Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 22 August 24 >

August 23

Members of the Guild of Saint Luke

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all to "Painters from [city]". bibliomaniac 1 5 04:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC) reply
old nomination
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, the defining characteristic of these articles is that they are about early modern painters, not that they are about a a member of a guild. This category tree could rather be called "Early modern painters by city", but that would still not be a good basis for a category tree. On the side, apart from the Dutch and Belgian categories, it is a category tree full of SMALLCATs. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Oppose, for many artists this is a defining aspect, discussed at length in the sources. The 401(!) members of Category:Members of the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke group people like Jan Pieter van Baurscheit the Elder, where this is at the moment the only "Antwerp" category, or Jasper Geeraards, where this is the only "Antwerp" category, or Dutch artist Adriaen de Grijef, where this is the only "Antwerp" category, or ... Removing this huge cat from these articles doesn't improve the articles or Wikipedia. Fram ( talk) 13:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I have created quite a few "Artists from ..." European cities, and put the members of the various guilds into subcategories of them. If the guild categories go they will need to be merged to the relevent city categories. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Revised nomination - Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 22:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak oppose I am slightly concerned that the category implies that there is a singular Guild of Saint Luke, rather than this being a shared name of several artists' organizations. But the nomination seems to miss the point. The guild organizations were only open to certain privileged artists (including some sculptors) who gained exclusive rights to market their works within the guild's area, as the guild had established a de facto monopoly in the art trade. "Painters from" does not reflect the privileges these artists enjoyed, or their political influence. Dimadick ( talk) 05:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Content about privileges and political influence can be included in a topic article. This discussion is about the fact that membership of the guild is not defining for individual painters. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Alt rename all to Category:Painters in City. Professional painters were a privileged group throughout history. But the preposition of place *from* is in almost all cases reserved for birthplace which is not at all DEFINING for painters! We need to point at the work residence thererfor 'P in City'. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I am okay with "in" as well, but it is a misunderstanding that *from* in almost all cases is reserved for birthplace. It is supposed to be used for where people lived during the larger part(s) of their life. If someone lived in a village X and was born in a hospital in a nearby-city Y they should not be categorized as being "from Y". Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment For many painters we do not know where they did their painting, and many painted in different places. If we are going to change lets stick with from, as in most occupational categories. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Beatles and radio

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Radio programmes about the Beatles. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no defining connection between the contents, except that each has something to do with the Beatles and something to do with radio. E.g. Hear the Beatles Tell All is an interview album edited from a radio broadcast; " Lend Me Your Comb" is a song on an album of previously unreleased songs from radio broadcasts; Brian Matthew narrated a Beatles radio documentary series. Some pages are already in other Beatles categories; for others, the Beatles connection seems insufficient for categorisation. – Fayenatic London 20:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – I don't understand what the reason is for deleting, other than you don't think the connection between the articles is that strong. You could argue that some articles shouldn't be in there, but a large number of the articles are radio shows about the Beatles or radio albums by the Beatles. You could narrow the category to something like "Radio programs about the Beatles" in Category:Radio programs by topic, but keeping it broader seems more useful. MClay1 ( talk) 21:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per Marco or otherwise keep. -- Just N. ( talk) 15:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 09:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Eredivisie (women) navigational boxes

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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category consists solely of Category:Eredivisie (women) football club squad templates, and they both are in Category:Dutch football squad navigational boxes and Category:Netherlands football club templates Dutchy45 ( talk) 14:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • By the way, what'd you all think of Golden Boot winner Vivianne Miedema at the Olympics (+ most goals in a single Olympic tournament)? Thank you for your contributions in inspiring the next wave. I see the Netherlands has submitted their bid to host the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup along with Germany and Belgium. Can't wait if it works out - it's a lovely place to visit. Hmlarson ( talk) 21:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I see no reason why the nomination does not make sense. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:18th-century English philosophers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, most British philosophers who lived in England are already in a British philosophers century category. It does not seem useful to leave a random minority of English philosophers in an English subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose These would remove them from the category tree on English people. "British" is far too broad to be useful for navigation. Dimadick ( talk) 16:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose This seems to be a valid sub-category of the parent one ("British", as you well know it, can also mean "Scottish" or "Welsh" [or even, in limited cases, "Irish", but let's not stir up any further troubles over that]). If the article subjects are included in both; then that's a good argument for cleaning it up. I note that the parent categories also have plenty of non-English British philosophers; someone might want to consider creating sub-cats for the other constituent nations ( Category:21st-century Scottish philosophers seems to exist, but I'm not sure for the others) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    The question is which is worse: having a few Scottish and Welsh philosophers in the same category amidst many English philosophers, or having English categories where half of the English philosophers are lacking because many wp editors feel that their nationality is British rather than English. I would say the latter (i.e. the current situation) is a bigger problem. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    So move the English philosophers to the sub-category (which does not make them not-British) and be done with it. Deletion is not cleanup, and basically what you're suggesting is deleting this subcategory (by merging it with the parent) because it isn't being entirely properly used. That's an easily surmountable problem. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Feel free to go ahead with that if you wish. Personally I am not planning to do it, because I interpret the current situation as (at least) a lack of consensus that English philosophers categories since the 18th century are really needed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Most other occupational categories break down British nationality into its component nationalities, and the only reason offered for making this an exception is that the work of diffusion has is incomplete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • After 1707 English is not a nationality, but the mess described here is not confined to philosophers. Do we plan to sort out all the other affected categories? Rathfelder ( talk) 20:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm afraid this is a symptom of how many English people think about their nationality. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- It is a mistake to imagine that GB became homogeneous, just because there was political unity. However the Church of Scotland was not subsumed into the Church of England: this remained a very significant point of difference. Equally the Scottish universities taught a much broader curriculum than the English. We talk of a Scottish enlightenment, led by Scottish philosophers such as David Hume. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Looking from abroad I don't always consent to the UK separations into four parts. As for soccer EM it could have looked like gaining participation by trickery. OTOH Peterkingiron is right to refer to real differences. Well I guess I'd better stay neutral in this matter. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anti-vaccination activists who died of COVID-19

