Hong Kong national security law
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 if Kept/Lean Toward Deletion This tends to get mentioned in the body of articles for Hong Kong politicians. I'm reluctant to categorize by indictment, especially with biographies of living people. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment (nom). I have no objection to converting this into a category for those convicted under the law, as discussed above.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 10:36, 24 June 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:Eldest sons of barons
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 significance of this category is that a hereditary baronage is usually inherited by the eldest son. However, the British peerage system no longer creates new hereditary peerages, but does create new
life peers. Those life peerages are by definition not hereditary, so the sons of those peers have no expectation of inheritance and so should not be included in his category. I encountered this category on
Paul Martin (Scottish politician), who is the son of a life peer. That article is one of those which should be purged from the category.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment This really should be renamed "Eldest sons of British hereditary barons" or something. Also, I'm concerned at how this category is basically impossible to define properly. Most hereditary barons are the sons of barons, and should, say, sons of earls who are also barons qualify?
Atchom (
talk) 03:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment, I looked into a few articles and those were all about people who have become a baron. This was contrary to my expectation, I had expected to find people in this category who had died before they had the chance to succeed their father.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete IMO we should not categorize by eldest sons of barons but by those who actually succeed (i.e.
Category:Barons). In most cases a son who died first would not be notable, or would be notable for other things. (
t ·
c) buidhe 20:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. @
Atchom,
Marcocapelle, and
Buidhe: thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think that the category currently contains 4 types of article:
Elder son of dead hereditary barons, who inherited their father's title (and hence are already categorised as Barons)
Elder sons of dead hereditary barons, who did NOT inherit their father's title
Elder sons of living hereditary barons, who expect to inherit their father's title
Elder sons of life peers, who by definition have no prospect of inheritance
If this category is kept, then types 1 & 4 should be excluded, leaving us with types 2&3. But as I noted in the nomination, that would require a rename to clarify the scope, and regular purging. And as Atchom notes, many higher titles (earldoms, viscountcies, dukedoms) come with an attached subsidary baronage. So there is a further fuzziness of scope.
However, I think that Buidhe makes a good case for deletion. Inheriting the title was defining in previous times when the barons were powerful, but non-inheritance is rarely defining. So I am leaning towards deletion ... but if we delete this one, should we also delete the rest of the subcats of
Category:Children of peers and peeresses? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I think deletion would not be appropriate because it does meet the requirement that a category is "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define". As to the point about power of barons etc, I think it's a red herring. What matters is distinctiveness as a class, not whether we think they matter socially. In any case, I don't see why they would be less defining than getting an OBE (category) or going to a minor public school (category). I still think that clarifying the scope of the category and splitting out the life peers is the most reasonable course.
Atchom (
talk) 04:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep but re-organise I am against deletion, as there is an obvious usefulness in having categories for people who do not succeed but are nevertheless prominent enough to have Wikipedia pages (the British equivalent of lesser nobility, which obviously constitute a distinct class which cannot be otherwise be captured on Wikipedia). But some of the category could be usefully merged, especially the eldest/youngest ones. I would propose the following system:
Children of British [dukes]
...
Children of British hereditary barons
Children of British life peers
In other words, the focus of these categories should not be about succession, which will be addressed on articles dealing with individual peerages, but on their class status, which in the UK context is of some importance. Relatedly and to illustrate my point, to the objection that children of life peers don't succeed to anything and should not have their own categories, I know of research under way which uses these categories to scrape for children of life peers to assess class mobility in the UK (based on the observation that children of life peers are vastly over-represented in British public life. This is not something that can be made into a Wikipedia list, but is obviously useful.
Atchom (
talk) 11:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The problem is that they don't. In the UK, the nobility, in the legal sense, only extends to the actual holder of a title, but their children hold special styles and are traditionally treated as a distinct social class. This is what would be lost if these categories were entirely nuked.
Atchom (
talk) 17:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
If kept (which I am still not in favour of, see below) then the category should at least be heavily purged, to remove all the barons, and ultimately merged to a single
Category:Children of British nobles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
In my understanding, the social class you are referring to is called the
gentry, for which we have
Category:Gentry. There could be room for a category for British gentry, similar to what is called nobility in other countries.
Place Clichy (
talk) 14:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete This is defining when it leads the son to be a Baron. If that doesn't happen for whatever reason, it's not a defining relationship. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I think that's really too narrow. Being the child of a peer is a defining relationship in the British context.
Atchom (
talk) 17:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
One of the very few articles in this category that is not about a baron is
Chris Cowdrey. I can't see how relevant it has been for him that he is the son of a baron.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
WP:CATDEF says a defining characteristic for people is "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define". In the UK context, being the child of a peer clearly meets that definition.
