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:Suicides by year
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.
Basically that its
WP:OVERCAT. If a person dies by suicide, they should be categorized in the year they died and the way they died and there is no need for a seperate "by year" category for a specific way of dying. I've only nominated a decade for now to see how this Cfd goes. Then, if it goes through, I will nominate the rest.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
20:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean oppose, there are a lot of suicides, so having them diffused by year is pretty helpful. Also either way, I think we should keep suicides in YEAR to be non-diffusing, so that everyone, regardless of cause of death can be found in the death by year category.
Mason (
talk)
22:34, 24 June 2024 (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:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users
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: Based on the outcome of
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creatorsWP:CSD#G5 is no longer restricted to pages created by blocked or banned users but now also applies to pages created in violation of general sanctions (regardless of any attribute of the editor, to the faith in which they created the page, or even if they knew such sanctions existed, an action I continue to think is harmful to the project but alas the consensus was not with me) and so the category name needs to be updated and this unwieldy new title is the shortest one I can craft that is accurate. Splitting the category would be sensible but also contrary to the RfC outcome which explicitly rejected creating a new criterion, so I'm not proposing that. Speedy deletion categories are usually populated by templates, but as there are multiple of them and the templates do not need to be renamed I guess CfD is the appropriate venue, but feel free to move to this to TfD if I'm wrong on that. I'm not sure if I need to individually notify editors who participated in the RFC, but I will leave a message on the RFC talk page.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, since both of these categories already exist (I assumed the second one didn't when I wrote my !vote), there is nothing to do here unless nom wants to merge the two categories under the new name.
Nickps (
talk)
20:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That all the relevant templates put articles into the same category was the (it turns out incorrect) impression I got from the wording on the CSD page at the time which I didn't think to check. I'm OK with either a one or two category setup as long as the title of all the categories unambiguously match their scope. However, I oppose speedily closing this discussion as
Pppery has made a good-faith suggestion for an alternative renaming. I weakly oppose that suggestion for the same reasons as you (Nickps) but I see no reason to close the discussion while it remains on the table.
Thryduulf (
talk)
01:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Feel free to close this as withdrawn - my rename suggestion was just an attempt to produce a less clunky version of your rename under the same incorrect assumptions as you.
* Pppery *it has begun...01:25, 24 June 2024 (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:Crater Lake
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: Ambiguity problem. This category is for one specific lake-slash-national-park in the United States whose name is
Crater Lake, but I just had to clean it up for the misfiling of several generic
crater lakes in Uganda. As always, the mere presence of a usage note on the category itself is not necessarily sufficient to control the problem, as people frequently file things in categories that sound right and then walk away without checking the category to see if they're doing it wrong -- so the category itself should be named as precisely as possible to quash any ambiguity.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:30, 23 June 2024 (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:Films set in Velankanni
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: "Films set in [Place]" category for a small town, without enough films filed in it to need a dedicated category. As always, every town that exists does not automatically get one of these the moment a couple of films have been set there -- it would be fine if there were five or ten films to file here, but if there are less than five then the state level is sufficient.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:19, 23 June 2024 (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:Albert Henry Krehbiel
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:Eponymous category for a person, without the volume of spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. Other than the eponymous biography itself, the only other things filed here are an alternate version of his name that elides the middle "Henry", and the title of a book about him, both of which are just redirects to the eponymous biography rather than separate articles. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find evidence that there are enough other related articles that could be filed here, but we do not need a category just to hold three different ways of getting to the same place.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:15, 23 June 2024 (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:Television series about microbes
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: "[Form of media] about X" category with only one thing in it and little prospect of expansion since microbes are not a common subject of television series — and the television series here was a cartoon, so its being "about" microbes falls short of being a defining characteristic. As always, we do not automatically need an "about" category for every single possible thing that one television series has been "about" -- this would need to be common enough of a subject for television series to have at least five entries in it before it was justifiable.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:09, 23 June 2024 (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:Luarsab Sharashidze
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:Eponymous category for a person, with no content in it besides the eponym himself. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to know whether there are other things that could be filed here to populate it, so I'm not prepared to just speedy-delete it as a categorization error myself without discussion and am willing to withdraw this if enough other content can be found, but people do not automatically get categories at their own names just to hold their own main biographies.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:59, 23 June 2024 (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:Digital-only stations on the AM band
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: Wikipedia does not categorize radio stations for the matter of whether they're on the AM or FM bands, so we don't need to intersect digital-only status with a criterion that we don't otherwise categorize for.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:50, 23 June 2024 (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:Former Philippine Basketball League teams
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:Fictional female entertainers
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'm not sure. I suppose I'll change my !vote to Weak keep as I don't feel too strongly about it. No big deal if the proposal is accepted.
NLeeuw (
talk)
14:17, 2 July 2024 (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.
I would suggest to take out “I’m Not a Juvenile Delinquent” and “You Can’t Catch Me,” then just leave that category as it is. However, I guess deletion might be a solution for Wikipedia I guess. So fair enough. Inajd
Inajd0101 (
talk)
21:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:SMALLCAT has been deprecated, so opportunity for future growth is no longer an accepted argument. The two songs were written for the movie, so they appear to be intrinsically related.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
22:19, 7 June 2024 (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:Doki Doki Literature Club! characters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as creator. Admittedly entirely forgot about the parent category when creating the category, so I agree with the redundancy issue. Though I agree, I still would have appreciated it if we could have finished discussing this before nominating it for deletion.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
14:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Small cat might not apply, but neither does saying that we should keep a category just because it's "established".
