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. All category contents except the redirect are suitably categorized elsewhere. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 01:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)reply
What's your point?
Apokrif (
talk) 19:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete.
WP:PROFRINGE / just fucking stupid. Wikipedia is a reality-based Project.
Alexbrn (
talk) 20:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia isn't a reality-based project, it's a sources-based project. This is not the place for
the Truth. –
Uanfala 21:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
See
WP:VALID. We omit stuff that isn't taken seriously (in sources). Like this.
Alexbrn (
talk) 22:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep Not empty. There are two pages and three subcategories. Maybe work on removing those before deleting?--Aurictalk 21:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
delete The whole point of such relations is that there are no such relations (or, what is the
Fermi paradox for?).
Mangoe (
talk) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't know, perhaps for a French-speaker the word "relations" carries different connotations. But I just don't see taking three otherwise unrelated categories about aliens, tossing it together with a couple (out of, I dunno, probably half or more of the SF genre) items from works of fiction, and calling it a category. Maybe just get rid of the fiction, upmerge it into
Category:Extraterrestrial_life, and call it a day?
Mangoe (
talk) 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Only two items (other than subcategories), which are currently about fiction. Subcategories vary from ufology to scientific search for E.T. life (where there are no documented existing human-ET relation yet, unless we call sending messages in space, or sampling from space, relations). Could alternatively be renamed but I fail to immediately find a plausible name. —
PaleoNeonate – 22:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't get your point: do you mean that undocumented things should be excluded from the category system (which would imply that
Category:Scientific speculation should be deleted)?
Apokrif (
talk) 15:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Category:Speculation of E.T. contact wasn't the category name... also, we should take care not to state in Wikipedia's voice what are fringe views (and should describe those as such (alleged, claims, beliefs, speculation, etc)).
Category:Search for extraterrestrial life is an adequate example too, but still could not fit all the content of the category being discussed. —
PaleoNeonate – 04:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Right: the category is not (only) about speculation: it's also about fiction and about things, like Raelism, the existence of which is not disputed.
Apokrif (
talk) 17:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Although not technically empty, none of the category members support the existence of the category. In other words, it really should be empty, given the sources shown.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 23:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. All of the category members are already in other appropriate categories.
StarryGrandma (
talk) 00:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
An article can be in several categories.
Apokrif (
talk) 15:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. pointless category at the moment. -
Roxy the dog.bark 12:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep There are reliable sources about alleged ET-humans relations and attempts at such relations.
Apokrif (
talk) 15:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The two articles you put into this cat both refer to fiction and, at the very least, this category title implies non-fictional usage. So neither article produces reliable sources for non-fictional alleged or attempted such relations. Even drilling down to the sub-category member articles, at best the reliable sources support saying that there are those who believe they have had relations of one sort or another with extraterrestrials. The category is not, however, "Promoters of extraterrestrials-humankind relations" or "Believer in extraterrestrials-humankind relations", both of which would already be covered by the pre-existing
Category:UFO religions.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 15:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
"The two articles you put into this cat both refer to fiction" No (one of them is
Zoo hypothesis). Moreover, other articles can be added, and this category also contains subcategories.
" both of which would already be covered by the pre-existing
Category:UFO religions" No.
"at best the reliable sources support saying that there are those who believe they have had relations of one sort or another with extraterrestrials."
No.
The only examples of human-extraterrestrial relations given in the
Zoo Hypothesis article are all to works of fiction. Saying "There are reliable sources" without actually giving any is as non-contributive as these flat contradictions. Please provide some evidence that there are independent reliable sources of actual human-extraterrestrial relations.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 17:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I was refferring to
Zoo Hypothesis, not to one of its subsections.
"Please provide some evidence that there are independent reliable sources of actual human-extraterrestrial relations" Why should I? That's irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps you are conflating "unproven", or "looked for", with "fictional"?
You should want to provide reliable sources because that what
the entire project is based on and because you yourself said "there are reliable sources." If you are unwilling or unable to do so, that makes the argument to keep that you started with rather hollow.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 18:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Did you notice that the category name does not have "actual" in it? (perhaps you did not see that I wrote "alleged" and "attempts at" immediately after the passage you quote)
Delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, there is only one relevant article in it, with limited prospects of further populating the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Do reliable sources say that SETI or John Christopher's works are silly things?