Atchom (
talk) 21:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Yet in the context of why people are notable and what sort of content their biographies mainly consist of, being the child of a peer has become a triviality.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)reply
It's no more trivial than most of the biographical categories, such as OBE recipients, attendees of X or Y school, or children of PMs. It meets all the requirements for categorization.
Atchom (
talk) 04:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, per RevelationDirect's rationale. Not all eldest sons inherit hereditary titles e.g. if they die before their parent. The sons we're interested in will inherit the title and be categorised as barons in their own right.
Sionk (
talk) 23:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep but purge and restructure. The child of a hereditary baron has the title Hon. It should be limited to hereditaries, but that can be explained in a headnote, to avoid clutter. The category should not be applied to children of members of the higher British peerage, even if they have a barony as a subsidiary title: they should be categorised according to the parent's title. Younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses have the title Lord John Smith and daughters Lady Jane Smith (also earl's daughters). Having a category is useful for explaining their title. Eldest sons of the higher peerage take their father's second title as a courtesy title. This needs a separate category. Such categories should be removed if they succeed to the peerage itself. And we may need a special category for holders of courtesy titles who die without inheriting. I suspect we have some of these already, but have not checked. I do not think we need categories for children of life peers. If we do, it should be a separate one.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Actually, the children of life peers have the title of Honourable as well. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is clear support to do something with this category, but the discussion lacks a clear consensus for which action in particular. I will be notifying
WikiProject England and
WikiProject Royalty and Nobility shortly to facilitate additional discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 10:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
That is a possible compromise if at least we purge articles about people who actually have become a baron.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)reply
As a first step I think this will have broad consensus.
Atchom (
talk) 16:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Baroncruft. Probably a lot of the articles in the category need to be deleted too, e.g.
Rupert Law, 9th Baron Ellenborough who isn't known for anything else than the fact that an ancestor received the title baron. --
Tataral (
talk) 00:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Eldest sons of British hereditary barons and purge. Ok, so first of all
Category:Children of peers and peeresses really needs a rename. Probably to something like
Category:Children of peers and peeresses in the United Kingdom per
Peerages in the United Kingdom. Following that up, I see there are Scottish as well as British members of that category. I haven't checked the nominated category, but based upon the discussion above, I'm presuming it is limited to British children (anyone not British should be pruned/re-categorised). (There are, per
Baron, barons in other countries, after all.) It should also be restricted to those children who have not (yet) received the title of Baron(ess). In other words, All Barons should be pruned from the cat. And of course, this appears to only be relevant to hereditary Barons, not to Life peers, so those too should be pruned. - jc37 15:11, 30 July 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:Music audio
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.
Keep: I don't think that all audio recordings are inherently always music. There's music that's not audio, and there's audio that isn't music.
Hyacinth (
talk) 19:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, considering that midi files are musical by definition, the "Music audio" category is pointless.
Aza24 (
talk) 04:15, 28 June 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:Heterocyclic compounds (1 ring)
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. –
FayenaticLondon 16:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Misuse of parentheses in page title, more natural this way. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 06:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename, the number of rings defines the categories, that should not be in brackets.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Support. Each is an intersection-cat of two topics that are quite different and each a notable categorizion in their own right, not a strict subcat or disamgibuation.
DMacks (
talk) 23:52, 14 July 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:Royal Institution Christmas Lectures
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. –
FayenaticLondon 14:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:48, 30 June 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:Missing in action
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 to include a noun, with a preference for ALT1 over the original nomination. Probably two subcategories need renaming too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename in some Fashion Prefer Alt 1, but original nom is also an improvement. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:36, 25 June 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:Articles created by Dhaneesh
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: These are articles created by
User:தனீஷ். Wikipedia does not categorize articles by which user created them. In part, this is to avoid implications of
content ownership.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:52, 30 June 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.
Works about Interpol
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 have never heard the usage of "the Interpol" before. It's always just "Interpol".