Mason (
talk)
23:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the practice of grouping characters by game is a well-established one. This falls under that scheme and there is no reason to remove it.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
04:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not redundant when it's a valid subcategory. Categories don't have to have things directly in them to count as a full category. Having a fully populated subcategory still counts.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
11:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
NOTE: If we are going to keep this, I would support keeping both and oppose a merge. I think this category is redundant, but I think it makes sense to have the other category even if this one exists.
QuicoleJR (
talk)
16:52, 15 June 2024 (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:British women Marxists
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. I don't see affirmative consensus to populate, but I also don't see consensus that this should not be populated. However, if a category is to exist, you don't need to get consensus to populate the category with pages that belong in it. Therefore, I see this result as implicitly endorsing the category being populated, and will ping
Nederlandse Leeuw in case they wish to do so. HouseBlaster (
talk · he/they)
00:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse this category by nationality? Frankly, I have my doubts that the intersection of gender and Marxism is defining.
Mason (
talk)
00:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, but Populate with other women from
Category:British Marxists. If you have my doubts that the intersection of gender and Marxism is defining, why do you propose to take nationality out of the equation? If anything, you should propose to upmerge to
Category:British Marxists instead. Anyway, quick scan suggests the following members to diffuse from parent
Category:British Marxists:
More than enough to populate this category. I might add that a lot of subcategories in this tree do not feature a single woman. Women are underrepresented as part of biographies on British Marxists, and I don't think upmerging this category is going to help address that gender gap at all.
NLeeuw (
talk)
18:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on populating? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/they)
00:54, 15 June 2024 (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:no consensus. The nominator and some other participants felt that the categories in question were overly specific; a few others claimed that the centuries were informative for the type of articles the categories contain. There was no agreement on whether the categories contained too few articles to be of navigational utility. Neither the nomination nor the alternative proposal reached a consensus, so at the status quo we stay.
(non-admin closure)—
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh)
23:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: 3x merge there are at most 6 people in this poet tree, without a real need to diffuse by century. I made a potential merge target category because
Category:Wallachian poets didn't exist as a category.
Mason (
talk)
21:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm guessing I should create an indefinite number of articles for the Wallachian poets that are currently missing, because there being currently 6 articles is not enough (unlike the three articles in
Category:Emperors of Thessalonica and the four articles in
Category:Aqua (band) members, both of which are just right). I mean, what else are we to do with our time on wikipedia than to satisfy this type of requests?
Dahn (
talk)
21:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It is significantly less of a chore to create small intersectional and valid categories than huge category trees, which can be created at any ulterior time for reuniting the smaller categories and any articles that remain loose. I would rather create "18th-century Wallachian poets" instead of "Wallachian poets" (or rather "Category:Poets from the Principality of Wallachia" -- the two nomenclatures currently compete), if the latter option has me tagging all the articles on Wallachian poets, then sorting them by retagging the same articles with the respective narrower category! It reduces my workload and it is sheer common sense. Note how, in the "military personnel" tree, you had them all fitted nicely for you to just unify the categories; but of course you didn't realize that a lot of articles on Wallachian soldiers from other centuries (say: the 15th) are now not in the category you created, and of course you didn't go searching for such examples to include in the larger category you created (you also didn't realize that the category level you created should now include other trans-chronological articles, such as
Category:Spatharii of Wallachia, all of whom were a sort of military personnel). You see: that would be the sort of work required for the part of the category tree that I hadn't bothered created, and the sort of workload you're now externalizing for others. (My contributions focus mainly on content creation, with all the intricate research this requires. I find category creation necessary, but boring -- implying that I should spend my time here on creating potentially immense categories, or hunting down articles to fill out the immense categories that others create, is a bit presumptuous. Just like other requests of that nature, for instance that I should fill out more redlinks to demonstrate to my colleagues here that a category is sufficiently valid -- that "18th-century Wallachian poets" is at least as valid a category as "Aqua members".)
Dahn (
talk)
02:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Also:
Category:Moldavian and Wallachian poets is rather pointless. I had created
Category:Moldavian and Wallachian chroniclers back when we didn't have a category tree for both former countries, and to address the fact that chroniclers, a sort of occupation that is entirely in the past (for a genre that ended in the early 19th-century), had a trans-border shared tradition of history-writing (and a limited number of articles to fit in there). While this shared tradition can also be argued for poets: if we already have poets in the Wallachian category, what is the exact point of creating a category (other than the already existing larger Romanian one) for "Wallachian and Moldavian poets"?
Dahn (
talk)
02:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
And I have to say I do not understand the logic whereby we "only" have a category for "foo fooians" if it is demonstrated that there are "enough" (a never-defined "enough") articles to populate it. Sure it would be absurd to have a category for just two articles (though, again, three is apparently enough
in other cases). But a category exists not just to neatly group the articles in a shelf; it exists to facilitate navigation, to quickly allow our readers, through this unique instrument offered by our platform, to see all the connections between a set of articles. The evidently absurd example you provide with
Category:20th-century Aqua (band) members (I do understand
the rhetorical point, but still) shows that you simply do not regard this as an important feature, that you do not conceive of any practical situation in which a reader may need a quick navigational tool for seeing what and how many were the Wallachian poets in the 18th century (including all the utterly mediocre ones that would not be mentioned in a properly developed
Literature of Romania), and that you do not see it fit to ask why me as an editor would conceive of a tool to assist such a reader. I find that a bit arresting.
Dahn (
talk)
02:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak support 6 is not a lot for a category, but although there is no consensus on the mininum amount of items per category at any given time,
WP:MFN (the work-in-progress guideline) recommends to merge for now if a category has fewer than 5 items. I don't feel too strongly about the need to merge these categories, but it's fine with me to do so.
NLeeuw (
talk)
18:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge target? (see Marcocapelle's alt proposal) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk12:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose century categories are useful and standard for poets, and the rationale invoked is vague — there is no clear consensus about how small is too small. —
BiruitorulTalk18:50, 15 June 2024 (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:Women who experienced pregnancy loss
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. Overall I find the delete !votes are more convincing. This is not going to be defining for the majority of articles that it fits, so this content is better suited for a list (if at all).