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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted for a combination of WP:NONDEFINING, WP:SMALLCAT, and WP:NARROWCAT, as well as the subjective difficulty Wikipedians have in distinguishing someone with anti-vaccine or vaccine-questioning views with anti-vaccination activism. This category currently includes only 2 articles, one of which is nominated for deletion. No other articles are suggested by PetScan. Browsing current world news finds more examples of non-notable people who arguably belong in this category but will likely never have an article due to their deaths being the only significant news coverage. I realize many Wikipedians as well as most journalists are influenced by recentism due to the coronavirus pandemic, trying to convert daily news gushes into encyclopedia articles, but it often results in clumsy or transient article and categorization structure. --Animalparty! ( talk) 19:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • keep - I created this category. The people included in this category have done documented work to get them in Category:Anti-vaccination activists and fall into Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic because of how they died. Yes, news coverage of non-notable people is the bulk of what's out there now, but I expect there will be more deaths of notable vaccination opponents in the coming weeks. I can't begin to guess how many notable people might find themselves in this category in the end, but I would not be surprised for the number to reach the tens or hundreds over the next year. Determination of vaccine opposition should be straightforward: they must have documented advocacy against vaccines. The category has enduring value. It would be similarly interesting to look back to previous pandemics/outbreaks such as smallpox to see who was opposed to the vaccine but succumbed to the disease despite a vaccine being available. People researching disinformation may find this category particularly useful, for example. -- ke4roh ( talk) 21:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I'll add that news coverage of these notable peoples' deaths includes their advocacy against vaccines right up front (so it's defining), and that the people are notable for their membership in this particular overlap between the groups, not just for membership in both groups (so it's not too narrow or unnecessarily cluttering the category list). -- ke4roh ( talk) 21:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment "but I expect there will be more deaths of notable vaccination opponents in the coming weeks." ke4roh, be serious. You are basing the viability of this category on your own predictions of future deaths? Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball, and its editors should not make unreliable predictions on any topic. Dimadick ( talk) 05:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I struggle to see the encyclopedic value of this category. I am far from an anti-vaxxer, but this is the equivalent of walking up and saying " HA-ha! Served you right!" It's also a morbid running tally. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 22:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The value of this category is similar to the value that news editors see in writing articles about this specific topic whenever someone else unfortunately falls into the category. It will be noted in obituaries for each person that they campaigned against the vaccine, and it will be valuable to scrutinize each of those people's motivations to try to avert such problems in the future. That they and their anti-vax campaign are notable identifies these people as ones who might have enough of an information trail to perform primary research on it. We haven't solved Wikipedia:Category_intersection yet, although the intersection of primary categories can be automated if one knows where to look. -- ke4roh ( talk) 00:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Violation of NPOV. This is the equivalent of awarding our own version of the Darwin Awards to people who died due to senseless behavior. Dimadick ( talk) 05:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
How is there a POV in this? Both the death and activism must be documented by non-primary sources. The category is just identifying the intersection of two categories.-- ke4roh ( talk) 13:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note that there are not any cross categorizations between people who died from diseases and... well, anything really. That is because correlation does not imply causation. While being an antivaxxer probably led to their death, it can't be conclusive. Perhaps someone else in their workplace who was also unvaccinated caused their death - it's impossible to know, and therefore reckless to cross-categorize like this. Would getting a vaccination have saved his life? 99.9% most likely, but it's not 100% since breakthrough infections do exist. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This category follows the very recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critics of COVID-19 safety measures that have died from COVID-19. The category seems like a way to circumvent the deletion of the list. Geschichte ( talk) 18:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete With how rare it is to be so fervently against vaccination that it's one of your defining traits and how rare it is to even die of COVID in the first place, I don't think this very narrow small category is going to be ripe with members any time soon. Also, there's no specification of COVID in the title, so theoretically you could fit someone opposed to flu shots in here, which would obviously make no sense. Nohomersryan ( talk) 02:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • If we're going on a good old "I told you so" mocking spree, why not "People who choked to death in an eating contest", "Boxers with severe brain damage", "Anti-contraception activists who died of AIDS", or perhaps we go into the more religious side of things with "Atheists with depression"? After all, it's just an intersection of two categories. We can promote any moral panic agenda we want without needing to prove there's a connection. How about "Conservatives who died because they couldn't afford health care", or "Liberals who died because the waiting list was too long"? MarshallKe ( talk) 12:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Lugnuts. Steam5 ( talk) 00:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 19:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Two comments from above. "With how rare it is to be so fervently against vaccination that it's one of your defining traits and how rare it is to even die of COVID in the first place, [...]" I'd disagree with both premises. It seems to be a defining trait of a fair number of people, and over four million are dead. "If we're going on a good old 'I told you so' mocking spree [...]" If we are, then yes, this category may be helpful; but an imaginable callous use of a category is not obviously a reason to delete that category. (Standardly, Wikipedia provides verifiable facts; readers are free to make their own uses of these.) I arrived here from the category, which I reached from curiosity piqued by two stories at The Guardian; I'd strongly object to any claim that I'm not going on any kind (good, old, whatever) of "'I told you so' mocking spree". This is a category that satisfies innocent curiosity. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
"Satisfying innate curiosity" is not a good reason for categorization. That is a good way to accumulate trivia cruft. Maybe I'm curious about "actors who played their own parents" after reading a BuzzFeed article. Maybe you're curious about Americans who have streets named after them in France. Both of these concepts have verifiable people that could satisfy someone's niche curiosity. This doesn't mean either is a suitable category for an encyclopedia. Please review Wikipedia:Overcategorization. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Actually, Animalparty, I hadn't mentioned innateness. But thank you for the pointer to Wikipedia:Overcategorization. I confess that I haven't fully reviewed it, but I have skimmed it. Within it, the section on "Narrow intersection" seems particularly relevant. It tells us: "If an article is in 'category A' and 'category B', it does not follow that a 'category A and B' has to be created for this article." Well said. But note that this is about the lack of an obligation to do something, not about an obligation not to do it. It also says: "In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories." Category:Anti-vaccination activists has very roughly a hundred and fifty; Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be very large. The "similar intersections"? Covid-19 is unusual in certain ways so I think this requirement could be waived. (We have Category:Anti-smoking activists; I'm surprised not to see "Category:Smokers' rights activists" or similar: if it did exist, then somebody might want to find whether "Category:Smokers' rights activists who died of heart disease" would be populated.) -- Hoary ( talk) 03:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:DC Comics prisons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This may have been relevant at some point, but with changes in Wikipedia policies it's now too small of a category to be necessary. (Dual merge with Category:Fictional prisons). ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 18:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Only three articles. And one is actually an old-fashioned insane asylum. Dimadick ( talk) 04:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment' I count 4 entries nowadays but that's still SMALLCAT. I do regret it that I'm not at all an expert in Comic worlds. So I have no idea where to find a fifth article. Aren't there even Mangas of prison settings? -- Just N. ( talk) 19:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:DC Comics countries