Apokrif (
talk) 10:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
No, no, no. You don't get the luxury of asking me for reliable sources. The
WP:ONUS is on you to show that reliable sources have claimed that those outfits are engaging in "extraterrestrials-humankind relations". Try to do it with a straight face.
jps (
talk) 13:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't get your point. Why do you link to a page about silly things if you cannot say which silly things you are talking about?
Apokrif (
talk) 15:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
This category itself is the silly thing (not the things you or others try to shoehorn into it). Very silly.
jps (
talk) 18:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete One of the most stupid categories I have come across, there are no relations with extraterrestrials. We haven't found any yet
David J Johnson (
talk) 11:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The point is that there are reliable sources about (1) notable fictional works of fiction about them, (2) notable alleged actual relations, and (3) notable attempts at finding or establishing such relations (hence the subcategories).
Apokrif (
talk) 13:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete or at least add "alleged" or "Conspiracy theories about" to the name. Credulously claiming there are articles which document "extraterrestrial-humankind relationships" is a policy vio on numerous levels (
WP:V,
WP:FRINGE, etc). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 13:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
"Credulously claiming there are articles which document "extraterrestrial-humankind relationships"" Nobody claims that AFAIK.
Apokrif (
talk) 14:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
My point was: categories are sometimes about (possibly) non-existent things, even when the category's name does not says it explicitly.
Apokrif (
talk) 17:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Does WP take a position on whether there is extraterrestrial life?
Apokrif (
talk) 15:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
No, but it does take a position on the idea that "they are among us". They aren't. And since this category strongly implies they are', it's going to get removed.
Alexbrn (
talk) 16:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Or more succinctly: WP doesn't take a position on extraterrestrial life. It DOES take a position on "Extraterrestrial-human relations". You're welcome for the spelling/grammar correction, by the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 16:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Category overreach. Unwise attempt to shoehorn subtly different alien/human topics into a single category. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 13:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
For example, no two people agree that
SETI constitutes "relations" between humans and extraterrestrials. It's highly subjective. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 15:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete As others have said, this is too small, and too POVy.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Potential keep, probably renamed as
Category:Relations between humans and extraterrestrials (or such like). I agree that much of the business in FRINGE, but while we have the articles, we need a category for them. Personally, I do not believe there are any, but that is my POV.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:45, 1 October 2017 (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:Whitelighters
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: Only two articles in the category and not likely to expand with the show being over
JDDJS (
talk) 16:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This is an unnecessary subset of Charmed characters.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Both are already in the Charmed characters category, so that they will not be orphaned. I do not know enough about any other parents to comment.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 21:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
They are already categorized in the parent cats so there's no need for upmerging --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:03, 2 October 2017 (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.
Language isolates
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.
Oppose. I really don't see what can be gained from merging. A single category with a hundred or so languages peppered across the globe doesn't provide meaningful navigation. –
Uanfala 08:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose − the rationale for the previous discussion was
WP:SMALLCAT and these are not small. In any case one could have argued that this is a subcat scheme by continent so small categories are (perhaps) permitted. (Surely there are quite a few
language isolates of Europe.)
Oculi (
talk) 11:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
No, Basque is the only recognized language isolates of Europe. There are some uncategorized ones out there, but being isolates and being uncategorized are two separate things.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 19:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Basque is fine in the general category, but the others would be a mess. —
kwami (
talk) 19:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- All (or most) have enough content to keep. As Basque is (I think) the only European case, it is OK to have it directly in the parent. New Guinea has a very large number of languages so that having it diffused by that one island.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:37, 1 October 2017 (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:Assamese Brahmins
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 is a duplicate category of Brahmin communities of Assam. It should be deleted to ensure Brahmin categorisation is constant, keeping in–line with the Brahmin community categorisations for other Indian states, such as Brahmin communities of Uttarakhand etc... This is just adding to the clutter. Please action and delete this. No point of having two categories representing the same information.
AnjanBorah (
talk) 04:03, 25 September 2017 (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:Jacob Rees-Mogg
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: Textbook case of
overcategorisation, specifically relating to
Eponymous categories for people (which are meant for "very notable cases"). It is important to remember that "Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively but Category:Barack Obama, Category:John Maynard Keynes and Category:Albert Einstein are some exceptions" - and this category contains just two articles - the BLP of the subject and an awful
silly seasonarticle that was subject to an AfD which closed as no consensus with the option of a future merge. Clearly fails
WP:SMALLCAT as well.