(non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk19:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete; the idea for this category clearly came from a good faith place but I don't see how helpful it is. Losing a pregnancy is a lot more common than people think, and the further back you go in history the more common it was. Its not a defining characteristic of any of these women even though it was likely a defining moment (or moments) in their lives.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
20:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. and agree with the assessment that its creation was in good faith. There might be a handful, like Catherine of Aragon, where you could make a case that it was defining, but it's a stretch. (And if anything henry the 8th's experience with pregnancy loss would probably be more defining...)
Mason (
talk)
21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose I do not see any arguments being advanced why the
earlier discussion (less than a year ago) should be disregarded, or how all the opposing arguments presented then should be ignored, or why those arguments have somehow been undermined or overturned. If you're just here to redo a discussion without bringing new policy and guideline-based reasons to do so, that is not helpful for the process.
NLeeuw (
talk)
18:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Nederlandse Leeuw, I wasn't aware of the previous discussion until Marco added a link to this. But I can give you a more detailed reasoning. You can say this category can also come under
WP:TRIVIALCAT since, as painful it is, it is trivial that a famous woman lost a pregnancy. It may even be
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT since even an abortion can be considered pregnancy loss to some and not to others and also, to some people, giving birth to a child who died soon after birth can be too.
What does
WP:TRIVIALCAT say? In general, if something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely that it is a trivial characteristic. I think that depends. I know women to whom a miscarriage was traumatising and life-changing, but I also know women to whom a miscarriage was kind of okay since the pregnancy was unplanned anyway. Furthermore, I know women who consciously opted to abort their pregnancy when the circumstances were not right to complete the pregnancy, and to some of them, it wasn't a big deal, while to others it was (even though they didn't regret it, as it was the best choice in the situation). Nevertheless, pretty much all these women only disclosed their experiences to me in a private setting, with a clear understanding that I should keep it a secret from others; they wish to control which people are allowed to know it, as they consider it a private and sensitive matter, even if in the end it wasn't a big deal to some of them. I think this wish should be respected.
For our purposes here, I think this would call for a case-by-case assessment of what impact the person in question says in
WP:RS that the pregnancy loss has had on their life. We shouldn't be labelling people to whom it wasn't that important, as this could needlessly stigmatise them. Especially in
WP:BLPs, as pointed out in the previous discussion, we should be very careful not to categorise such people unless they come forward with their stories and explain it was very important in their lives.
I agree with you that the current catdesc is vague about whether it includes intentional abortions. The linked article
pregnancy loss suggests it includes both intentional and unintentional cases. If that is the objection, though, the logical solution would be a split of the category rather than a deletion, wouldn't you agree?
I agree that non-binary people can get pregnant and experience pregnancy loss as well. If that is the objection, though, the logical solution would be a renaming of the category rather than a deletion, wouldn't you agree?
@
Nederlandse Leeuw, respectfully I wouldn't agree with any split or rename because I also think this category is
WP:NONDEF in addition to being trivial and subjective. If its worth adding, the information about pregnancy loss should be added - which is to say written into - to the article of the person. Indeed, in most cases it matters, it is gone into detail.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
11:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Nederlandse Leeuw, where did I suggest I no longer support deletion? I very much do. I merely stated that if a person has lost a pregnancy and it is important to their lives, that information should be incorportated into their article.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
12:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah sorry, then I misunderstood what you said. I guess I can understand that argument. I'll wait to see what others have to say for now. Thanks for your clarifications so far.
NLeeuw (
talk)
12:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, the above, and last time. Simply not defining, plus except for a few high profile women, we usually just don't know about this aspect of lives. To judge by the category as it is, this virtually only seems to happen to European royalty and American actresses.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The current contents might, of course, not be representative of humanity at all. But it is a good question who should and shouldn't be in here, if we are to have this category.
NLeeuw (
talk)
15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The question is, and would be, who we have RS information for. That will only be a very small minority of our population of 397,000 women with biographies, reinforcing how non-defining it is.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I follow why a very small number of biographies falling into the category reinforces the argument that it is non-defining? That's true for many non-controversial categories.
Chocmilk03 (
talk)
04:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Because this is extremely common, and if it was defining we would have far more entries, even given the frequent lack of information.
Johnbod (
talk)
12:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Chocmilk03,
WP:DEFINING means characteristics that person is notable for. I think you would agree that, while these women may have lost a pregnancy, they aren't defined by them nor are their lives characterised by losing pregnancies. The only serious exception is royalty for obvious reasons.
@
Chocmilk03, well you can make that argument but, at the same time, not everything is categorized. Not every medical condition is categorized, not every disability. Its why "People with infertility issues" (or something similar) is not categorized and why I feel this category should not be either. I've given my reasons for why above, not least of which is that losing pregnancy is something very common and, going back further, was a lot more common.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
21:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would also not go with the old Cfd's arguments. It really turned into a huge row which was not about debating whether the category was
WP:OVERCAT or not (I think it is in many ways) but rather about people saying "what about this" and so on. I hope this Cfd will be more on actual policy than the previous one.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
21:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Omnis Scientia: My views are based on my own reading of the policies including
WP:CATDEF,
WP:TRIVIALCAT,
WP:COPDEF etc, not the previous CFD arguments. In my view, this category does meet the criteria of defining for some people (even though it is unlikely to be the sole reason for notability). "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic"; pregnancy loss meets this criteria for some people.
I wasn't arguing that "other stuff exists"; those categories were simply examples to illustrate my point, in the same way you've used "People with infertility issues" as an example of why you feel this category should not exist.