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This may have been relevant at some point, but with changes in Wikipedia policies it's now too small of a category to be necessary. (Dual merge with Category:Fictional countries. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 18:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Only two countries and a couple of redirects. Wikipedia is getting less informative every year, thanks to policies that are hostile to its users. The deletion of fiction-related articles has made me consider quitting editing for the last few years. I disliked Encyclopædia Britannica for its poor coverage of topics, I don't want us to imitate it. Dimadick ( talk) 04:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Dimadick: I've made numerous fictional subject articles in the past, and a large portion of them have been knee-jerk AFD'd without WP:BEFORE and subsequently kept when the nom realized they were notable and I did due diligence. An article I created and brought to Good Article quality was soft deleted twice in the past out of mistaken belief it was non-notable cruft. The fact is that deletion of fiction is not inevitable and is largely due to when something is not notable. I welcome more people making notable fictional articles that can withstand deletion through the strength of sources rather than "it's important". ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Perhaps a 'List of fictional countries in DC Comics' to compromise? There are hundreds of fictitious countries, but the majority of them would only really have a line or two worth of info. That said, I'm kind of shocked that somefo the more noteworthy fictional countries aren't in that category like Kahndaq.-- Amelia-the-comic-geek ( talk) 17:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I guess to expand on my point a tad -- there are about 300 fictional countries in DC, counting stuff they acquired from companies over the years, which I think is by itself notable and worthy of writing about. It also would help uniform redirects as they currently go towards the media the country had its most notable appearance.-- Amelia-the-comic-geek ( talk) 17:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      There's already List of DC Universe locations (formerly List of locations of the DC Universe, but I moved it just now), which has a section listing countries. (I can't help but wonder if it should be at List of DC comics locations instead, but this move should at the very least be uncontroversial. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 12:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Clydebank F.C. non-playing staff

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 13:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: As per recent move of the other categories relating to the 1965-2002 club, with the unsuffixed version relating to the current (2003 onwards) club. Crowsus ( talk) 17:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 10:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Latter-day Saint belief and the Bible

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: not renamed. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Native Americans

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: not renamed. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Latter-day Saint cosmology

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: not renamed. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Mormon cosmology to Caegory:Latter-day Saint cosmology
  • Nominator's rationale The use of the term here has been heavily depricated, and there is a general movement to use the term "atter-day Saint" and to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by its full name. We should reflect this in our article and category names. The subcategories already use Latter-day Saint. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support/Speedy rename per C2D This could have been done as a speedy and uncontroversial rename since that is the title of the main article. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 13:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment ZXCVBNM, the main article was renamed this morning and has been reverted back to Mormon cosmology. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Then Oppose/wrong forum, this should be a move discussion, not a category move discussion. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 00:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose We can't allow that historic communities can rename themselves just like corporations. -- Just N. ( talk) 19:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Opposition to Islam

