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:WP:SMALLCAT. Merge all as listed above. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 14:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Don't merge to tourist attractions. While a sports venue may be a tourist attraction, it is not so by default.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Read
WP:SMALLCAT again...it says not to have small categories "with no potential for growth." As long as the city is standing, there is always potential for more venues and the category's growth.
Tom Danson (
talk) 01:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, but manually to Tourist attractions with sufficient article support — growth potential is relative. We expect some indication that there is actual growth, such as census data. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 08:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
OK, what kind of census data would be enough to satisfy you?
Tom Danson (
talk) 12:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 09:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge for Now with no objection to recreating if I'm proved wrong and any ever get up to 5+ articles (not counting redirects). -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 20:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 22:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep these are mid-sized cities in the US context and I think a motivated editor could easily write articles on several sports venues. As such, I think there is real potential for growth in these instances.--
User:Namiba 22:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Nonsense. These are comparatively small US cities, primarily commuter suburbs. They are not going to suddenly reach a dozen sports venues, even adding in elementary and secondary school venues. Nobody is likely to start another university in any of them. They may have a few minor league sports, but are not likely to attract a new major sport. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 01:39, 22 January 2023 (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:American dissidents
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: This category is far too vague to be meaningful (A dissident is any opponent of official policy) and it's not a categorization often used to describe Americans, so calling people it almost certainly violates
WP:BLPCAT.
JeffUK 22:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment the 37 subcategories in
Category:Dissidents by nationality might need to be considered as well (although maybe not with this discussion). As always on Wikipedia, it's easier to create a mess than to fix one.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 00:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Good point, we had the ridiculous situation of
Arif_Ahmed_(philosopher) , an MBE and Cambridge University Lecturer (the definition of 'the establishment') being labelled an English Dissident.
JeffUK 07:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, it is not a term used in democratic states.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep.Comment. This appear to be valid category based on coverage in RS
[1],
[2], etc. Basically, there is dissent in America. Saying that, one should check if the individual entries belong to this category.
My very best wishes (
talk) 17:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
One book title does not make it a defining term for individuals. "Activists" (in the subtitle of thd book) is a by far more common term.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indeed, it appears that defining descriptions of all people included to this category are different, i.e. "activist" or others. One can reasonably argue this category is redundant and promotes certain POV. Is it helpful for navigation? If these people have been described at least in some sources as "dissidents", it might be (one can be an activist and be described as a dissident at the same time). After looking at specific pages, it seems such assignment usually is at best questionable...
My very best wishes (
talk) 18:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's a category that makes sense beyond simply "activists" for individuals whose political activity brings them into direct conflict with government power and therefore results in them being imprisoned, targeted in other various ways by organs of the state, or going into exile. This is just as coherent and valid a concept for democratic states as it is for non-democratic states.
AbbotOfLeibowitz (
talk) 02:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
This is not a discussion about the concept, the issue is whether people in this category are commonly labeled as dissidents. In democratic countries that label is hardly ever used. The content of the category boils down to
WP:OR.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The problem is that this category is either entirely irrelevant if you look for people actually labelled 'American Dissidents' by multiple reliable sources (as there are practically none) or far too vague to be useful; people "targeted in other various ways by organs of the state" includes, pretty much everyone who's ever been arrested or fined at any sort of protest (thousands of people) and the likes of e.g. 'First Amendment Auditors' on YouTube are 'dissidents' by this definition which is clearly not correct.
JeffUK 08:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I was initially leaning towards "keep", but when I checked the category, pretty much every one of the people in it don't really belong. I can't find any reasonable way to define dissident that includes Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky or Charles Lindbergh as "dissidents". --
Jayron32 15:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete — and after deletion, we'll nominate all the other dissident by country categories. As always on Wikipedia, it's easier to create a mess than to fix one. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 16:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I think some '{nation} dissidents' are worth keeping on the basis there may be notable people who are reliably described as dissidents, for example there's no harm in those on the
List of Chinese dissidents being categorised as such.
JeffUK 16:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete — It's a mess. Use of term easy to verify in totalitarian states, but impossible to adequately verify for somewhere like US, so ends up as highly subjective. There was probably RSs calling various individuals "cool" but we wouldn't want a category "American cool people", and that's basically the level here.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 06:59, 20 January 2023 (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:Special edition strike paper
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.
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.
Category:Television series shot in Gilgit-Baltistan
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.
Cultural depictions of cannibals
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.
I do not think we need to discuss them one by one, if this proposal goes ahead we can probably do a mass nomination. We do need to purge them one by one, however, and that will be an enormous job. Only renaming the categories and not checking the content would not solve the main problem: depictions categories contain many articles that are not defining for the subject.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:57, 17 January 2023 (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 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:Twin people from Puerto Rico
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.
Support - this could be speedied.
Oculi (
talk) 18:54, 17 January 2023 (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:Pages with Wikisource text link
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: This might make sense if it were a tracking category populated by a template, but it is instead added manually to one article and hence server no useful function.