I've read your arguments (and those of others above) and respectfully disagree, hence my vote for 'keep'. I don't seek to persuade you of the correctness of my views, and understand you take a different view.
Chocmilk03 (
talk)
22:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I've read through the arguments in the previous discussion and what else has been written here. Fundamentally, something is defining if it's often (or could reasonably be) mentioned in the lead. For 99% of these pages, its not defining. I still think that the category should be deleted as it isn't defining. For the very few who it could be defining, they can be added to a list. At the very very very least, this category needs to be purged.
Mason (
talk)
22:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, thanks for that clarification. Note to closer: Mason already !voted Support per nom above, so the word deleted in this comment shouldn't be counted.
NLeeuw (
talk)
13:16, 16 June 2024 (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:Hinglaj Mata
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:Battles of the American Revolutionary War by state
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.
do not merge this is simply another step in the path of destroying useful category information at the US state level. US state boundaries are in no way akin to the boundary problems found in some European countries, which was misused used as a precedent by this editor to destroy the state categorization of the Battles of the War of 1812. State boundaries have not generally changed since their formation, unlike the shifting boundaries of European geographic entities.
Hmains (
talk)
20:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would respectfully request that you
WP:assume good faith, and base your opposition to the proposal on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, rather than a personal POV of how things supposedly were in the past in North America compared to Europe so that
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN conveniently does not apply to categories you created. I am simply applying our polices and guidelines, confirmed by consensus established in precedents, and I would urge you to do the same. Have a good day.
NLeeuw (
talk)
22:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is nothing about 'the past' involving the boundaries of the federal states of the United States. Unlike Europe of the past, the boundaries of these states are generally the same as when they were created over of last 200+ years. That means a battle that took place in a populated place of state x is still correctly stated as having been a battle in state x. I am not doing things in WP for my own convenience, whatever that may be. I am stating the facts. You have requested deletion of all these categories so I assume that is your intent--this does not involve 'faith' of any kind. Thanks
Hmains (
talk)
23:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't worry, no offence taken. I only took issue with the passage ...which was misused used as a precedent by this editor to destroy the state categorization.... This way of saying things implies that I am deliberately doing something wrong, and that what I am doing is harmful. The first bit is conduct that users should avoid:
WP:Assume good faith means that we always assume that fellow editors are trying to do the right thing, even if they make mistakes. (And I do make plenty of mistakes, and I'll happily be corrected if you can point out what I should have done instead). The last bit may be your opinion, but it is rather strongly worded; it's better not to use words such as "destruction" when it comes to reorganising category trees in a way you don't like. Hopefully that clears things up?
My intention is to upmerge rather than outright delete these categories. Even though deletion is the result, the contents of the former categories will be preserved in their parent categories, and the logbooks will note which categories were merged into which. E.g. battles in New York state will still be in
Category:Military history of New York (state), where readers and editors alike can still find them. This upmerging is based on
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, a guideline which has existed since about 2007. If you think there is something wrong with that guideline, you are free to raise the issue at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history. Making arguments here at CFD for why this guideline should not apply to the United States, however, is not very helpful.
I should explain that I have only noted how many P and C there are in each of them as a secondary argument, but according to
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN (the primary argument), it doesn't matter what size the category is, as all such "battles in X" categories are considered inappropriate. (Even if we were to keep the "large" ones, which categories would you consider "large" and which ones "small"?)
My remark that the list already mentions the locations anyway is intended to address the concern of Hmains, the creator of these categories, that valuable information or overview might be lost if the proposal receives approval, because the list covers it. Personally, I'm not sure if it is necessary to mention the locations in any list or category, but keeping them in the list while upmering the categories seems an acceptable compromise to me.
The problem that
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN attempts to address—issues arising when modern and historical names differ—is largely irrelevant here. The boundaries of South Carolina, for instance, are the same now as they were during this conflict. You're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. -
Eureka Lott14:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Lots of states, provinces and especially territories didn't have their modern boundaries yet. More importantly,
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN doesn't say anywhere that it doesn't apply in some places, but not in others. It's a universal rule, it should be applied everywhere. If someone thinks there should be exceptions to the rule, they're free to start the process of seeking to amend it. But until it is amended, we should apply the guideline as it is, and not engage in
special pleading.
Given the many recent precedents in both the category space and the article space, there is a running consensus to phase out "battles in Fooland" categories and articles.
NLeeuw (
talk)
17:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia and Maine did not exist as defined areas during this war let alone separate colonies which is exactly the problem that
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN is trying to avoid. I don't think placing these in the contemporary colony would make sense since the undefined western boundaries were still Native American controlled, regardless of what European maps claimed. And good luck sorting out the as-of-then
unresolved competing claims on Vermont! -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
19:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Will you please stop accusing me of "destroying" things?! Said categories were upmerged by community consensus.
NLeeuw (
talk)
18:15, 4 July 2024 (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:Substitution tracking templates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unclear if this is used anymore by any template as it isn't found in an "insource" search. If still used the category description should be updated with where this is used from.
Gonnym (
talk)
10:08, 23 June 2024 (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:merge, the category only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. That is not helpful for navigation.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:34, 23 June 2024 (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:Historic buildings and structures in the United States
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.
Notes: Not many full merges are necessary because I went through all the individual articles to make sure none of them would be orphaned; however, a number of subcategories would need to be selectively reparented to stay in their category tree. If this nomination passes I'll have a follow up one for the sibling categories which have different heritage register situations. An
earlier nomination in 2018 ended in "no consensus" with the following participants: @
Marcocapelle,
SportingFlyer,
Thincat,
Black Falcon, and
Good Olfactory:. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:07, 23 June 2024 (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.
Ambassadors of the Republic of Venice 2
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:Suicides by year
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.