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 13:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Islamophobia to Category:Opposition to Islam
  • Nominator's rationale The invoked term here is a term invented by the same forces that orchestrated mobs that killed over 200 people in direct oppostion to the right of people to draw certain cartoons. It is a term steeped with a history of oipposition to free exchange of ideas, physical punishment for apostasy, and other highly illeberal ideas. We should not be givinng aid and comfort to such represive ideas and the terminology used to support them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This term is a negative term used by many to try and silance all anaasis and criticism of Islam, and deligitimaze such. It is also part of a larger campaign meant to advance the political power of certain groups. We should not use such a loaded term. See Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide by Paul Marshall and Nina Shea for a larger context of what is at stake and invoked by the use of such langauge. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Comment "silance all anaasis" Could you clarify what you mean here? I can't figure what you mean by "anaasis". Dimadick ( talk) 13:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose/wrong forum Trying to move this category before the main article, Islamophobia, is moved is putting the cart before the horse. This should be done as a move request on the article itself. If the article is moved, the category can be speedy moved to follow the established name. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I see JPL is continuing his quest against the term Islamophobia here, without giving any sources as to why any of this: term here is a term invented by the same forces that orchestrated mobs that killed over 200 people in direct oppostion to the right of people to draw certain cartoons. It is a term steeped with a history of oipposition to free exchange of ideas, physical punishment for apostasy, and other highly illeberal ideas. is actually the case. This trikes me as highly irrational and there is no indication that the term islamophobia is any of what JPL said. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 15:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I base my opinioon on a very well written book. What is your justification for using the methods of people who prescribe the death penalty for apostates from Islam? This very term speaks violence and antagnism towards those who choose to embrace other religions when they were born as part of Islam. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I have drawn a picture of Muhammad and have published it. I did so as part of "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" a needed movement to protect freedom of thought. I still hold this very term is designed to narrow thought and treat ideas as unacceptable in ways that are not justified. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, Category:Islamophobia neatly expresses the emotional component of anti-islam, in contrast to Category:Criticism of Islam which expresses the rational element. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Islamophobia is the commonly used word by reliable sources for hateful rhetoric towards Islam, not scholarly analysis, and one author/book's argument doesn't outweigh every other source. John is a very experienced editor and knows how Wikipedia works so I'm not sure what brought on these CFD nominations today. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment John is quite experienced, but he has expressed his disapproval of this category since at least 2016. See this deletion discussion from 2016. John voted for deletion, and stated "This is a term that is clearly pushing a specific point of view (that the attacks on the teachings and practices of Islam engaged in by these people is fuelled by an irrational fear). That is clearly taking a specific point of view and not in any way abvocating a neutral point of view." Dimadick ( talk) 04:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Islamophobia is the term used by the sources. Dimadick ( talk) 04:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shellworlds in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Much less narrow category name would allow for more content. There is probably enough material to start to fill a category in such a case ( Rendezvous with Rama, Ringworld, etc.) ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 09:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Underground countries in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT. There is no need for a more narrow version of the same category. Note that only the actual locations should be merged, while the others should be upmerged to Category:Subterranean fiction instead. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Surprisingly small category. Less than 10 articles, if we exclude works that only depict underground countries (as opposed to articles about the countries themselves). Dimadick ( talk) 10:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television stations in the Rio Grande Valley

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Television stations in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. In light of the RM that moved Rio Grande Valley to Lower Rio Grande Valley, as well as the main category moving per C2D, the main objection against renaming is rendered moot. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 12:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 05:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Beatles and television

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Television programmes about the Beatles. Also, purge of entries running afoul of WP:PERFCAT. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The proposed name is parallel to the sibling Girls Aloud television shows. The category contains mainly one-off programmes, so "series" is not appropriate. – Fayenatic London 07:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Related Nomination There is also a proposal to rename Category:Films associated with the Beatles in CFD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome right here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Many of the entries in this category are series in which the Beatles have guested or performed. The Ed Sullivan Show being categorized as a Beatles television show would not be correct nor defining. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 21:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    • The Beatles' appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show was a defining moment for culture and for the show. The show would be notable without it but many people associate the show with the Beatles, especially their first performance on the show. I don't think categorising it as a "Beatles television show" implies that the whole show is about the Beatles, just that it's a television show in some way associated with the Beatles. MClay1 ( talk) 22:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I oppose the proposed name. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – I'm sure there used to be a whole bunch of these "X and Y" topic intersection categories. I think it's a useful way to categorise articles. I prefer the current category name, but the nom's new name probably keeps most of the scope compared to a name like "Television shows about the Beatles". MClay1 ( talk) 22:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The proposed new name is no good! And why are one-off programmes bad. If there is an article it should be okay. -- Just N. ( talk) 15:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Creating a subcategory may be an alternative. Perhaps Category:Television shows about the Beatles would be a more precise name for that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Problem is, a lot of these shows aren't about the Beatles... Grutness... wha? 00:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 05:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television shows filmed in Vancouver

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 1#Category:Television shows filmed in Vancouver

Category:Artist groups and collectives of the Northern Netherlands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, "of the Northern Netherlands" is equivalent to "Dutch". Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 03:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Events by city

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 Maracaibo, Podgorica, San Salvador, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Sucre, Tegucigalpa, Tianjin, Treviso, Zakopane as WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. they may be re-created if there is more content in future. Keep the rest. Note: as stated in the nomination, the content of the deleted categories is already within "Sport in <city>". – Fayenatic London 05:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, in these cities it is a redundant category layer with only one subcategory. For a few cities above that do not have a history category there is no other merge target specified, but in any case the subcategory is still preserved in a Sports in City category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support "Events in.." is really only relevant at a country level. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 08:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 03:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm not sure how events and History are the same thing. There could easily be other things than sporting events in say Treviso. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Populate, and keep the ones that reach a satisfactory level. Upmerge the rest to the basic city categories (NOT to the "History of" categories). I've had a look at a few of these categories and while some (e.g., Zakopane) were not easily expandable, some were easy to populate with annual events, festivals, and important cultural events (have a look at Category:Events in Turin now). Note too that some, like Valencia, have "Events in region" categories which the current proposed categories could be upmerged into. Grutness... wha? 04:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I've done what I can to them - quite a few are now savable, though there are several which still have just one subcategory and nothing else:
Keep:
Ghent - one subcat, five articles.
Jakarta - one subcat, 12 articles.
Łódź - one subcat, four articles.
Skopje - two subcats, no articles.
Tirana - two subcats, three articles.
Turin - three subcats, six articles.
Valencia - three subcats, two articles.
Weak keep:
Guayaquil - one subcat, one article.
Klagenfurt - one subcat, two articles.
La Paz - one subcat, one articles.
Port-au-Prince - one subcat, three articles.
San José, Costa Rica - one subcat, one article.
Santo Domingo - one subcat, three articles.
Tunis - one subcat, two articles.
Delete:
Maracaibo - one subcat, no articles.
Podgorica - one subcat, no articles.
San Salvador - one subcat, no articles.
Santa Cruz de la Sierra - one subcat, no articles.
Sucre - one subcat, no articles.
Tegucigalpa - one subcat, no articles.
Tianjin - one subcat, no articles.
Treviso - one subcat, no articles.
Zakopane - one subcat, no articles.
Grutness... wha? 02:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_23&oldid=1073192812"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 22 August 24 >