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename both per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:52, 30 June 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:Taos Institute
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
Taos Institute is a think tank in the United States and this 6 article category consists mostly of co-founders. Even that close association gets a passing mention in the body of 4 of those articles. (The other two,
Sheila McNamee and
Diana Whitney, do mention it in the intros but both those articles could use some editor attention.) The main article was deleted by consensus for being non-notable at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taos Institute. We have different standards for articles versus categories, but I don't see any evidence this is defining. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:53, 30 June 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:Members of The Club
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
The Club (dining club) is a gentlemen's supper club in London that is probably most famous for declining Winston Churchill as a member. The association is likely defining for club organizer
Joshua Reynolds but things drop off from there. The club generally gets a passing reference for founding members like essayist essayist
Samuel Johnson, financier
Anthony Chamier, and
Oliver Goldsmith. For the many later members, "The Club" is usually not mentioned at all like with lawyer
Charles Austin, Prime Minister
William Ewart Gladstone, and painter
Charles Lock Eastlake. There is already a chronological list of member right
here in the main article but I copied the alphabetical list from the category
right here in case another editor wants to start a stand-alone list. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Background We previously deleted membership categories for other Longdon gentlemen's clubs
here,
here, and
here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, just membership of an organization is hardly ever defining.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:54, 30 June 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Note that
Category:Wendy (singer) songs is not being deleted; I have ensured that it is linked to and from the other current contents of the nominated category. –
FayenaticLondon 14:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: With only 5 related articles all already in their own songs subcategory, this is overcategorization per
WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'm surely not a fan of Korean pop and I'm even a little bit suspicious about the pushing of those pop biz products into Wikipedia (Are there strategically paid editors? Maybe even some hired freelancers outside South Korea? Lack of any proof.). But I'm a fan of logic (if not too formalistic) and I actually count 10(!) articles (two subcategories) and not only 5 related articles. This is not a SMALLCAT and surely no overcategorization. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Please read
WP:OCEPON. The song articles are already sufficiently categorized in their own category; audio and image files are not articles. There doesn't need to be a top level eponymous category for every music artist, so yes it is overcategorization and there is numerous precedent to support this. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The fact that
Category:Wendy (singer) songs contains a decent number of songs is wholly irrelevant because that category has not been nominated.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:47, 30 June 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:DYK/Pages/Documentation
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 14:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: All the templates in this category are also in the Administration one. The scope is much more clearer in that they belong to the administration side, as some of these have nothing to do with "documentation".
Gonnym (
talk) 20:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Duplicate as it seems. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:39, 30 June 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:DYK/Pages
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. –
FayenaticLondon 14:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: A category which has no real scope. All templates/pages in the category are already placed in one or more other Did you know categories so no need to upmerge anything.
Gonnym (
talk) 20:30, 24 June 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:Medieval Flemish nobility
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:split. –
FayenaticLondon 14:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Fair point, I fixed that in the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:11, 2 July 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.
Shia–Sunni secterian violence by country
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.
Political party leadership elections
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: to clarify that the scope is limited to political parties, and excludes both election to public office and elections to other types of non-governmental organisations such as trade unions, campaign groups and sporting organisations.
Discussion and survey of Political party leadership elections
add your comments and !votes here
Support, on the basis the categories I've looked at have been in the "Political parties" parent categories for a long time, indicating the original intention was to categorise political party leadership elections. I'm assuming the number of articles for other leadership elections are minimal and that the current categories haven't been emptied of significant number of non-political party election articles.
Sionk (
talk) 13:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
That's my reading of it too: that these cats were intended for political party leadership elections.
I have not done any removals, but I haven't checked for any other removals.
As to their leadership elections, I doubt we have any articles on trade union elections etc, and I reckon that the most likely errors would be with articles on elections to public office such as the example I posted above of
1897 Philippine Supreme Council elections. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 14:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Support – the proposed cat. names are much clearer in scope. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 14:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Support. I don't do much work with cats, but this sure makes sense to me. The current name is misleading and the proposed new name (while somewhat verbose) is certainly more descriptive. --
RoySmith(talk) 15:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Note. Yesterday I created and populated
Category:Political party leadership elections by year+subcats, with
by-decade and
by-century parents. That seemed to me to match the most likely outcome of this discussion ... but if there is not a consensus to rename the nominated categories as proposed, then I will speedily rename the by-year/decade/centuries cats. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 12:13, 25 June 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:Persons charged under the Hong Kong national security law
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 if Kept/Lean Toward Deletion This tends to get mentioned in the body of articles for Hong Kong politicians. I'm reluctant to categorize by indictment, especially with biographies of living people. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment (nom). I have no objection to converting this into a category for those convicted under the law, as discussed above.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 10:36, 24 June 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:Eldest sons of barons
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 significance of this category is that a hereditary baronage is usually inherited by the eldest son. However, the British peerage system no longer creates new hereditary peerages, but does create new
life peers. Those life peerages are by definition not hereditary, so the sons of those peers have no expectation of inheritance and so should not be included in his category. I encountered this category on
Paul Martin (Scottish politician), who is the son of a life peer. That article is one of those which should be purged from the category.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment This really should be renamed "Eldest sons of British hereditary barons" or something. Also, I'm concerned at how this category is basically impossible to define properly. Most hereditary barons are the sons of barons, and should, say, sons of earls who are also barons qualify?
Atchom (
talk) 03:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment, I looked into a few articles and those were all about people who have become a baron. This was contrary to my expectation, I had expected to find people in this category who had died before they had the chance to succeed their father.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete IMO we should not categorize by eldest sons of barons but by those who actually succeed (i.e.
Category:Barons). In most cases a son who died first would not be notable, or would be notable for other things. (
t ·
c) buidhe 20:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. @
Atchom,
Marcocapelle, and
Buidhe: thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think that the category currently contains 4 types of article:
Elder son of dead hereditary barons, who inherited their father's title (and hence are already categorised as Barons)
Elder sons of dead hereditary barons, who did NOT inherit their father's title
Elder sons of living hereditary barons, who expect to inherit their father's title
Elder sons of life peers, who by definition have no prospect of inheritance
If this category is kept, then types 1 & 4 should be excluded, leaving us with types 2&3. But as I noted in the nomination, that would require a rename to clarify the scope, and regular purging. And as Atchom notes, many higher titles (earldoms, viscountcies, dukedoms) come with an attached subsidary baronage. So there is a further fuzziness of scope.
However, I think that Buidhe makes a good case for deletion. Inheriting the title was defining in previous times when the barons were powerful, but non-inheritance is rarely defining. So I am leaning towards deletion ... but if we delete this one, should we also delete the rest of the subcats of
Category:Children of peers and peeresses? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I think deletion would not be appropriate because it does meet the requirement that a category is "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define". As to the point about power of barons etc, I think it's a red herring. What matters is distinctiveness as a class, not whether we think they matter socially. In any case, I don't see why they would be less defining than getting an OBE (category) or going to a minor public school (category). I still think that clarifying the scope of the category and splitting out the life peers is the most reasonable course.
Atchom (
talk) 04:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep but re-organise I am against deletion, as there is an obvious usefulness in having categories for people who do not succeed but are nevertheless prominent enough to have Wikipedia pages (the British equivalent of lesser nobility, which obviously constitute a distinct class which cannot be otherwise be captured on Wikipedia). But some of the category could be usefully merged, especially the eldest/youngest ones. I would propose the following system:
Children of British [dukes]
...
Children of British hereditary barons
Children of British life peers
In other words, the focus of these categories should not be about succession, which will be addressed on articles dealing with individual peerages, but on their class status, which in the UK context is of some importance. Relatedly and to illustrate my point, to the objection that children of life peers don't succeed to anything and should not have their own categories, I know of research under way which uses these categories to scrape for children of life peers to assess class mobility in the UK (based on the observation that children of life peers are vastly over-represented in British public life. This is not something that can be made into a Wikipedia list, but is obviously useful.
Atchom (
talk) 11:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The problem is that they don't. In the UK, the nobility, in the legal sense, only extends to the actual holder of a title, but their children hold special styles and are traditionally treated as a distinct social class. This is what would be lost if these categories were entirely nuked.
Atchom (
talk) 17:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
If kept (which I am still not in favour of, see below) then the category should at least be heavily purged, to remove all the barons, and ultimately merged to a single
Category:Children of British nobles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
In my understanding, the social class you are referring to is called the
gentry, for which we have
Category:Gentry. There could be room for a category for British gentry, similar to what is called nobility in other countries.
Place Clichy (
talk) 14:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete This is defining when it leads the son to be a Baron. If that doesn't happen for whatever reason, it's not a defining relationship. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I think that's really too narrow. Being the child of a peer is a defining relationship in the British context.
Atchom (
talk) 17:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
One of the very few articles in this category that is not about a baron is
Chris Cowdrey. I can't see how relevant it has been for him that he is the son of a baron.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
WP:CATDEF says a defining characteristic for people is "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define". In the UK context, being the child of a peer clearly meets that definition.
Atchom (
talk) 21:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Yet in the context of why people are notable and what sort of content their biographies mainly consist of, being the child of a peer has become a triviality.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)reply
It's no more trivial than most of the biographical categories, such as OBE recipients, attendees of X or Y school, or children of PMs. It meets all the requirements for categorization.
Atchom (
talk) 04:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, per RevelationDirect's rationale. Not all eldest sons inherit hereditary titles e.g. if they die before their parent. The sons we're interested in will inherit the title and be categorised as barons in their own right.
