- 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- The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. See
this edit.
Izno (
talk)
20:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Malay descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Javanese descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Minangkabau descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of people, also as suggested here. The list List of Malay Singaporeans already exists so the category is strictly necessary per WP:LISTIFY-- Prisencolin ( talk) 19:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose, it does not make sense to discuss these until we know the outcome of the other discussion. If Chinese descent is not going to be deleted, Malay descent has even less reason to be deleted.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm banking more on the WP:INDISCRIMINATE claim here.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose per Marcocapelle. Let the discussions in the Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_21#Category:Singaporean_people_of_Chinese_descent runs its course first. – robertsky ( talk) 04:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- 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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of people (sub cats may be valid as they are smaller and more specific in scope so I didn't put them up), not to mention there isn't even a universally used name, i.e. differs between Mexican and Chicano. There's also a WP:SYNTH issue where people who are not discussed adjacent to one another in reliable sources are thrown together in a single category in a way that may not be realistic.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 19:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose, this nomination randomly singles out one category from a bigger tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Did you read the full nomination? I'm saying the sub categories can continue to exist because they are more specific in scope, perhaps a better nomination is to get a bot to empty the category.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
20:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I read it. You are nominating for deletion, not for containerization. In other words if this goes through it will create a hole in Category:American people of North American descent and the subcategories of the nominated category will be orphaned. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Did you read the full nomination? I'm saying the sub categories can continue to exist because they are more specific in scope, perhaps a better nomination is to get a bot to empty the category.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
20:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- You just added "or containerize". Ok then I am adding Procedural oppose deletion. Neutral about containerization. I would like to know why the subcategories by occupation have not been nominated, doesn't the same rationale apply to these?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's a different discussion that I may propose at a later date, but at the moment, I'm just contending that this is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of persons who are not normally discussed together.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 21:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- You just added "or containerize". Ok then I am adding Procedural oppose deletion. Neutral about containerization. I would like to know why the subcategories by occupation have not been nominated, doesn't the same rationale apply to these?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete They prefer to identify themselves as Hispanic and Latino Americans.– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ok shouldn't then the category be renamed accordingly (and possibly merged with other Latin American siblings), rather than deleted? Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ LaundryPizza03: So you have decided that Mexican Americans prefer to be called Hispanic or Latino over Chicano or Mexican American? I'm sorry, but I don't think you realize how deeply offensive it is to erase the nuances of all the various Latin American ethnicities in the U.S. (Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans, etc.) and call us all "Hispanics." Garcia1865 ( talk) 20:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ Garcia1865: Sorry for the racist remark, I didn't know that. I've withdrawn my !vote and now favor keep because we have an article about Mexican Americans. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ LaundryPizza03: totally fine! Always good to learn something new :) Garcia1865 ( talk) 22:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- We should delete all descent in general.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 18:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: This is a highly unusual deletion request (why has no other ethnicity been proposed for deletion except this one?) I would support
WP:MV and a redirect to
Mexican-American people to match one like
African-American people, but certainly not deletion.
Garcia1865 (
talk)
20:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ Garcia1865: Numerous categories in fact have been put up for deletion within the last few days.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 06:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Marcocapelle. The nominator singles out one category out of a larger category tree. The rationale seems incomprehensible to me. Dimadick ( talk) 12:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keepThis makes absolutely no sense. 37 million American people of Mexican descent and all of a sudden it’s too catch-all? What’s next? Getting rid of American people of Scottish descent just because it’s in the United Kingdom? Trillfendi ( talk) 21:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Marcocapelle and Triffendi. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The cateogry is clearly legitimate. Who does or does not belong is worth considering with clear reasonable inclusion limits. Although I still think Henry B. Eyring belongs in this category. His father was born in Mexico, where 3 generations of his family had gone to settle, and one of his ancestors at the time of his death went by the name Enrique Eyring. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Part of a clearly defined category tree used for people all over the world. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Neopaganism to Category:Modern Paganism
- Nominator's rationale: rename per article Modern Paganism. Technically this could have been nominated at WP:CFDS but it is quite a big tree so better have a full discussion about the top category first. If this goes through, the rest of the tree can be speedied for sure. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agree for reasons proposed. --- FULBERT ( talk) 16:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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: merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:History of religion by period to Category:Religion by period
- Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories seem to have the same scope. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Looks identical to me. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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: no consensus to delete as nominated, but if proposed there could be a consensus for a resolution of what to do with the contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is a wholly subjective category that does not have solid (or, really, any) inclusion criteria. Subcategories seem rather arbitrary and nonsensical: the category "Ignorance", for example, is not a category of things that are ignorant, but rather applications of the philosophical and legal concept of ignorance (it contains Ignotum per ignotius and Lambert v. California).
I cannot think of anything that's a "barrier to critical thinking" that wouldn't fit in Category:Fallacies, or some other subcategory. jp× g 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
CommentOppose as nominated, merging or renaming may be better options than plain deletion, in order to keep (most of) the content together. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)- Delete. The contents all seem otherwise categorized. I concur that the category is too vague. -- Bsherr ( talk) 22:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as nominated, merging or renaming may be better options than plain deletion. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: @ Justus Nussbaum: I would advise you to take a closer look through these subcategories and see if you really think there is content worth retaining. Category:Ignorance above is a good example. This is not a category of things that are ignorant, it's a category of legal doctrines and philosophical concepts relating to the idea of uncertain knowledge: Ignorantia juris non excusat is not a "barrier to critical thinking". Likewise, Category:Ambiguity contains Category:Optical illusions. Category:Stereotypes includes Starving artist and Geek. Are starving artists and geeks "barriers to critical thinking"? jp× g 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Agree, it would be better to have the articles Ignorance, Ambiguity and Stereotype in this category instead of the respective subcategories, but that is a matter of household cleaning. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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: rename, as I take the "keep" votes to be opposing deletion rather than committed to "toponymy". – Fayenatic London 22:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: At time of this comment, the 5 pages in this project category are two naming conventions, one style essay about geographic names in South Asia, one article talk page archive, and one failed WikiProject proposal. It's definitely not serving much purpose now, as it is undercategorized and underpopulated, and I am skeptical that it is useful. If we do keep it, we'd need to decide its proper scope. Bsherr ( talk) 01:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: I see no reason to delete it. "Its proper scope" is meta-content about toponymy.
Apokrif (
talk)
02:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- There's no main page on that topic. Where would you subcategorize it? Presently it is only a subcategory of WikiProject Georgraphy. -- Bsherr ( talk) 21:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have added Category:Wikipedia naming conventions as a second parent category. That could potentially serve as a merge target. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Eventually a merge per Marcocapelle might suit. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedia naming conventions (geographic names) to match Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and other members of Category:Wikipedia naming conventions - Also per Toponymy: "Toponym is the general term for a proper name of any geographical feature." - I'm also fine with UpMerge/Delete to Category:Wikipedia naming conventions. - jc37 17:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Rio Branco
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Rio Branco
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Officers of the Order of Rio Branco
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Commanders of the Order of Rio Branco
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:OCAWARD)
- When high ranking visitors come to Brazil or vice versa, the Order of Rio Branco is given out as souvenir. Secretary Ban Ki-moon, Princess Madeleine, and Vladimir Vasiliev (dancer) are not remotely defined by this award. (There are also some already prominent Brazilians in these categories like Cafu, Luiz Bevilacqua, and Silvio Barbato.) With both groups, the award tends to get mentioned in passing with other Honours so it doesn't seem defining. All the category contents are now listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are listed right here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete non-defining to the recipients. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Unlike some others, this order does seem to be used to honour those who have actually achieved something. This seems to be part of a campaign (mostly by the same editors) to get rid of all categorisation by awards, which is clearly ridiculous. Who says they're "non-defining"? Some are; many aren't. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Bavarian Order of Merit
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD)
- The Bavarian Order of Merit is a state-wide award for Bavaria Germany but it feels very local: recipients include a sister who retired from running a children's home ( source), a long-term volunteer for senior citizens, a politician who supported the Red Cross, a bishop who provides excellent pastoral care ( source), and dozens of professors from the Technical University of Munich ( source).
- Those all sound like great people but most don't have Wikipedia articles to categorize because they are likely non-notable so, of the 5,000+ recipients, we only have 364 articles in this category. Those articles don't treat the awared as defining like with footballer Thomas Müller, politician Maria Probst and Princess Christa of Thurn and Taxis. All the category recipients are now in a collapsible list right here in the main article for any reader intersted in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Background We deleted similar statewide awards from Saxony and Kentucy here and here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete a non-defining to the recipients category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Unlike some others, this order does seem to be used to honour those who have actually achieved something. The fact that many of the recipients are not notable enough for articles is utterly immaterial; you could say the same about most of the Category:Members of the Order of the British Empire. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be categorised or it isn't defining. 365 people appear in this category. Many recipients therefore clearly are notable enough for articles. This seems to be part of a campaign (mostly by the same editors) to get rid of all categorisation by awards, which is clearly ridiculous. Who says they're "non-defining"? Some are; many aren't. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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: withdrawn. See
this edit.
Izno (
talk)
20:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Malay descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Javanese descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Minangkabau descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of people, also as suggested here. The list List of Malay Singaporeans already exists so the category is strictly necessary per WP:LISTIFY-- Prisencolin ( talk) 19:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose, it does not make sense to discuss these until we know the outcome of the other discussion. If Chinese descent is not going to be deleted, Malay descent has even less reason to be deleted.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm banking more on the WP:INDISCRIMINATE claim here.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose per Marcocapelle. Let the discussions in the Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_21#Category:Singaporean_people_of_Chinese_descent runs its course first. – robertsky ( talk) 04:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- 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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of people (sub cats may be valid as they are smaller and more specific in scope so I didn't put them up), not to mention there isn't even a universally used name, i.e. differs between Mexican and Chicano. There's also a WP:SYNTH issue where people who are not discussed adjacent to one another in reliable sources are thrown together in a single category in a way that may not be realistic.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 19:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose, this nomination randomly singles out one category from a bigger tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Did you read the full nomination? I'm saying the sub categories can continue to exist because they are more specific in scope, perhaps a better nomination is to get a bot to empty the category.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
20:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I read it. You are nominating for deletion, not for containerization. In other words if this goes through it will create a hole in Category:American people of North American descent and the subcategories of the nominated category will be orphaned. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Did you read the full nomination? I'm saying the sub categories can continue to exist because they are more specific in scope, perhaps a better nomination is to get a bot to empty the category.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
20:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- You just added "or containerize". Ok then I am adding Procedural oppose deletion. Neutral about containerization. I would like to know why the subcategories by occupation have not been nominated, doesn't the same rationale apply to these?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's a different discussion that I may propose at a later date, but at the moment, I'm just contending that this is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of persons who are not normally discussed together.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 21:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- You just added "or containerize". Ok then I am adding Procedural oppose deletion. Neutral about containerization. I would like to know why the subcategories by occupation have not been nominated, doesn't the same rationale apply to these?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete They prefer to identify themselves as Hispanic and Latino Americans.– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ok shouldn't then the category be renamed accordingly (and possibly merged with other Latin American siblings), rather than deleted? Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ LaundryPizza03: So you have decided that Mexican Americans prefer to be called Hispanic or Latino over Chicano or Mexican American? I'm sorry, but I don't think you realize how deeply offensive it is to erase the nuances of all the various Latin American ethnicities in the U.S. (Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans, etc.) and call us all "Hispanics." Garcia1865 ( talk) 20:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ Garcia1865: Sorry for the racist remark, I didn't know that. I've withdrawn my !vote and now favor keep because we have an article about Mexican Americans. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ LaundryPizza03: totally fine! Always good to learn something new :) Garcia1865 ( talk) 22:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- We should delete all descent in general.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 18:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: This is a highly unusual deletion request (why has no other ethnicity been proposed for deletion except this one?) I would support
WP:MV and a redirect to
Mexican-American people to match one like
African-American people, but certainly not deletion.
Garcia1865 (
talk)
20:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ Garcia1865: Numerous categories in fact have been put up for deletion within the last few days.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 06:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Marcocapelle. The nominator singles out one category out of a larger category tree. The rationale seems incomprehensible to me. Dimadick ( talk) 12:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keepThis makes absolutely no sense. 37 million American people of Mexican descent and all of a sudden it’s too catch-all? What’s next? Getting rid of American people of Scottish descent just because it’s in the United Kingdom? Trillfendi ( talk) 21:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Marcocapelle and Triffendi. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The cateogry is clearly legitimate. Who does or does not belong is worth considering with clear reasonable inclusion limits. Although I still think Henry B. Eyring belongs in this category. His father was born in Mexico, where 3 generations of his family had gone to settle, and one of his ancestors at the time of his death went by the name Enrique Eyring. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Part of a clearly defined category tree used for people all over the world. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Neopaganism to Category:Modern Paganism
- Nominator's rationale: rename per article Modern Paganism. Technically this could have been nominated at WP:CFDS but it is quite a big tree so better have a full discussion about the top category first. If this goes through, the rest of the tree can be speedied for sure. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agree for reasons proposed. --- FULBERT ( talk) 16:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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: merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:History of religion by period to Category:Religion by period
- Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories seem to have the same scope. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Looks identical to me. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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: no consensus to delete as nominated, but if proposed there could be a consensus for a resolution of what to do with the contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is a wholly subjective category that does not have solid (or, really, any) inclusion criteria. Subcategories seem rather arbitrary and nonsensical: the category "Ignorance", for example, is not a category of things that are ignorant, but rather applications of the philosophical and legal concept of ignorance (it contains Ignotum per ignotius and Lambert v. California).
I cannot think of anything that's a "barrier to critical thinking" that wouldn't fit in Category:Fallacies, or some other subcategory. jp× g 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
CommentOppose as nominated, merging or renaming may be better options than plain deletion, in order to keep (most of) the content together. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)- Delete. The contents all seem otherwise categorized. I concur that the category is too vague. -- Bsherr ( talk) 22:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as nominated, merging or renaming may be better options than plain deletion. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: @ Justus Nussbaum: I would advise you to take a closer look through these subcategories and see if you really think there is content worth retaining. Category:Ignorance above is a good example. This is not a category of things that are ignorant, it's a category of legal doctrines and philosophical concepts relating to the idea of uncertain knowledge: Ignorantia juris non excusat is not a "barrier to critical thinking". Likewise, Category:Ambiguity contains Category:Optical illusions. Category:Stereotypes includes Starving artist and Geek. Are starving artists and geeks "barriers to critical thinking"? jp× g 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Agree, it would be better to have the articles Ignorance, Ambiguity and Stereotype in this category instead of the respective subcategories, but that is a matter of household cleaning. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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: rename, as I take the "keep" votes to be opposing deletion rather than committed to "toponymy". – Fayenatic London 22:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: At time of this comment, the 5 pages in this project category are two naming conventions, one style essay about geographic names in South Asia, one article talk page archive, and one failed WikiProject proposal. It's definitely not serving much purpose now, as it is undercategorized and underpopulated, and I am skeptical that it is useful. If we do keep it, we'd need to decide its proper scope. Bsherr ( talk) 01:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: I see no reason to delete it. "Its proper scope" is meta-content about toponymy.
Apokrif (
talk)
02:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- There's no main page on that topic. Where would you subcategorize it? Presently it is only a subcategory of WikiProject Georgraphy. -- Bsherr ( talk) 21:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have added Category:Wikipedia naming conventions as a second parent category. That could potentially serve as a merge target. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Eventually a merge per Marcocapelle might suit. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedia naming conventions (geographic names) to match Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and other members of Category:Wikipedia naming conventions - Also per Toponymy: "Toponym is the general term for a proper name of any geographical feature." - I'm also fine with UpMerge/Delete to Category:Wikipedia naming conventions. - jc37 17:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Rio Branco
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Rio Branco
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Officers of the Order of Rio Branco
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Commanders of the Order of Rio Branco
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:OCAWARD)
- When high ranking visitors come to Brazil or vice versa, the Order of Rio Branco is given out as souvenir. Secretary Ban Ki-moon, Princess Madeleine, and Vladimir Vasiliev (dancer) are not remotely defined by this award. (There are also some already prominent Brazilians in these categories like Cafu, Luiz Bevilacqua, and Silvio Barbato.) With both groups, the award tends to get mentioned in passing with other Honours so it doesn't seem defining. All the category contents are now listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are listed right here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete non-defining to the recipients. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Unlike some others, this order does seem to be used to honour those who have actually achieved something. This seems to be part of a campaign (mostly by the same editors) to get rid of all categorisation by awards, which is clearly ridiculous. Who says they're "non-defining"? Some are; many aren't. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Bavarian Order of Merit
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD)
- The Bavarian Order of Merit is a state-wide award for Bavaria Germany but it feels very local: recipients include a sister who retired from running a children's home ( source), a long-term volunteer for senior citizens, a politician who supported the Red Cross, a bishop who provides excellent pastoral care ( source), and dozens of professors from the Technical University of Munich ( source).
- Those all sound like great people but most don't have Wikipedia articles to categorize because they are likely non-notable so, of the 5,000+ recipients, we only have 364 articles in this category. Those articles don't treat the awared as defining like with footballer Thomas Müller, politician Maria Probst and Princess Christa of Thurn and Taxis. All the category recipients are now in a collapsible list right here in the main article for any reader intersted in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Background We deleted similar statewide awards from Saxony and Kentucy here and here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 14:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete a non-defining to the recipients category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Unlike some others, this order does seem to be used to honour those who have actually achieved something. The fact that many of the recipients are not notable enough for articles is utterly immaterial; you could say the same about most of the Category:Members of the Order of the British Empire. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be categorised or it isn't defining. 365 people appear in this category. Many recipients therefore clearly are notable enough for articles. This seems to be part of a campaign (mostly by the same editors) to get rid of all categorisation by awards, which is clearly ridiculous. Who says they're "non-defining"? Some are; many aren't. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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.