August 23

Members of the Guild of Saint Luke

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all to "Painters from [city]". bibliomaniac 1 5 04:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC) reply
old nomination
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, the defining characteristic of these articles is that they are about early modern painters, not that they are about a a member of a guild. This category tree could rather be called "Early modern painters by city", but that would still not be a good basis for a category tree. On the side, apart from the Dutch and Belgian categories, it is a category tree full of SMALLCATs. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Oppose, for many artists this is a defining aspect, discussed at length in the sources. The 401(!) members of Category:Members of the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke group people like Jan Pieter van Baurscheit the Elder, where this is at the moment the only "Antwerp" category, or Jasper Geeraards, where this is the only "Antwerp" category, or Dutch artist Adriaen de Grijef, where this is the only "Antwerp" category, or ... Removing this huge cat from these articles doesn't improve the articles or Wikipedia. Fram ( talk) 13:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I have created quite a few "Artists from ..." European cities, and put the members of the various guilds into subcategories of them. If the guild categories go they will need to be merged to the relevent city categories. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Revised nomination - Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 22:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak oppose I am slightly concerned that the category implies that there is a singular Guild of Saint Luke, rather than this being a shared name of several artists' organizations. But the nomination seems to miss the point. The guild organizations were only open to certain privileged artists (including some sculptors) who gained exclusive rights to market their works within the guild's area, as the guild had established a de facto monopoly in the art trade. "Painters from" does not reflect the privileges these artists enjoyed, or their political influence. Dimadick ( talk) 05:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Content about privileges and political influence can be included in a topic article. This discussion is about the fact that membership of the guild is not defining for individual painters. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Alt rename all to Category:Painters in City. Professional painters were a privileged group throughout history. But the preposition of place *from* is in almost all cases reserved for birthplace which is not at all DEFINING for painters! We need to point at the work residence thererfor 'P in City'. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I am okay with "in" as well, but it is a misunderstanding that *from* in almost all cases is reserved for birthplace. It is supposed to be used for where people lived during the larger part(s) of their life. If someone lived in a village X and was born in a hospital in a nearby-city Y they should not be categorized as being "from Y". Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment For many painters we do not know where they did their painting, and many painted in different places. If we are going to change lets stick with from, as in most occupational categories. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Beatles and radio

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Radio programmes about the Beatles. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no defining connection between the contents, except that each has something to do with the Beatles and something to do with radio. E.g. Hear the Beatles Tell All is an interview album edited from a radio broadcast; " Lend Me Your Comb" is a song on an album of previously unreleased songs from radio broadcasts; Brian Matthew narrated a Beatles radio documentary series. Some pages are already in other Beatles categories; for others, the Beatles connection seems insufficient for categorisation. – Fayenatic London 20:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – I don't understand what the reason is for deleting, other than you don't think the connection between the articles is that strong. You could argue that some articles shouldn't be in there, but a large number of the articles are radio shows about the Beatles or radio albums by the Beatles. You could narrow the category to something like "Radio programs about the Beatles" in Category:Radio programs by topic, but keeping it broader seems more useful. MClay1 ( talk) 21:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per Marco or otherwise keep. -- Just N. ( talk) 15:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 09:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Eredivisie (women) navigational boxes

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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category consists solely of Category:Eredivisie (women) football club squad templates, and they both are in Category:Dutch football squad navigational boxes and Category:Netherlands football club templates Dutchy45 ( talk) 14:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • By the way, what'd you all think of Golden Boot winner Vivianne Miedema at the Olympics (+ most goals in a single Olympic tournament)? Thank you for your contributions in inspiring the next wave. I see the Netherlands has submitted their bid to host the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup along with Germany and Belgium. Can't wait if it works out - it's a lovely place to visit. Hmlarson ( talk) 21:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I see no reason why the nomination does not make sense. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:18th-century English philosophers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, most British philosophers who lived in England are already in a British philosophers century category. It does not seem useful to leave a random minority of English philosophers in an English subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose These would remove them from the category tree on English people. "British" is far too broad to be useful for navigation. Dimadick ( talk) 16:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose This seems to be a valid sub-category of the parent one ("British", as you well know it, can also mean "Scottish" or "Welsh" [or even, in limited cases, "Irish", but let's not stir up any further troubles over that]). If the article subjects are included in both; then that's a good argument for cleaning it up. I note that the parent categories also have plenty of non-English British philosophers; someone might want to consider creating sub-cats for the other constituent nations ( Category:21st-century Scottish philosophers seems to exist, but I'm not sure for the others) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    The question is which is worse: having a few Scottish and Welsh philosophers in the same category amidst many English philosophers, or having English categories where half of the English philosophers are lacking because many wp editors feel that their nationality is British rather than English. I would say the latter (i.e. the current situation) is a bigger problem. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    So move the English philosophers to the sub-category (which does not make them not-British) and be done with it. Deletion is not cleanup, and basically what you're suggesting is deleting this subcategory (by merging it with the parent) because it isn't being entirely properly used. That's an easily surmountable problem. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Feel free to go ahead with that if you wish. Personally I am not planning to do it, because I interpret the current situation as (at least) a lack of consensus that English philosophers categories since the 18th century are really needed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Most other occupational categories break down British nationality into its component nationalities, and the only reason offered for making this an exception is that the work of diffusion has is incomplete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • After 1707 English is not a nationality, but the mess described here is not confined to philosophers. Do we plan to sort out all the other affected categories? Rathfelder ( talk) 20:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm afraid this is a symptom of how many English people think about their nationality. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- It is a mistake to imagine that GB became homogeneous, just because there was political unity. However the Church of Scotland was not subsumed into the Church of England: this remained a very significant point of difference. Equally the Scottish universities taught a much broader curriculum than the English. We talk of a Scottish enlightenment, led by Scottish philosophers such as David Hume. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Looking from abroad I don't always consent to the UK separations into four parts. As for soccer EM it could have looked like gaining participation by trickery. OTOH Peterkingiron is right to refer to real differences. Well I guess I'd better stay neutral in this matter. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anti-vaccination activists who died of COVID-19