Sionk (
talk) 23:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep but purge and restructure. The child of a hereditary baron has the title Hon. It should be limited to hereditaries, but that can be explained in a headnote, to avoid clutter. The category should not be applied to children of members of the higher British peerage, even if they have a barony as a subsidiary title: they should be categorised according to the parent's title. Younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses have the title Lord John Smith and daughters Lady Jane Smith (also earl's daughters). Having a category is useful for explaining their title. Eldest sons of the higher peerage take their father's second title as a courtesy title. This needs a separate category. Such categories should be removed if they succeed to the peerage itself. And we may need a special category for holders of courtesy titles who die without inheriting. I suspect we have some of these already, but have not checked. I do not think we need categories for children of life peers. If we do, it should be a separate one.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Actually, the children of life peers have the title of Honourable as well. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is clear support to do something with this category, but the discussion lacks a clear consensus for which action in particular. I will be notifying
WikiProject England and
WikiProject Royalty and Nobility shortly to facilitate additional discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 10:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
That is a possible compromise if at least we purge articles about people who actually have become a baron.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)reply
As a first step I think this will have broad consensus.
Atchom (
talk) 16:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Baroncruft. Probably a lot of the articles in the category need to be deleted too, e.g.
Rupert Law, 9th Baron Ellenborough who isn't known for anything else than the fact that an ancestor received the title baron. --
Tataral (
talk) 00:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Eldest sons of British hereditary barons and purge. Ok, so first of all
Category:Children of peers and peeresses really needs a rename. Probably to something like
Category:Children of peers and peeresses in the United Kingdom per
Peerages in the United Kingdom. Following that up, I see there are Scottish as well as British members of that category. I haven't checked the nominated category, but based upon the discussion above, I'm presuming it is limited to British children (anyone not British should be pruned/re-categorised). (There are, per
Baron, barons in other countries, after all.) It should also be restricted to those children who have not (yet) received the title of Baron(ess). In other words, All Barons should be pruned from the cat. And of course, this appears to only be relevant to hereditary Barons, not to Life peers, so those too should be pruned. - jc37 15:11, 30 July 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:Music audio
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.
Keep: I don't think that all audio recordings are inherently always music. There's music that's not audio, and there's audio that isn't music.
Hyacinth (
talk) 19:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, considering that midi files are musical by definition, the "Music audio" category is pointless.
Aza24 (
talk) 04:15, 28 June 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:Heterocyclic compounds (1 ring)
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. –
FayenaticLondon 16:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Misuse of parentheses in page title, more natural this way. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 06:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename, the number of rings defines the categories, that should not be in brackets.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Support. Each is an intersection-cat of two topics that are quite different and each a notable categorizion in their own right, not a strict subcat or disamgibuation.
DMacks (
talk) 23:52, 14 July 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:Royal Institution Christmas Lectures
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. –
FayenaticLondon 14:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:48, 30 June 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:Missing in action
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 to include a noun, with a preference for ALT1 over the original nomination. Probably two subcategories need renaming too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename in some Fashion Prefer Alt 1, but original nom is also an improvement. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:36, 25 June 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:Articles created by Dhaneesh
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: These are articles created by
User:தனீஷ். Wikipedia does not categorize articles by which user created them. In part, this is to avoid implications of
content ownership.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:52, 30 June 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.
Works about Interpol
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 have never heard the usage of "the Interpol" before. It's always just "Interpol".
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename both per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:52, 30 June 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:Taos Institute
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
Taos Institute is a think tank in the United States and this 6 article category consists mostly of co-founders. Even that close association gets a passing mention in the body of 4 of those articles. (The other two,
Sheila McNamee and
Diana Whitney, do mention it in the intros but both those articles could use some editor attention.) The main article was deleted by consensus for being non-notable at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taos Institute. We have different standards for articles versus categories, but I don't see any evidence this is defining. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:53, 30 June 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:Members of The Club
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
The Club (dining club) is a gentlemen's supper club in London that is probably most famous for declining Winston Churchill as a member. The association is likely defining for club organizer
Joshua Reynolds but things drop off from there. The club generally gets a passing reference for founding members like essayist essayist
Samuel Johnson, financier
Anthony Chamier, and
Oliver Goldsmith. For the many later members, "The Club" is usually not mentioned at all like with lawyer
Charles Austin, Prime Minister
William Ewart Gladstone, and painter
Charles Lock Eastlake. There is already a chronological list of member right
here in the main article but I copied the alphabetical list from the category
right here in case another editor wants to start a stand-alone list. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Background We previously deleted membership categories for other Longdon gentlemen's clubs
here,
here, and
here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, just membership of an organization is hardly ever defining.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:54, 30 June 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.