AusLondonder (
talk) 03:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as creator. Indeed little growth available here, and wasn't aware of the 'very notable cases' guideline.
81.106.34.193 (
talk) 06:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC) (
User:My name is not dave on wikibreak)reply
Delete as everyone else.
Bondegezou (
talk) 12:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, creator is also okay with deletion --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete only two pages and no room for expansion - unless he becomes party leader
Anarcho-authoritarian (
talk) 18:54, 29 September 2017 (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 Eurosceptics
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:Helper201 moved the category without resort to CFD/CFDS 10 days ago on the grounds "Grammatical correction" - but the parent category,
Category:Eurosceptics is consistently named with the lower cases, which is grammatically correct.
AusLondonder (
talk) 01:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep as Eurosceptics, a Google search of newspaper articles about the subject indicates a capital E is the most common usage, I presume the root is "Europe".
Sionk (
talk) 21:00, 4 October 2017 (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:All redirect 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: Pointless hidden category that contains content identical to
Category:Redirect templates and isn't sortkeyed
Pariah24 (
talk) 00:45, 25 September 2017 (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:Notable Orthodox Churches North America
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. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 03:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary list, as by the virtue of existing on Wikipedia, all the listed churches are "notable".
epicgenius (
talk) 00:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 01:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
delete I don't know that there's an umbrella "North America" category for orthodox church buildings, but there is an extensive "by state" structure for the US, and presumably there are similar structures for the other NA countries.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We do not have "notable" categories, because whether an item is especially notable is a matter of editorial POV. If a church was NN (to WP standards), it would not have an article. The list is in fact international, not American and does not belong. The other two are in appropriate Greek Orthodox categories. There is no need to merge.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:26, 1 October 2017 (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:Big Ten Women's Soccer Tournament
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I created a different category at
Category:Big Ten Conference Women's Soccer Tournament some time ago and never actually proposed the old one for deletion. The other category has a more accurate naming convention and is more consistent with the other categories.
Jay eyem (
talk) 00:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Either Delete as empty or convert to cat-redirect.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. All category contents except the redirect are suitably categorized elsewhere. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 01:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)reply
What's your point?
Apokrif (
talk) 19:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete.
WP:PROFRINGE / just fucking stupid. Wikipedia is a reality-based Project.
Alexbrn (
talk) 20:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia isn't a reality-based project, it's a sources-based project. This is not the place for
the Truth. –
Uanfala 21:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
See
WP:VALID. We omit stuff that isn't taken seriously (in sources). Like this.
Alexbrn (
talk) 22:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep Not empty. There are two pages and three subcategories. Maybe work on removing those before deleting?--Aurictalk 21:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
delete The whole point of such relations is that there are no such relations (or, what is the
Fermi paradox for?).
Mangoe (
talk) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't know, perhaps for a French-speaker the word "relations" carries different connotations. But I just don't see taking three otherwise unrelated categories about aliens, tossing it together with a couple (out of, I dunno, probably half or more of the SF genre) items from works of fiction, and calling it a category. Maybe just get rid of the fiction, upmerge it into
Category:Extraterrestrial_life, and call it a day?
Mangoe (
talk) 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Only two items (other than subcategories), which are currently about fiction. Subcategories vary from ufology to scientific search for E.T. life (where there are no documented existing human-ET relation yet, unless we call sending messages in space, or sampling from space, relations). Could alternatively be renamed but I fail to immediately find a plausible name. —
PaleoNeonate – 22:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't get your point: do you mean that undocumented things should be excluded from the category system (which would imply that
Category:Scientific speculation should be deleted)?
Apokrif (
talk) 15:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Category:Speculation of E.T. contact wasn't the category name... also, we should take care not to state in Wikipedia's voice what are fringe views (and should describe those as such (alleged, claims, beliefs, speculation, etc)).
Category:Search for extraterrestrial life is an adequate example too, but still could not fit all the content of the category being discussed. —
PaleoNeonate – 04:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Right: the category is not (only) about speculation: it's also about fiction and about things, like Raelism, the existence of which is not disputed.
Apokrif (
talk) 17:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Although not technically empty, none of the category members support the existence of the category. In other words, it really should be empty, given the sources shown.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 23:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. All of the category members are already in other appropriate categories.
StarryGrandma (
talk) 00:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
An article can be in several categories.
Apokrif (
talk) 15:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. pointless category at the moment. -
Roxy the dog.bark 12:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep There are reliable sources about alleged ET-humans relations and attempts at such relations.
Apokrif (
talk) 15:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The two articles you put into this cat both refer to fiction and, at the very least, this category title implies non-fictional usage. So neither article produces reliable sources for non-fictional alleged or attempted such relations. Even drilling down to the sub-category member articles, at best the reliable sources support saying that there are those who believe they have had relations of one sort or another with extraterrestrials. The category is not, however, "Promoters of extraterrestrials-humankind relations" or "Believer in extraterrestrials-humankind relations", both of which would already be covered by the pre-existing
Category:UFO religions.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 15:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
"The two articles you put into this cat both refer to fiction" No (one of them is
Zoo hypothesis). Moreover, other articles can be added, and this category also contains subcategories.
" both of which would already be covered by the pre-existing
Category:UFO religions" No.
"at best the reliable sources support saying that there are those who believe they have had relations of one sort or another with extraterrestrials."
No.
The only examples of human-extraterrestrial relations given in the
Zoo Hypothesis article are all to works of fiction. Saying "There are reliable sources" without actually giving any is as non-contributive as these flat contradictions. Please provide some evidence that there are independent reliable sources of actual human-extraterrestrial relations.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 17:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I was refferring to
Zoo Hypothesis, not to one of its subsections.
"Please provide some evidence that there are independent reliable sources of actual human-extraterrestrial relations" Why should I? That's irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps you are conflating "unproven", or "looked for", with "fictional"?
You should want to provide reliable sources because that what
the entire project is based on and because you yourself said "there are reliable sources." If you are unwilling or unable to do so, that makes the argument to keep that you started with rather hollow.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 18:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Did you notice that the category name does not have "actual" in it? (perhaps you did not see that I wrote "alleged" and "attempts at" immediately after the passage you quote)
Delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, there is only one relevant article in it, with limited prospects of further populating the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Do reliable sources say that SETI or John Christopher's works are silly things?
Apokrif (
talk) 10:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
No, no, no. You don't get the luxury of asking me for reliable sources. The
WP:ONUS is on you to show that reliable sources have claimed that those outfits are engaging in "extraterrestrials-humankind relations". Try to do it with a straight face.
jps (
talk) 13:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't get your point. Why do you link to a page about silly things if you cannot say which silly things you are talking about?
Apokrif (
talk) 15:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
This category itself is the silly thing (not the things you or others try to shoehorn into it). Very silly.
jps (
talk) 18:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete One of the most stupid categories I have come across, there are no relations with extraterrestrials. We haven't found any yet
David J Johnson (
talk) 11:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The point is that there are reliable sources about (1) notable fictional works of fiction about them, (2) notable alleged actual relations, and (3) notable attempts at finding or establishing such relations (hence the subcategories).
Apokrif (
talk) 13:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete or at least add "alleged" or "Conspiracy theories about" to the name. Credulously claiming there are articles which document "extraterrestrial-humankind relationships" is a policy vio on numerous levels (
WP:V,
WP:FRINGE, etc). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 13:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
"Credulously claiming there are articles which document "extraterrestrial-humankind relationships"" Nobody claims that AFAIK.
Apokrif (
talk) 14:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
My point was: categories are sometimes about (possibly) non-existent things, even when the category's name does not says it explicitly.
Apokrif (
talk) 17:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Does WP take a position on whether there is extraterrestrial life?
Apokrif (
talk) 15:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
No, but it does take a position on the idea that "they are among us". They aren't. And since this category strongly implies they are', it's going to get removed.
Alexbrn (
talk) 16:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Or more succinctly: WP doesn't take a position on extraterrestrial life. It DOES take a position on "Extraterrestrial-human relations". You're welcome for the spelling/grammar correction, by the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 16:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Category overreach. Unwise attempt to shoehorn subtly different alien/human topics into a single category. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 13:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
For example, no two people agree that
SETI constitutes "relations" between humans and extraterrestrials. It's highly subjective. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 15:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete As others have said, this is too small, and too POVy.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Potential keep, probably renamed as
Category:Relations between humans and extraterrestrials (or such like). I agree that much of the business in FRINGE, but while we have the articles, we need a category for them. Personally, I do not believe there are any, but that is my POV.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:45, 1 October 2017 (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:Whitelighters
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: Only two articles in the category and not likely to expand with the show being over
JDDJS (
talk) 16:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This is an unnecessary subset of Charmed characters.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Both are already in the Charmed characters category, so that they will not be orphaned. I do not know enough about any other parents to comment.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 21:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
They are already categorized in the parent cats so there's no need for upmerging --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:03, 2 October 2017 (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.
Language isolates
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.
Oppose. I really don't see what can be gained from merging. A single category with a hundred or so languages peppered across the globe doesn't provide meaningful navigation. –
Uanfala 08:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose − the rationale for the previous discussion was
WP:SMALLCAT and these are not small. In any case one could have argued that this is a subcat scheme by continent so small categories are (perhaps) permitted. (Surely there are quite a few
language isolates of Europe.)
Oculi (
talk) 11:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
No, Basque is the only recognized language isolates of Europe. There are some uncategorized ones out there, but being isolates and being uncategorized are two separate things.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 19:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Basque is fine in the general category, but the others would be a mess. —
kwami (
talk) 19:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- All (or most) have enough content to keep. As Basque is (I think) the only European case, it is OK to have it directly in the parent. New Guinea has a very large number of languages so that having it diffused by that one island.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:37, 1 October 2017 (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:Assamese Brahmins
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 is a duplicate category of Brahmin communities of Assam. It should be deleted to ensure Brahmin categorisation is constant, keeping in–line with the Brahmin community categorisations for other Indian states, such as Brahmin communities of Uttarakhand etc... This is just adding to the clutter. Please action and delete this. No point of having two categories representing the same information.
AnjanBorah (
talk) 04:03, 25 September 2017 (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:Jacob Rees-Mogg
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: Textbook case of
overcategorisation, specifically relating to
Eponymous categories for people (which are meant for "very notable cases"). It is important to remember that "Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively but Category:Barack Obama, Category:John Maynard Keynes and Category:Albert Einstein are some exceptions" - and this category contains just two articles - the BLP of the subject and an awful
silly seasonarticle that was subject to an AfD which closed as no consensus with the option of a future merge. Clearly fails
WP:SMALLCAT as well.
AusLondonder (
talk) 03:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as creator. Indeed little growth available here, and wasn't aware of the 'very notable cases' guideline.
81.106.34.193 (
talk) 06:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC) (
User:My name is not dave on wikibreak)reply
Delete as everyone else.
Bondegezou (
talk) 12:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, creator is also okay with deletion --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete only two pages and no room for expansion - unless he becomes party leader
Anarcho-authoritarian (
talk) 18:54, 29 September 2017 (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 Eurosceptics
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:Helper201 moved the category without resort to CFD/CFDS 10 days ago on the grounds "Grammatical correction" - but the parent category,
Category:Eurosceptics is consistently named with the lower cases, which is grammatically correct.
AusLondonder (
talk) 01:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep as Eurosceptics, a Google search of newspaper articles about the subject indicates a capital E is the most common usage, I presume the root is "Europe".
Sionk (
talk) 21:00, 4 October 2017 (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:All redirect 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: Pointless hidden category that contains content identical to
Category:Redirect templates and isn't sortkeyed
Pariah24 (
talk) 00:45, 25 September 2017 (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:Notable Orthodox Churches North America
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. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 03:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary list, as by the virtue of existing on Wikipedia, all the listed churches are "notable".
epicgenius (
talk) 00:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 01:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
delete I don't know that there's an umbrella "North America" category for orthodox church buildings, but there is an extensive "by state" structure for the US, and presumably there are similar structures for the other NA countries.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We do not have "notable" categories, because whether an item is especially notable is a matter of editorial POV. If a church was NN (to WP standards), it would not have an article. The list is in fact international, not American and does not belong. The other two are in appropriate Greek Orthodox categories. There is no need to merge.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:26, 1 October 2017 (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:Big Ten Women's Soccer Tournament
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I created a different category at
Category:Big Ten Conference Women's Soccer Tournament some time ago and never actually proposed the old one for deletion. The other category has a more accurate naming convention and is more consistent with the other categories.
Jay eyem (
talk) 00:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Either Delete as empty or convert to cat-redirect.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:28, 1 October 2017 (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.