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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted for a combination of WP:NONDEFINING, WP:SMALLCAT, and WP:NARROWCAT, as well as the subjective difficulty Wikipedians have in distinguishing someone with anti-vaccine or vaccine-questioning views with anti-vaccination activism. This category currently includes only 2 articles, one of which is nominated for deletion. No other articles are suggested by PetScan. Browsing current world news finds more examples of non-notable people who arguably belong in this category but will likely never have an article due to their deaths being the only significant news coverage. I realize many Wikipedians as well as most journalists are influenced by recentism due to the coronavirus pandemic, trying to convert daily news gushes into encyclopedia articles, but it often results in clumsy or transient article and categorization structure. --Animalparty! ( talk) 19:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • keep - I created this category. The people included in this category have done documented work to get them in Category:Anti-vaccination activists and fall into Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic because of how they died. Yes, news coverage of non-notable people is the bulk of what's out there now, but I expect there will be more deaths of notable vaccination opponents in the coming weeks. I can't begin to guess how many notable people might find themselves in this category in the end, but I would not be surprised for the number to reach the tens or hundreds over the next year. Determination of vaccine opposition should be straightforward: they must have documented advocacy against vaccines. The category has enduring value. It would be similarly interesting to look back to previous pandemics/outbreaks such as smallpox to see who was opposed to the vaccine but succumbed to the disease despite a vaccine being available. People researching disinformation may find this category particularly useful, for example. -- ke4roh ( talk) 21:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I'll add that news coverage of these notable peoples' deaths includes their advocacy against vaccines right up front (so it's defining), and that the people are notable for their membership in this particular overlap between the groups, not just for membership in both groups (so it's not too narrow or unnecessarily cluttering the category list). -- ke4roh ( talk) 21:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment "but I expect there will be more deaths of notable vaccination opponents in the coming weeks." ke4roh, be serious. You are basing the viability of this category on your own predictions of future deaths? Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball, and its editors should not make unreliable predictions on any topic. Dimadick ( talk) 05:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I struggle to see the encyclopedic value of this category. I am far from an anti-vaxxer, but this is the equivalent of walking up and saying " HA-ha! Served you right!" It's also a morbid running tally. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 22:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The value of this category is similar to the value that news editors see in writing articles about this specific topic whenever someone else unfortunately falls into the category. It will be noted in obituaries for each person that they campaigned against the vaccine, and it will be valuable to scrutinize each of those people's motivations to try to avert such problems in the future. That they and their anti-vax campaign are notable identifies these people as ones who might have enough of an information trail to perform primary research on it. We haven't solved Wikipedia:Category_intersection yet, although the intersection of primary categories can be automated if one knows where to look. -- ke4roh ( talk) 00:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Violation of NPOV. This is the equivalent of awarding our own version of the Darwin Awards to people who died due to senseless behavior. Dimadick ( talk) 05:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
How is there a POV in this? Both the death and activism must be documented by non-primary sources. The category is just identifying the intersection of two categories.-- ke4roh ( talk) 13:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note that there are not any cross categorizations between people who died from diseases and... well, anything really. That is because correlation does not imply causation. While being an antivaxxer probably led to their death, it can't be conclusive. Perhaps someone else in their workplace who was also unvaccinated caused their death - it's impossible to know, and therefore reckless to cross-categorize like this. Would getting a vaccination have saved his life? 99.9% most likely, but it's not 100% since breakthrough infections do exist. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This category follows the very recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critics of COVID-19 safety measures that have died from COVID-19. The category seems like a way to circumvent the deletion of the list. Geschichte ( talk) 18:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete With how rare it is to be so fervently against vaccination that it's one of your defining traits and how rare it is to even die of COVID in the first place, I don't think this very narrow small category is going to be ripe with members any time soon. Also, there's no specification of COVID in the title, so theoretically you could fit someone opposed to flu shots in here, which would obviously make no sense. Nohomersryan ( talk) 02:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • If we're going on a good old "I told you so" mocking spree, why not "People who choked to death in an eating contest", "Boxers with severe brain damage", "Anti-contraception activists who died of AIDS", or perhaps we go into the more religious side of things with "Atheists with depression"? After all, it's just an intersection of two categories. We can promote any moral panic agenda we want without needing to prove there's a connection. How about "Conservatives who died because they couldn't afford health care", or "Liberals who died because the waiting list was too long"? MarshallKe ( talk) 12:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Lugnuts. Steam5 ( talk) 00:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 19:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Two comments from above. "With how rare it is to be so fervently against vaccination that it's one of your defining traits and how rare it is to even die of COVID in the first place, [...]" I'd disagree with both premises. It seems to be a defining trait of a fair number of people, and over four million are dead. "If we're going on a good old 'I told you so' mocking spree [...]" If we are, then yes, this category may be helpful; but an imaginable callous use of a category is not obviously a reason to delete that category. (Standardly, Wikipedia provides verifiable facts; readers are free to make their own uses of these.) I arrived here from the category, which I reached from curiosity piqued by two stories at The Guardian; I'd strongly object to any claim that I'm not going on any kind (good, old, whatever) of "'I told you so' mocking spree". This is a category that satisfies innocent curiosity. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
"Satisfying innate curiosity" is not a good reason for categorization. That is a good way to accumulate trivia cruft. Maybe I'm curious about "actors who played their own parents" after reading a BuzzFeed article. Maybe you're curious about Americans who have streets named after them in France. Both of these concepts have verifiable people that could satisfy someone's niche curiosity. This doesn't mean either is a suitable category for an encyclopedia. Please review Wikipedia:Overcategorization. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Actually, Animalparty, I hadn't mentioned innateness. But thank you for the pointer to Wikipedia:Overcategorization. I confess that I haven't fully reviewed it, but I have skimmed it. Within it, the section on "Narrow intersection" seems particularly relevant. It tells us: "If an article is in 'category A' and 'category B', it does not follow that a 'category A and B' has to be created for this article." Well said. But note that this is about the lack of an obligation to do something, not about an obligation not to do it. It also says: "In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories." Category:Anti-vaccination activists has very roughly a hundred and fifty; Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be very large. The "similar intersections"? Covid-19 is unusual in certain ways so I think this requirement could be waived. (We have Category:Anti-smoking activists; I'm surprised not to see "Category:Smokers' rights activists" or similar: if it did exist, then somebody might want to find whether "Category:Smokers' rights activists who died of heart disease" would be populated.) -- Hoary ( talk) 03:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:DC Comics prisons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This may have been relevant at some point, but with changes in Wikipedia policies it's now too small of a category to be necessary. (Dual merge with Category:Fictional prisons). ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 18:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Only three articles. And one is actually an old-fashioned insane asylum. Dimadick ( talk) 04:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment' I count 4 entries nowadays but that's still SMALLCAT. I do regret it that I'm not at all an expert in Comic worlds. So I have no idea where to find a fifth article. Aren't there even Mangas of prison settings? -- Just N. ( talk) 19:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:DC Comics countries