Basically that its
WP:OVERCAT. If a person dies by suicide, they should be categorized in the year they died and the way they died and there is no need for a seperate "by year" category for a specific way of dying. I've only nominated a decade for now to see how this Cfd goes. Then, if it goes through, I will nominate the rest.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
20:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean oppose, there are a lot of suicides, so having them diffused by year is pretty helpful. Also either way, I think we should keep suicides in YEAR to be non-diffusing, so that everyone, regardless of cause of death can be found in the death by year category.
Mason (
talk)
22:34, 24 June 2024 (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:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users
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: Based on the outcome of
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creatorsWP:CSD#G5 is no longer restricted to pages created by blocked or banned users but now also applies to pages created in violation of general sanctions (regardless of any attribute of the editor, to the faith in which they created the page, or even if they knew such sanctions existed, an action I continue to think is harmful to the project but alas the consensus was not with me) and so the category name needs to be updated and this unwieldy new title is the shortest one I can craft that is accurate. Splitting the category would be sensible but also contrary to the RfC outcome which explicitly rejected creating a new criterion, so I'm not proposing that. Speedy deletion categories are usually populated by templates, but as there are multiple of them and the templates do not need to be renamed I guess CfD is the appropriate venue, but feel free to move to this to TfD if I'm wrong on that. I'm not sure if I need to individually notify editors who participated in the RFC, but I will leave a message on the RFC talk page.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, since both of these categories already exist (I assumed the second one didn't when I wrote my !vote), there is nothing to do here unless nom wants to merge the two categories under the new name.
Nickps (
talk)
20:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That all the relevant templates put articles into the same category was the (it turns out incorrect) impression I got from the wording on the CSD page at the time which I didn't think to check. I'm OK with either a one or two category setup as long as the title of all the categories unambiguously match their scope. However, I oppose speedily closing this discussion as
Pppery has made a good-faith suggestion for an alternative renaming. I weakly oppose that suggestion for the same reasons as you (Nickps) but I see no reason to close the discussion while it remains on the table.
Thryduulf (
talk)
01:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Feel free to close this as withdrawn - my rename suggestion was just an attempt to produce a less clunky version of your rename under the same incorrect assumptions as you.
* Pppery *it has begun...01:25, 24 June 2024 (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:Crater Lake
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: Ambiguity problem. This category is for one specific lake-slash-national-park in the United States whose name is
Crater Lake, but I just had to clean it up for the misfiling of several generic
crater lakes in Uganda. As always, the mere presence of a usage note on the category itself is not necessarily sufficient to control the problem, as people frequently file things in categories that sound right and then walk away without checking the category to see if they're doing it wrong -- so the category itself should be named as precisely as possible to quash any ambiguity.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:30, 23 June 2024 (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:Films set in Velankanni
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: "Films set in [Place]" category for a small town, without enough films filed in it to need a dedicated category. As always, every town that exists does not automatically get one of these the moment a couple of films have been set there -- it would be fine if there were five or ten films to file here, but if there are less than five then the state level is sufficient.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:19, 23 June 2024 (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:Albert Henry Krehbiel
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:Eponymous category for a person, without the volume of spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. Other than the eponymous biography itself, the only other things filed here are an alternate version of his name that elides the middle "Henry", and the title of a book about him, both of which are just redirects to the eponymous biography rather than separate articles. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find evidence that there are enough other related articles that could be filed here, but we do not need a category just to hold three different ways of getting to the same place.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:15, 23 June 2024 (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:Television series about microbes
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: "[Form of media] about X" category with only one thing in it and little prospect of expansion since microbes are not a common subject of television series — and the television series here was a cartoon, so its being "about" microbes falls short of being a defining characteristic. As always, we do not automatically need an "about" category for every single possible thing that one television series has been "about" -- this would need to be common enough of a subject for television series to have at least five entries in it before it was justifiable.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:09, 23 June 2024 (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:Luarsab Sharashidze
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:Eponymous category for a person, with no content in it besides the eponym himself. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to know whether there are other things that could be filed here to populate it, so I'm not prepared to just speedy-delete it as a categorization error myself without discussion and am willing to withdraw this if enough other content can be found, but people do not automatically get categories at their own names just to hold their own main biographies.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:59, 23 June 2024 (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:Digital-only stations on the AM band
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: Wikipedia does not categorize radio stations for the matter of whether they're on the AM or FM bands, so we don't need to intersect digital-only status with a criterion that we don't otherwise categorize for.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:50, 23 June 2024 (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:Former Philippine Basketball League teams
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:Fictional female entertainers
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'm not sure. I suppose I'll change my !vote to Weak keep as I don't feel too strongly about it. No big deal if the proposal is accepted.
NLeeuw (
talk)
14:17, 2 July 2024 (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.
I would suggest to take out “I’m Not a Juvenile Delinquent” and “You Can’t Catch Me,” then just leave that category as it is. However, I guess deletion might be a solution for Wikipedia I guess. So fair enough. Inajd
Inajd0101 (
talk)
21:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:SMALLCAT has been deprecated, so opportunity for future growth is no longer an accepted argument. The two songs were written for the movie, so they appear to be intrinsically related.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
22:19, 7 June 2024 (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:Doki Doki Literature Club! characters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as creator. Admittedly entirely forgot about the parent category when creating the category, so I agree with the redundancy issue. Though I agree, I still would have appreciated it if we could have finished discussing this before nominating it for deletion.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
14:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Small cat might not apply, but neither does saying that we should keep a category just because it's "established".
Mason (
talk)
23:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the practice of grouping characters by game is a well-established one. This falls under that scheme and there is no reason to remove it.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
04:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not redundant when it's a valid subcategory. Categories don't have to have things directly in them to count as a full category. Having a fully populated subcategory still counts.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
11:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
NOTE: If we are going to keep this, I would support keeping both and oppose a merge. I think this category is redundant, but I think it makes sense to have the other category even if this one exists.
QuicoleJR (
talk)
16:52, 15 June 2024 (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:British women Marxists
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. I don't see affirmative consensus to populate, but I also don't see consensus that this should not be populated. However, if a category is to exist, you don't need to get consensus to populate the category with pages that belong in it. Therefore, I see this result as implicitly endorsing the category being populated, and will ping
Nederlandse Leeuw in case they wish to do so. HouseBlaster (
talk · he/they)
00:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse this category by nationality? Frankly, I have my doubts that the intersection of gender and Marxism is defining.
Mason (
talk)
00:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, but Populate with other women from
Category:British Marxists. If you have my doubts that the intersection of gender and Marxism is defining, why do you propose to take nationality out of the equation? If anything, you should propose to upmerge to
Category:British Marxists instead. Anyway, quick scan suggests the following members to diffuse from parent
Category:British Marxists:
More than enough to populate this category. I might add that a lot of subcategories in this tree do not feature a single woman. Women are underrepresented as part of biographies on British Marxists, and I don't think upmerging this category is going to help address that gender gap at all.
NLeeuw (
talk)
18:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on populating? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/they)
00:54, 15 June 2024 (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:no consensus. The nominator and some other participants felt that the categories in question were overly specific; a few others claimed that the centuries were informative for the type of articles the categories contain. There was no agreement on whether the categories contained too few articles to be of navigational utility. Neither the nomination nor the alternative proposal reached a consensus, so at the status quo we stay.
(non-admin closure)—
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh)
23:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: 3x merge there are at most 6 people in this poet tree, without a real need to diffuse by century. I made a potential merge target category because
Category:Wallachian poets didn't exist as a category.
Mason (
talk)
21:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm guessing I should create an indefinite number of articles for the Wallachian poets that are currently missing, because there being currently 6 articles is not enough (unlike the three articles in
Category:Emperors of Thessalonica and the four articles in
Category:Aqua (band) members, both of which are just right). I mean, what else are we to do with our time on wikipedia than to satisfy this type of requests?
Dahn (
talk)
21:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It is significantly less of a chore to create small intersectional and valid categories than huge category trees, which can be created at any ulterior time for reuniting the smaller categories and any articles that remain loose. I would rather create "18th-century Wallachian poets" instead of "Wallachian poets" (or rather "Category:Poets from the Principality of Wallachia" -- the two nomenclatures currently compete), if the latter option has me tagging all the articles on Wallachian poets, then sorting them by retagging the same articles with the respective narrower category! It reduces my workload and it is sheer common sense. Note how, in the "military personnel" tree, you had them all fitted nicely for you to just unify the categories; but of course you didn't realize that a lot of articles on Wallachian soldiers from other centuries (say: the 15th) are now not in the category you created, and of course you didn't go searching for such examples to include in the larger category you created (you also didn't realize that the category level you created should now include other trans-chronological articles, such as
Category:Spatharii of Wallachia, all of whom were a sort of military personnel). You see: that would be the sort of work required for the part of the category tree that I hadn't bothered created, and the sort of workload you're now externalizing for others. (My contributions focus mainly on content creation, with all the intricate research this requires. I find category creation necessary, but boring -- implying that I should spend my time here on creating potentially immense categories, or hunting down articles to fill out the immense categories that others create, is a bit presumptuous. Just like other requests of that nature, for instance that I should fill out more redlinks to demonstrate to my colleagues here that a category is sufficiently valid -- that "18th-century Wallachian poets" is at least as valid a category as "Aqua members".)
Dahn (
talk)
02:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Also:
Category:Moldavian and Wallachian poets is rather pointless. I had created
Category:Moldavian and Wallachian chroniclers back when we didn't have a category tree for both former countries, and to address the fact that chroniclers, a sort of occupation that is entirely in the past (for a genre that ended in the early 19th-century), had a trans-border shared tradition of history-writing (and a limited number of articles to fit in there). While this shared tradition can also be argued for poets: if we already have poets in the Wallachian category, what is the exact point of creating a category (other than the already existing larger Romanian one) for "Wallachian and Moldavian poets"?
Dahn (
talk)
02:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
And I have to say I do not understand the logic whereby we "only" have a category for "foo fooians" if it is demonstrated that there are "enough" (a never-defined "enough") articles to populate it. Sure it would be absurd to have a category for just two articles (though, again, three is apparently enough
in other cases). But a category exists not just to neatly group the articles in a shelf; it exists to facilitate navigation, to quickly allow our readers, through this unique instrument offered by our platform, to see all the connections between a set of articles. The evidently absurd example you provide with
Category:20th-century Aqua (band) members (I do understand
the rhetorical point, but still) shows that you simply do not regard this as an important feature, that you do not conceive of any practical situation in which a reader may need a quick navigational tool for seeing what and how many were the Wallachian poets in the 18th century (including all the utterly mediocre ones that would not be mentioned in a properly developed
Literature of Romania), and that you do not see it fit to ask why me as an editor would conceive of a tool to assist such a reader. I find that a bit arresting.
Dahn (
talk)
02:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak support 6 is not a lot for a category, but although there is no consensus on the mininum amount of items per category at any given time,
WP:MFN (the work-in-progress guideline) recommends to merge for now if a category has fewer than 5 items. I don't feel too strongly about the need to merge these categories, but it's fine with me to do so.
NLeeuw (
talk)
18:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge target? (see Marcocapelle's alt proposal) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk12:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose century categories are useful and standard for poets, and the rationale invoked is vague — there is no clear consensus about how small is too small. —
BiruitorulTalk18:50, 15 June 2024 (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:Women who experienced pregnancy loss
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. Overall I find the delete !votes are more convincing. This is not going to be defining for the majority of articles that it fits, so this content is better suited for a list (if at all).
(non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk19:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete; the idea for this category clearly came from a good faith place but I don't see how helpful it is. Losing a pregnancy is a lot more common than people think, and the further back you go in history the more common it was. Its not a defining characteristic of any of these women even though it was likely a defining moment (or moments) in their lives.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
20:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. and agree with the assessment that its creation was in good faith. There might be a handful, like Catherine of Aragon, where you could make a case that it was defining, but it's a stretch. (And if anything henry the 8th's experience with pregnancy loss would probably be more defining...)
Mason (
talk)
21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose I do not see any arguments being advanced why the
earlier discussion (less than a year ago) should be disregarded, or how all the opposing arguments presented then should be ignored, or why those arguments have somehow been undermined or overturned. If you're just here to redo a discussion without bringing new policy and guideline-based reasons to do so, that is not helpful for the process.
NLeeuw (
talk)
18:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Nederlandse Leeuw, I wasn't aware of the previous discussion until Marco added a link to this. But I can give you a more detailed reasoning. You can say this category can also come under
WP:TRIVIALCAT since, as painful it is, it is trivial that a famous woman lost a pregnancy. It may even be
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT since even an abortion can be considered pregnancy loss to some and not to others and also, to some people, giving birth to a child who died soon after birth can be too.
What does
WP:TRIVIALCAT say? In general, if something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely that it is a trivial characteristic. I think that depends. I know women to whom a miscarriage was traumatising and life-changing, but I also know women to whom a miscarriage was kind of okay since the pregnancy was unplanned anyway. Furthermore, I know women who consciously opted to abort their pregnancy when the circumstances were not right to complete the pregnancy, and to some of them, it wasn't a big deal, while to others it was (even though they didn't regret it, as it was the best choice in the situation). Nevertheless, pretty much all these women only disclosed their experiences to me in a private setting, with a clear understanding that I should keep it a secret from others; they wish to control which people are allowed to know it, as they consider it a private and sensitive matter, even if in the end it wasn't a big deal to some of them. I think this wish should be respected.
For our purposes here, I think this would call for a case-by-case assessment of what impact the person in question says in
WP:RS that the pregnancy loss has had on their life. We shouldn't be labelling people to whom it wasn't that important, as this could needlessly stigmatise them. Especially in
WP:BLPs, as pointed out in the previous discussion, we should be very careful not to categorise such people unless they come forward with their stories and explain it was very important in their lives.
I agree with you that the current catdesc is vague about whether it includes intentional abortions. The linked article
pregnancy loss suggests it includes both intentional and unintentional cases. If that is the objection, though, the logical solution would be a split of the category rather than a deletion, wouldn't you agree?
I agree that non-binary people can get pregnant and experience pregnancy loss as well. If that is the objection, though, the logical solution would be a renaming of the category rather than a deletion, wouldn't you agree?
@
Nederlandse Leeuw, respectfully I wouldn't agree with any split or rename because I also think this category is
WP:NONDEF in addition to being trivial and subjective. If its worth adding, the information about pregnancy loss should be added - which is to say written into - to the article of the person. Indeed, in most cases it matters, it is gone into detail.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
11:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Nederlandse Leeuw, where did I suggest I no longer support deletion? I very much do. I merely stated that if a person has lost a pregnancy and it is important to their lives, that information should be incorportated into their article.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
12:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah sorry, then I misunderstood what you said. I guess I can understand that argument. I'll wait to see what others have to say for now. Thanks for your clarifications so far.
NLeeuw (
talk)
12:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, the above, and last time. Simply not defining, plus except for a few high profile women, we usually just don't know about this aspect of lives. To judge by the category as it is, this virtually only seems to happen to European royalty and American actresses.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The current contents might, of course, not be representative of humanity at all. But it is a good question who should and shouldn't be in here, if we are to have this category.
NLeeuw (
talk)
15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The question is, and would be, who we have RS information for. That will only be a very small minority of our population of 397,000 women with biographies, reinforcing how non-defining it is.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I follow why a very small number of biographies falling into the category reinforces the argument that it is non-defining? That's true for many non-controversial categories.
Chocmilk03 (
talk)
04:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Because this is extremely common, and if it was defining we would have far more entries, even given the frequent lack of information.
Johnbod (
talk)
12:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Chocmilk03,
WP:DEFINING means characteristics that person is notable for. I think you would agree that, while these women may have lost a pregnancy, they aren't defined by them nor are their lives characterised by losing pregnancies. The only serious exception is royalty for obvious reasons.
@
Chocmilk03, well you can make that argument but, at the same time, not everything is categorized. Not every medical condition is categorized, not every disability. Its why "People with infertility issues" (or something similar) is not categorized and why I feel this category should not be either. I've given my reasons for why above, not least of which is that losing pregnancy is something very common and, going back further, was a lot more common.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
21:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would also not go with the old Cfd's arguments. It really turned into a huge row which was not about debating whether the category was
WP:OVERCAT or not (I think it is in many ways) but rather about people saying "what about this" and so on. I hope this Cfd will be more on actual policy than the previous one.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
21:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Omnis Scientia: My views are based on my own reading of the policies including
WP:CATDEF,
WP:TRIVIALCAT,
WP:COPDEF etc, not the previous CFD arguments. In my view, this category does meet the criteria of defining for some people (even though it is unlikely to be the sole reason for notability). "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic"; pregnancy loss meets this criteria for some people.
I wasn't arguing that "other stuff exists"; those categories were simply examples to illustrate my point, in the same way you've used "People with infertility issues" as an example of why you feel this category should not exist.
I've read your arguments (and those of others above) and respectfully disagree, hence my vote for 'keep'. I don't seek to persuade you of the correctness of my views, and understand you take a different view.
Chocmilk03 (
talk)
22:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I've read through the arguments in the previous discussion and what else has been written here. Fundamentally, something is defining if it's often (or could reasonably be) mentioned in the lead. For 99% of these pages, its not defining. I still think that the category should be deleted as it isn't defining. For the very few who it could be defining, they can be added to a list. At the very very very least, this category needs to be purged.
Mason (
talk)
22:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, thanks for that clarification. Note to closer: Mason already !voted Support per nom above, so the word deleted in this comment shouldn't be counted.
NLeeuw (
talk)
13:16, 16 June 2024 (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:Hinglaj Mata
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:Battles of the American Revolutionary War by state
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.
do not merge this is simply another step in the path of destroying useful category information at the US state level. US state boundaries are in no way akin to the boundary problems found in some European countries, which was misused used as a precedent by this editor to destroy the state categorization of the Battles of the War of 1812. State boundaries have not generally changed since their formation, unlike the shifting boundaries of European geographic entities.
Hmains (
talk)
20:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would respectfully request that you
WP:assume good faith, and base your opposition to the proposal on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, rather than a personal POV of how things supposedly were in the past in North America compared to Europe so that
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN conveniently does not apply to categories you created. I am simply applying our polices and guidelines, confirmed by consensus established in precedents, and I would urge you to do the same. Have a good day.
NLeeuw (
talk)
22:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is nothing about 'the past' involving the boundaries of the federal states of the United States. Unlike Europe of the past, the boundaries of these states are generally the same as when they were created over of last 200+ years. That means a battle that took place in a populated place of state x is still correctly stated as having been a battle in state x. I am not doing things in WP for my own convenience, whatever that may be. I am stating the facts. You have requested deletion of all these categories so I assume that is your intent--this does not involve 'faith' of any kind. Thanks
Hmains (
talk)
23:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't worry, no offence taken. I only took issue with the passage ...which was misused used as a precedent by this editor to destroy the state categorization.... This way of saying things implies that I am deliberately doing something wrong, and that what I am doing is harmful. The first bit is conduct that users should avoid:
WP:Assume good faith means that we always assume that fellow editors are trying to do the right thing, even if they make mistakes. (And I do make plenty of mistakes, and I'll happily be corrected if you can point out what I should have done instead). The last bit may be your opinion, but it is rather strongly worded; it's better not to use words such as "destruction" when it comes to reorganising category trees in a way you don't like. Hopefully that clears things up?
My intention is to upmerge rather than outright delete these categories. Even though deletion is the result, the contents of the former categories will be preserved in their parent categories, and the logbooks will note which categories were merged into which. E.g. battles in New York state will still be in
Category:Military history of New York (state), where readers and editors alike can still find them. This upmerging is based on
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, a guideline which has existed since about 2007. If you think there is something wrong with that guideline, you are free to raise the issue at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history. Making arguments here at CFD for why this guideline should not apply to the United States, however, is not very helpful.
I should explain that I have only noted how many P and C there are in each of them as a secondary argument, but according to
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN (the primary argument), it doesn't matter what size the category is, as all such "battles in X" categories are considered inappropriate. (Even if we were to keep the "large" ones, which categories would you consider "large" and which ones "small"?)
My remark that the list already mentions the locations anyway is intended to address the concern of Hmains, the creator of these categories, that valuable information or overview might be lost if the proposal receives approval, because the list covers it. Personally, I'm not sure if it is necessary to mention the locations in any list or category, but keeping them in the list while upmering the categories seems an acceptable compromise to me.
The problem that
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN attempts to address—issues arising when modern and historical names differ—is largely irrelevant here. The boundaries of South Carolina, for instance, are the same now as they were during this conflict. You're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. -
Eureka Lott14:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Lots of states, provinces and especially territories didn't have their modern boundaries yet. More importantly,
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN doesn't say anywhere that it doesn't apply in some places, but not in others. It's a universal rule, it should be applied everywhere. If someone thinks there should be exceptions to the rule, they're free to start the process of seeking to amend it. But until it is amended, we should apply the guideline as it is, and not engage in
special pleading.
Given the many recent precedents in both the category space and the article space, there is a running consensus to phase out "battles in Fooland" categories and articles.
NLeeuw (
talk)
17:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia and Maine did not exist as defined areas during this war let alone separate colonies which is exactly the problem that
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN is trying to avoid. I don't think placing these in the contemporary colony would make sense since the undefined western boundaries were still Native American controlled, regardless of what European maps claimed. And good luck sorting out the as-of-then
unresolved competing claims on Vermont! -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
19:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Will you please stop accusing me of "destroying" things?! Said categories were upmerged by community consensus.
NLeeuw (
talk)
18:15, 4 July 2024 (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:Substitution tracking templates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unclear if this is used anymore by any template as it isn't found in an "insource" search. If still used the category description should be updated with where this is used from.
Gonnym (
talk)
10:08, 23 June 2024 (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:merge, the category only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. That is not helpful for navigation.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:34, 23 June 2024 (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:Historic buildings and structures in the United States
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.
Notes: Not many full merges are necessary because I went through all the individual articles to make sure none of them would be orphaned; however, a number of subcategories would need to be selectively reparented to stay in their category tree. If this nomination passes I'll have a follow up one for the sibling categories which have different heritage register situations. An
earlier nomination in 2018 ended in "no consensus" with the following participants: @
Marcocapelle,
SportingFlyer,
Thincat,
Black Falcon, and
Good Olfactory:. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:07, 23 June 2024 (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.
Ambassadors of the Republic of Venice 2
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.