* Pppery *it has begun... 01:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. Merge all as listed above. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 14:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Don't merge to tourist attractions. While a sports venue may be a tourist attraction, it is not so by default.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Read
WP:SMALLCAT again...it says not to have small categories "with no potential for growth." As long as the city is standing, there is always potential for more venues and the category's growth.
Tom Danson (
talk) 01:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, but manually to Tourist attractions with sufficient article support — growth potential is relative. We expect some indication that there is actual growth, such as census data. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 08:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
OK, what kind of census data would be enough to satisfy you?
Tom Danson (
talk) 12:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 09:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge for Now with no objection to recreating if I'm proved wrong and any ever get up to 5+ articles (not counting redirects). -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 20:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 22:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep these are mid-sized cities in the US context and I think a motivated editor could easily write articles on several sports venues. As such, I think there is real potential for growth in these instances.--
User:Namiba 22:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Nonsense. These are comparatively small US cities, primarily commuter suburbs. They are not going to suddenly reach a dozen sports venues, even adding in elementary and secondary school venues. Nobody is likely to start another university in any of them. They may have a few minor league sports, but are not likely to attract a new major sport. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 01:39, 22 January 2023 (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:American dissidents
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: This category is far too vague to be meaningful (A dissident is any opponent of official policy) and it's not a categorization often used to describe Americans, so calling people it almost certainly violates
WP:BLPCAT.
JeffUK 22:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment the 37 subcategories in
Category:Dissidents by nationality might need to be considered as well (although maybe not with this discussion). As always on Wikipedia, it's easier to create a mess than to fix one.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 00:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Good point, we had the ridiculous situation of
Arif_Ahmed_(philosopher) , an MBE and Cambridge University Lecturer (the definition of 'the establishment') being labelled an English Dissident.
JeffUK 07:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, it is not a term used in democratic states.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep.Comment. This appear to be valid category based on coverage in RS
[1],
[2], etc. Basically, there is dissent in America. Saying that, one should check if the individual entries belong to this category.
My very best wishes (
talk) 17:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
One book title does not make it a defining term for individuals. "Activists" (in the subtitle of thd book) is a by far more common term.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indeed, it appears that defining descriptions of all people included to this category are different, i.e. "activist" or others. One can reasonably argue this category is redundant and promotes certain POV. Is it helpful for navigation? If these people have been described at least in some sources as "dissidents", it might be (one can be an activist and be described as a dissident at the same time). After looking at specific pages, it seems such assignment usually is at best questionable...
My very best wishes (
talk) 18:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's a category that makes sense beyond simply "activists" for individuals whose political activity brings them into direct conflict with government power and therefore results in them being imprisoned, targeted in other various ways by organs of the state, or going into exile. This is just as coherent and valid a concept for democratic states as it is for non-democratic states.
AbbotOfLeibowitz (
talk) 02:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
This is not a discussion about the concept, the issue is whether people in this category are commonly labeled as dissidents. In democratic countries that label is hardly ever used. The content of the category boils down to
WP:OR.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The problem is that this category is either entirely irrelevant if you look for people actually labelled 'American Dissidents' by multiple reliable sources (as there are practically none) or far too vague to be useful; people "targeted in other various ways by organs of the state" includes, pretty much everyone who's ever been arrested or fined at any sort of protest (thousands of people) and the likes of e.g. 'First Amendment Auditors' on YouTube are 'dissidents' by this definition which is clearly not correct.
JeffUK 08:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I was initially leaning towards "keep", but when I checked the category, pretty much every one of the people in it don't really belong. I can't find any reasonable way to define dissident that includes Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky or Charles Lindbergh as "dissidents". --
Jayron32 15:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete — and after deletion, we'll nominate all the other dissident by country categories. As always on Wikipedia, it's easier to create a mess than to fix one. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 16:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I think some '{nation} dissidents' are worth keeping on the basis there may be notable people who are reliably described as dissidents, for example there's no harm in those on the
List of Chinese dissidents being categorised as such.
JeffUK 16:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete — It's a mess. Use of term easy to verify in totalitarian states, but impossible to adequately verify for somewhere like US, so ends up as highly subjective. There was probably RSs calling various individuals "cool" but we wouldn't want a category "American cool people", and that's basically the level here.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 06:59, 20 January 2023 (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:Special edition strike paper
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.
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.
Category:Television series shot in Gilgit-Baltistan
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.
Cultural depictions of cannibals
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.
I do not think we need to discuss them one by one, if this proposal goes ahead we can probably do a mass nomination. We do need to purge them one by one, however, and that will be an enormous job. Only renaming the categories and not checking the content would not solve the main problem: depictions categories contain many articles that are not defining for the subject.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:57, 17 January 2023 (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 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:Twin people from Puerto Rico
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.
Support - this could be speedied.
Oculi (
talk) 18:54, 17 January 2023 (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:Pages with Wikisource text link
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: This might make sense if it were a tracking category populated by a template, but it is instead added manually to one article and hence server no useful function.
* Pppery *it has begun... 01:13, 16 January 2023 (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.