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This may have been relevant at some point, but with changes in Wikipedia policies it's now too small of a category to be necessary. (Dual merge with Category:Fictional countries. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 18:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Only two countries and a couple of redirects. Wikipedia is getting less informative every year, thanks to policies that are hostile to its users. The deletion of fiction-related articles has made me consider quitting editing for the last few years. I disliked Encyclopædia Britannica for its poor coverage of topics, I don't want us to imitate it. Dimadick ( talk) 04:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Dimadick: I've made numerous fictional subject articles in the past, and a large portion of them have been knee-jerk AFD'd without WP:BEFORE and subsequently kept when the nom realized they were notable and I did due diligence. An article I created and brought to Good Article quality was soft deleted twice in the past out of mistaken belief it was non-notable cruft. The fact is that deletion of fiction is not inevitable and is largely due to when something is not notable. I welcome more people making notable fictional articles that can withstand deletion through the strength of sources rather than "it's important". ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Perhaps a 'List of fictional countries in DC Comics' to compromise? There are hundreds of fictitious countries, but the majority of them would only really have a line or two worth of info. That said, I'm kind of shocked that somefo the more noteworthy fictional countries aren't in that category like Kahndaq.-- Amelia-the-comic-geek ( talk) 17:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I guess to expand on my point a tad -- there are about 300 fictional countries in DC, counting stuff they acquired from companies over the years, which I think is by itself notable and worthy of writing about. It also would help uniform redirects as they currently go towards the media the country had its most notable appearance.-- Amelia-the-comic-geek ( talk) 17:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      There's already List of DC Universe locations (formerly List of locations of the DC Universe, but I moved it just now), which has a section listing countries. (I can't help but wonder if it should be at List of DC comics locations instead, but this move should at the very least be uncontroversial. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 12:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Clydebank F.C. non-playing staff

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 13:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: As per recent move of the other categories relating to the 1965-2002 club, with the unsuffixed version relating to the current (2003 onwards) club. Crowsus ( talk) 17:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 10:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Latter-day Saint belief and the Bible

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: not renamed. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Native Americans

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: not renamed. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Latter-day Saint cosmology

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: not renamed. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Mormon cosmology to Caegory:Latter-day Saint cosmology
  • Nominator's rationale The use of the term here has been heavily depricated, and there is a general movement to use the term "atter-day Saint" and to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by its full name. We should reflect this in our article and category names. The subcategories already use Latter-day Saint. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support/Speedy rename per C2D This could have been done as a speedy and uncontroversial rename since that is the title of the main article. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 13:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment ZXCVBNM, the main article was renamed this morning and has been reverted back to Mormon cosmology. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Then Oppose/wrong forum, this should be a move discussion, not a category move discussion. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 00:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose We can't allow that historic communities can rename themselves just like corporations. -- Just N. ( talk) 19:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Opposition to Islam

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 13:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Islamophobia to Category:Opposition to Islam
  • Nominator's rationale The invoked term here is a term invented by the same forces that orchestrated mobs that killed over 200 people in direct oppostion to the right of people to draw certain cartoons. It is a term steeped with a history of oipposition to free exchange of ideas, physical punishment for apostasy, and other highly illeberal ideas. We should not be givinng aid and comfort to such represive ideas and the terminology used to support them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This term is a negative term used by many to try and silance all anaasis and criticism of Islam, and deligitimaze such. It is also part of a larger campaign meant to advance the political power of certain groups. We should not use such a loaded term. See Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide by Paul Marshall and Nina Shea for a larger context of what is at stake and invoked by the use of such langauge. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Comment "silance all anaasis" Could you clarify what you mean here? I can't figure what you mean by "anaasis". Dimadick ( talk) 13:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose/wrong forum Trying to move this category before the main article, Islamophobia, is moved is putting the cart before the horse. This should be done as a move request on the article itself. If the article is moved, the category can be speedy moved to follow the established name. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I see JPL is continuing his quest against the term Islamophobia here, without giving any sources as to why any of this: term here is a term invented by the same forces that orchestrated mobs that killed over 200 people in direct oppostion to the right of people to draw certain cartoons. It is a term steeped with a history of oipposition to free exchange of ideas, physical punishment for apostasy, and other highly illeberal ideas. is actually the case. This trikes me as highly irrational and there is no indication that the term islamophobia is any of what JPL said. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 15:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I base my opinioon on a very well written book. What is your justification for using the methods of people who prescribe the death penalty for apostates from Islam? This very term speaks violence and antagnism towards those who choose to embrace other religions when they were born as part of Islam. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I have drawn a picture of Muhammad and have published it. I did so as part of "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" a needed movement to protect freedom of thought. I still hold this very term is designed to narrow thought and treat ideas as unacceptable in ways that are not justified. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, Category:Islamophobia neatly expresses the emotional component of anti-islam, in contrast to Category:Criticism of Islam which expresses the rational element. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Islamophobia is the commonly used word by reliable sources for hateful rhetoric towards Islam, not scholarly analysis, and one author/book's argument doesn't outweigh every other source. John is a very experienced editor and knows how Wikipedia works so I'm not sure what brought on these CFD nominations today. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment John is quite experienced, but he has expressed his disapproval of this category since at least 2016. See this deletion discussion from 2016. John voted for deletion, and stated "This is a term that is clearly pushing a specific point of view (that the attacks on the teachings and practices of Islam engaged in by these people is fuelled by an irrational fear). That is clearly taking a specific point of view and not in any way abvocating a neutral point of view." Dimadick ( talk) 04:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Islamophobia is the term used by the sources. Dimadick ( talk) 04:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shellworlds in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Much less narrow category name would allow for more content. There is probably enough material to start to fill a category in such a case ( Rendezvous with Rama, Ringworld, etc.) ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 09:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Underground countries in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT. There is no need for a more narrow version of the same category. Note that only the actual locations should be merged, while the others should be upmerged to Category:Subterranean fiction instead. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Surprisingly small category. Less than 10 articles, if we exclude works that only depict underground countries (as opposed to articles about the countries themselves). Dimadick ( talk) 10:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television stations in the Rio Grande Valley

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Television stations in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. In light of the RM that moved Rio Grande Valley to Lower Rio Grande Valley, as well as the main category moving per C2D, the main objection against renaming is rendered moot. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 12:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 05:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Beatles and television

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Television programmes about the Beatles. Also, purge of entries running afoul of WP:PERFCAT. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The proposed name is parallel to the sibling Girls Aloud television shows. The category contains mainly one-off programmes, so "series" is not appropriate. – Fayenatic London 07:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Related Nomination There is also a proposal to rename Category:Films associated with the Beatles in CFD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome right here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Many of the entries in this category are series in which the Beatles have guested or performed. The Ed Sullivan Show being categorized as a Beatles television show would not be correct nor defining. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 21:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    • The Beatles' appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show was a defining moment for culture and for the show. The show would be notable without it but many people associate the show with the Beatles, especially their first performance on the show. I don't think categorising it as a "Beatles television show" implies that the whole show is about the Beatles, just that it's a television show in some way associated with the Beatles. MClay1 ( talk) 22:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I oppose the proposed name. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – I'm sure there used to be a whole bunch of these "X and Y" topic intersection categories. I think it's a useful way to categorise articles. I prefer the current category name, but the nom's new name probably keeps most of the scope compared to a name like "Television shows about the Beatles". MClay1 ( talk) 22:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The proposed new name is no good! And why are one-off programmes bad. If there is an article it should be okay. -- Just N. ( talk) 15:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Creating a subcategory may be an alternative. Perhaps Category:Television shows about the Beatles would be a more precise name for that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Problem is, a lot of these shows aren't about the Beatles... Grutness... wha? 00:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 05:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television shows filmed in Vancouver

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 1#Category:Television shows filmed in Vancouver

Category:Artist groups and collectives of the Northern Netherlands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, "of the Northern Netherlands" is equivalent to "Dutch". Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 03:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Events by city

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 Maracaibo, Podgorica, San Salvador, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Sucre, Tegucigalpa, Tianjin, Treviso, Zakopane as WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. they may be re-created if there is more content in future. Keep the rest. Note: as stated in the nomination, the content of the deleted categories is already within "Sport in <city>". – Fayenatic London 05:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, in these cities it is a redundant category layer with only one subcategory. For a few cities above that do not have a history category there is no other merge target specified, but in any case the subcategory is still preserved in a Sports in City category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support "Events in.." is really only relevant at a country level. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 08:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 03:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm not sure how events and History are the same thing. There could easily be other things than sporting events in say Treviso. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Populate, and keep the ones that reach a satisfactory level. Upmerge the rest to the basic city categories (NOT to the "History of" categories). I've had a look at a few of these categories and while some (e.g., Zakopane) were not easily expandable, some were easy to populate with annual events, festivals, and important cultural events (have a look at Category:Events in Turin now). Note too that some, like Valencia, have "Events in region" categories which the current proposed categories could be upmerged into. Grutness... wha? 04:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I've done what I can to them - quite a few are now savable, though there are several which still have just one subcategory and nothing else:
Keep:
Ghent - one subcat, five articles.
Jakarta - one subcat, 12 articles.
Łódź - one subcat, four articles.
Skopje - two subcats, no articles.
Tirana - two subcats, three articles.
Turin - three subcats, six articles.
Valencia - three subcats, two articles.
Weak keep:
Guayaquil - one subcat, one article.
Klagenfurt - one subcat, two articles.
La Paz - one subcat, one articles.
Port-au-Prince - one subcat, three articles.
San José, Costa Rica - one subcat, one article.
Santo Domingo - one subcat, three articles.
Tunis - one subcat, two articles.
Delete:
Maracaibo - one subcat, no articles.
Podgorica - one subcat, no articles.
San Salvador - one subcat, no articles.
Santa Cruz de la Sierra - one subcat, no articles.
Sucre - one subcat, no articles.
Tegucigalpa - one subcat, no articles.
Tianjin - one subcat, no articles.
Treviso - one subcat, no articles.
Zakopane - one subcat, no articles.
Grutness... wha? 02:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_23&oldid=1073192812"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE