Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 28 June 30 >

June 29

Category:16th-century Arab people

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. Since the target already exists, this will be implemented as a merge. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: for consistency with Category:15th-century Arabs, Category:17th-century Arabs, etc. BenKuykendall ( talk) 22:44, 29 June 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:Participants in the Les Houches Physics Summer School 1990

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. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Not mentioned in any of the articles included I've looked at. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:44, 29 June 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.

Churches by name

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. For the disambiguation pages, there is already Category:Church building disambiguation pages. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Textbook case of WP:SHAREDNAME; the churches have nothing in common with one another besides their names, which are rather conventional names for churches. - choster ( talk) 20:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom, nothing in common except the same name. Note: Category:Churches dedicated to Saint Mary wasn't tagged with CFD template, so I added it. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the page was unmerged from (Category:Churches by patron saint) on Wikicommons. It categorises all religious buildings by dedication to persons, which it belongs on a number of other language wikis; Dutch, Greek, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, German, Polish Swedish; plus more. Why is English any different? They categorise churches by saint, that's what they have in common. Moondragon21 ( talk) 14:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • See e.g. CfD 2009 January 3 Churches by patron saint for an earlier discussion. Categorization is intended to capture defining aspects of the subject, and you cannot really say that one church named for St. Mary has anything more to do with another church named for St. Mary than one named otherwise, especially in religiously pluralistic societies where churches with different conceptions of sainthood exist side by side.- choster ( talk) 09:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Of course you can say that, it's something they all have in common. And why is the English-language Wikipedia any different to the others? Moondragon21 ( talk) 14:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply
It doesn't make any more sense to me than to categorize people with the same name, or cities with the same name. You can't even infer much of anything from the dedication, not even who founded or staffed it—I grew up attending a church and school dedicated to a 16th-century Dominican, but it was created by the archdiocese and staffed by Augustinians, and the only recognition ever made of the patron was in passing during the odd eucharistic prayer a few times a year. The name or dedication just isn't Wikipedia:CATDEFINING.- choster ( talk) 17:21, 2 July 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:Coptic emigrants to the United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 20#Coptic emigrants

Category:Indoor ice hockey venues in New Orleans

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) 17:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT (2 articles). I suggest deleting because both the category and the articles are already in the appropriate subcategories. User:Namiba 16:17, 29 June 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:Venezuelan nationalists

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) 17:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OPINIONCAT. There currently isn't a nationalist party in Venezuela, meaning that articles in this category are prone of original research. NoonIcarus ( talk) 15:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The concept of "Venezuelan nationalism" is really broad and could be dated back up to the dictatorships of Juan Vicente Gómez and Marcos Pérez Jiménez, from where the issue arises that the term should not be confused with "militarism". More specifically, it could also refer to strive for territorial integrity, which can range from irredentism, which currently and historically is a fringe movement in the country, or more commonly the defense of current territorial claims, which I doubt that by itself can be considered as "nationalism". The term is a lot more vague than what can be found in Europe, including but not limited to Italian unification and Pan-Germanism.
In short, the definition of Venezuelan nationalism has not been developed by scholars, and its use can only bring speculation. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 13:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I should also mention that the category currently contains merely two subjects, whose articles don't explain why they are nationalist. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 14:00, 3 July 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:Marine meteorology and sailing

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) 09:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: ill-formed title; plus, sailing is a marine activity, so Sailing weather prediction is a type of Marine meteorology. fgnievinski ( talk) 14:51, 29 June 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:Salimata et Taséré FC players

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, which will be implemented by renaming and redirecting the old page. – Fayenatic London 21:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Salitas is the more common name and other name of the club, merging the two would make it easy to add the category to articles if either of the names are typied Ampimd ( talk) 14:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 19:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - but it would have been helpful if @ Ampimd: had checked the existing category and nominated for moving per WP:CFDS rather than creating a new category at the 'correct name' (the parent article has been moved). Giant Snowman 19:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with the caveat from GS that in future, please nominate for move rather than creating duplicate categories just to then suggest a merge. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:49, 6 July 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:Sinhalese

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: disambiguate. While most votes were for deletion, there was no explicit opposition against disambiguation. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a duplicate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 29 June 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:People who memorized 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: delete ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: While certainly impressive, this will not be defining for most individuals. It is not mentioned at all in either of the two articles categorized in it, so this might be original research. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 29 June 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:Political prisoners

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: convert to container category by organisation designating people as political prisoners/prisoners of conscience. Although a majority of participants would prefer to keep the category and discuss inclusion on a case-by-case basis, on this occasion the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers.
I found that the justifications offered for this category did not satisfy WP:SUBJECTIVECAT: an inherently non-neutral inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category. Instead, recording people in Wikipedia as political prisoners should only be done in articles, lists, and categories by designating organisation.
The nominated sub-cats will be merged, plus the newly created sub-cat Category:Dutch political prisoners to Category:Prisoners and detainees of the Netherlands. I will list the current members at Talk:Political prisoner. If this category repeatedly becomes re-populated, it may become necessary to consider renaming along the lines of the precedent Category:Organizations designated as terrorist. – Fayenatic London 11:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category:Political prisoners and its variants and by-nationality subcategories have been deleted at CfD several times: see here, here, here, here, here. The rationale for deletion is always that this is basically a POV categorization and that to be NPOV, WP should not categorize in this way. An alternative to deletion might be to say Category:Political prisoners should be a container category for NPOV categories such as Category:Political prisoners according to Viasna Human Rights Centre and Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience. On the other hand, these can just as easily go in Category:Political imprisonment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The old discussions were from over 10 years ago, and actually, if we look at the big one from Sept 2008 (the first link of yours), it had 3 deletes and 3 keeps, and should have been closed as no consensus. The category for political prisoners exists on ~20 wikis, including Spanish, French, Russian, and Chinese. We have the main article ( Political prisoner). While there are POV issues related to the inclusion of some individuals, the term is widely used in the media and scholarly works, and is quite uncontroversially applied to some individuals; for example, for Alexei Navalny we even have a European Court of Human Rights saying so, and a lot of major media outlets ( The Guardian, etc.). Who but a member of the web brigades would dispute his classification as a political prisoner? And then there are "classics" nobody would challenge, like Nelson Mandela ( [1], [2], [3]) or Aung San Suu Kyi ( [4]), although they both might "fight" over the title of "the most famous political prisoner", given the (cited) RS for such claim being applied to them (Mandela probably wins...). TIME has a list of Top 10 political prisoners: [5] What I'd support is ensuring that each article in this category has a reliable citation to a source that calls said individual a political prisoner, and I would not object to removing articles from it that are not referenced as such. One final thought: looking at the category structure on other Wikipedias, some use 'Fooian political prisoners" (by nationality), and some "Political prisoners in Fooland" (by country of imprisonment). We probably need both, as for example some Ukrainian citizens have been incarcerated in Russia (so they are not Russian political prisoners, but political prisoners in Russia). Just in case, here are some refs for one of them being called a political prisoner 1, 2. As for categories by organizations, we need more of those. For example, Hong Kong Watch has its own list here, so we need to create Category:Political prisoners according to Hong Kong Watch, I guess. There's a lot of work referencing the claims and creating more relevant categories here. We should build the encyclopedia, not censor it by removing information inconvenient to a few regimes. PS. The above also clearly demonstrates it is a defining characteristic for many individuals. PPS. I'd like to remind Good Olfactory about the best practices of notifying the category creators (I created two of these and wasn't notified, just spotting the edit to the category on my watchlist). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • You refer to the 1st link as the "big one" but that nomination had the fewest comments of the 5 prior discussions. I guess it was big in the sense that it was the most broad though. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I would note similar arguments were made for Category:Terrorists, the classification as such being the primary source of notability for most of its former contents. There were more neutral (if not necessarily less controversial, e.g. "'participants' in the September 11 attacks") ways to capture this information without resorting to the POV term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choster ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but depopulate Amnesty uses the term "prisoners of conscience" which is arguably a more well-defined term, and we already have Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience‎. Looking at the actual numbers in the categories the Amnesty IPOC categories are pretty full, with 66 sub-categories and several hundred pages. The numbers in Category:Political prisoners are small, 15 people, mainly historic, in the main category and 19 in sub categories.
  • So I think we should try to follow Good Ol’factory and put modern entries into organisation specific categories. This will leave some historic cases like Gandhi and Mandela and a small number of others. There might be a case for a Category:Historic political prisoners to make it clear current cases should not be placed here.
  • There is a need for the top level Category:Political prisoners as a navigation device to hold the Political prisoner article and appropriate sub-categories. There might be a case for some sort of notice on the main category page discouraging use.-- Salix alba ( talk): 06:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Defining category. Many people are not imprisoned for crimes, but because of their dissenting opinions and political activism. Dimadick ( talk) 08:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural Comment I used to think that categories deleted in prior discussions should always be automatically deleted but I've increasingly become more open minded about revisiting past decisions so they're not etched in stone, partly due to conversations with @ Liz:. Our current default for category recreation seems to be to boldly recreate them, hope no one notices, and see if you get different editors in CFD this time around. We need a better process for an editor to submit a "recreation" request here in CFD, tag the prior contributors to try and persuade them, and if that discussion ends in no consensus that means delete in this context. (Or maybe I'm just getting too lenient?) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Tagging all non-banned past participants, regardless of !vote: @ Piotrus, Geogre, Carcharoth, Scott MacDonald, Mike Selinker, Cgingold, Mcarling, Afil, Benkenobi18, BrownHairedGirl, Homunculus, DGG, Johnpacklambert, My very best wishes, Rigley, Oculi, Otto4711, Good Olfactory, Alansohn, Bdelisle, Hmains, Mackensen, Czalex, Eupator, Petr Kopač, Serouj, Narking, Sam, Choalbaton, Dugwiki, and RobertG: RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, both substantively and procedurally.
    Procedurally, thee categories should be speedily deleted per WP:G4. After four deletions discussions with a consensus to delete, recreation should happen only after an RFC.
    Substantively, the problem is simple: these are WP:SUBJECTIVECATs. Most people agree that there is such a thing as a political prisoner, but there is no widely agreed definition. See political prisoner#Definitions.
    That means that any such category is inherently POV, with the result that good faith editors carefully using reliable sources can reasonably reach very different conclusions. That creates unstable categories, and edit wars between good faith editors.
    There are countless examples of high-profile individuals where the label "political prisoner" is hotly contested between well-established POVs, with plenty of reliable sources to support both views: see e.g. Nelson Mandela, Leonard Peltier, Chelsea Manning, Bobby Sands and Julian Assange. The editors above such as @ Dimadick and @ Piotrus who support keeping these categories appear to be choosing to ignore the wide divergence of perspectives on these cases.
    Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, a POV judgement such as political prisoner status should be attributed, not simply asserted as fact. Categories such as Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience and Category:Political prisoners according to Viasna Human Rights Centre do attribute the POV, but there is no attribution in Category:Political prisoners and its by-nationality subcats such as Category:Chinese political prisoners.
    It is also very notable that the sub-categories created so far exclude the anglosphere. I assume that the obvious bias there is an unintentional reflection of Wikipedia's systemic bias, but it does reflect the broad tendency to apply the label "political prisoner" to people whose views the observer approves of, in regimes they disapprove of. If the national categories included the US and the UK, this discussion would be much more heated. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. Should we also delete all terrorism-related categories, etc.? Many subjects in social sciences and history and even some subjects in natural sciences allow multiple definitions. This is not a reason for deletion. The categories simply serve to facilitate navigation in the project. That one does help to navigate. Nothing else is required. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The terrorism category titles are very precise to avoid WP:NPOV: Category:People charged with terrorism, Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges, Category:People convicted on terrorism charges, etc. Your comparison isn't really a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS though since the equivalent category, Category:Terrorists, does not exist. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 16:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Meh. We also have Category:Holocaust deniers as parent to Category:People convicted of Holocaust denial offenses. And Category:Rapists in addition to Category:People convicted of rape . So OTHERSTUFF in this vein very much exists. And neither of those appears to be a container category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The entire Category:Terrorism can be disputed on same grounds, i.e. there are multiple and conflicting terrorism definitions. Nothing in humanities can be precisely defined. Deleting all such categories would be a disaster for navigation. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Containerize / depopulate as per Marcocapelle and Salix alba. The problem with categorization is never with the obvious candidates like Aung San Suu Kyi or Andrei Sakharov. There are countless cases where educated opinion may differ, however, from Konstantin Yaroshenko to the the Guantanamo Bay detainees, and the inclusion of borderline cases always invites the border be moved even further away. As categories cannot be referenced, it would be better to use lists, and/or to use a few defining, well-known, footnote-able lists of political prisoners such as those released by Amnesty, as we have. Otherwise, expect Derek Chauvin and Gage Halupowski and others to be edit-warred in and out of this category for the foreseeable future. -- choster ( talk) 21:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    Categories can be referenced, in text. As for whether to include them or not in controversial cases is something that should and likely was discussed on a wider level. As noted above, the existence of many similar potentially controversial categories (rapists, Holocaust deniers, etc.) show, the fact that a term is controversial doesn't make it non-categorizable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Obviously defining. Support Piotrus's idea of a hatnote or such warning editors that this category may be removed from articles not backed up in text by reliable sources. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 00:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — Is it a defining characteristic? Yes, for sure. For some subjects, it’s the main claim to notability. For others, detention forms an important part of their biography.
  • Are there POV concerns? Yes, but not insurmountable ones. As argued by Piotrus and others, we should weigh the preponderance of reliable sources. Most cases aren’t even that controversial, but for Assange et al., we will simply have to consider what commentators have to say, on an individual basis.
  • It’s a notable topic, it’s useful to have such a category, and while I see the concerns, I don’t think this can’t work. — Biruitorul Talk 15:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • We analyze what reliable sources have to say about each subject. We discuss, weigh, consider, then come to a consensus regarding inclusion of the category. We cite the sources used to reach the conclusion. In other words, the normal editing process should guide us, and there’s no real reason why it would fail in this case. — Biruitorul Talk 15:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Can you cite a specific example of an impartial source asserting any of these prisoners is not political? — Biruitorul Talk 17:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • As this is inherently a POV topic, "impartial" sources do not and can not exist. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • An excellent, succinct summary, @ Marcocapelle. Any source which labels someone as a "political prisoner" does so using some definition ... and since all the definitions are hotly contested, the label depends on the POV of whoever chose which definition to apply. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    That could be used for any controversial category, and we have a ton of others. Nobody is seriously disputing most of those labels. That a few have been used in extreme examples and are contested doesn't make vast majority of those which are either uncontested or universally recognized wrong. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    On the contrary, most cases are disputed. The govt imprisoning them usually brands them as criminals and/or terrorists.
    However, I agree that this could be said for any controversial category. That's why we have a long-standing guideline at WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and why similar controversial categories have been deleted, such as Category:Homophobes ( CFD) and Category:Terrorists ( CFD). Note in particular the closing statement by @ Nick at the "Terorists" CFD: the absence of a neutral, unbiased, water-tight, non negotiable definition of who or what a terrorist actually is - that raises the spectre of legal action, edit wars, and perhaps as importantly, it makes the encyclopedia inherently biased in favour or against those who see a specific individual as a terrorist, but where they are, or are not categorised as one. Exactly the same issue apply here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    But others were kept, as the examples I noted above show. Some categories may be too politicized, particularly in the US, to work on English Wikipedia. This one is not. You fail to provide any proof for your claim that "most are disputed" by anyone except the relevant totalitarian/authoritarian gov't and its lackeys. In either case, I have no objection to removing this category from articles where there is a clear controversy, or where the claim of being a pp is fringe (Cosby, for example). But my research shows this is not a controversial description in most cases (I've added references to this claim, which is often defining, to dozens of articles, and I am improving the main article on political prisoner concept with academic references, which are plenty, and which indicate this term is significant and not particularly disputed in academia outside technical details - what research and editing in this area have you carried out?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • your comments such as relevant totalitarian/authoritarian gov't and its lackeys are clear expression of the partisan POV which you are trying to push here, based on labelling some govts as "totalitarian", so that their views can be dismissed. Since most sources do not label apartheid South Africa as totalitarian, your definition would exclude Mandela. But basically, your stance seems to be to create a category of bad govts which hold political prisoners, conveniently excluding the western nations where most editors live. That structural bias on stilts.
    As to a source pointing out the fuzziness of the definition, there is an excellent one in the head article at https://academic.oup.com/jogss/article/6/3/ogaa052/6047347. Your claim that the term is not much disputed is bogus, as that paper points out. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    On the contrary, if anyone has POV problems here it is you, as you seem to be arguing that UNDUE/FRINGE claims (rebuttals from unreliable regimes / propaganda outlets) should be given equal weight. As for the cited article, which I have found and added to the article on political prisoner, it simply reinforces my point that in social sciences, most popular terms have multiple definitions and that there are entire works trying to analyze the state of existing ones, synthesizing them and proposing various solutions. Unless you intended to have most of categories in social sciences deleted, from globalization to inequality to others, singing out this category for criticism is pure IDOTLIKEITism. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - We have a well-defined parent article at political prisoner and this is the term that is widely used in reliable sources as both a general term for such people and as a specific term and defining characteristic for individuals who have been imprisoned for their beliefs. In considering " prisoner of conscience" vs. "political prisoner", this Google Ngram Viewer comparison of both terms in singular and plural shows the forms of "political prisoner(s)" are much more commonly used than "prisoner(s) of conscience". The use of the category, as with every category in Wikipedia, must be based on reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating that individuals so categorized are described as political prisoners. Alansohn ( talk) 15:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Alansohn: your first sentence is demonstrably untrue. Far from having what you call a well-defined parent article, political prisoner#Definitions is all about how there are multiple, conflicting definitions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      Nope, having multiple definition doesn't make a term not well defined. In social sciences, multiple definitions are a norm,, it's only obscure concepts that have a single definition. There was a book on definitions of globalization that IIRC compared hundreds of definitions (I am sure I could find a cite quickly if you insist), and when I teach my Intro to Sociology course, I start by discussing several out of dozens definition of sociology, which on the surface look quite different (see my Prezi here). Are you going to try to delete Category:Globalization and Category:Sociology now? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      Agreed. I hadn't had a chance to reply, but I echo the points made by Piotrus. The multiple definitions demonstrate the options available; they don't demonstrate that the concept is undefined. There will always be borderline cases, and those situations should be addressed individually based on discussion at the article level, rather than by deleting the category in its entirety. Alansohn ( talk) 15:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      Straw man, Alansohn. Nobody argues that the concept is undefined.
      The problem is that the concept has multiple, conflicting definitions, so the answer you get depends on which definition is applied. The choice of definition is a POV issue, and per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, those POVs should be attributed rather than asserted as fact. That is what we have done with categories for "terrorist"; the categories attribute the POV to a particular organisation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      @ BrownHairedGirl If you want to talk about fallacies, then yours is a red herring, as you are ignoring other arguments. I pointed out that most terms in social sciences have multiple, conflicting definitions, which doesn't prevent them from being used as categories. Terrorist is an example, not the rule, and it's one that exists only on English Wikipedia - I disagree with this, and note that 54 other Wikipedias don't see a problem with it . Political prisoners is much less controversial, and we should not follow the bad outcome of the C:Terrorists outcome to make another one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      @Piotrus, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is part of a core policy. The closer is obliged to uphold it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      The policy you cite has nothing to do with the topic discussed and is clearly irrelevant (it does not mention categories at all). For the n-th time, you ignore all arguments I and others present and try to discuss other topics. Please stop with your red herring and straw mens, they are not helping. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rather reluctantly I think they should all go. Its not possible to produce an objective definition. Indeed you could argue that all prisoners are political prisoners. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Rathfelder Please see mine and Alansohn's comments above regarding objective definition. Regarding your second argument, I am not aware of any reliable source making it, at least seriously, it seems like a straw man fallacy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This one is a big clash. Most of the votes so far are for KEEP, most of the regulars are against it. Both of them have good reasons. I don't envy the admin at all. Retreat from the proposal? Well, I'm neutral for now. -- Just N. ( talk) 19:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep "political prisoners" categories. The concept of " political prisoner" is a well-established one. The decision as to which persons are to be included in such categories must simply, as with all questions on Wikipedia, rest on reliable sources. Nihil novi ( talk) 21:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Many such historical figures have not been charged with any crime and died in custody without ever having been tried because of their membership in political parties. Not all could fit into a modern definition of having been designated as such by an NGO etc. Dan Carkner ( talk) 14:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Having re-read the proposal, I have something else to add. There is also a problem with creating categories that are called "...prisoners and detainees". Many people interned in concentration camps or internal exile to remote locations were not prisoners and governments specifically said their forced relocation was not a punishment for any crime (As with the Dutch government and Boven-Digoel). Sure, we can say they were all imprisoned in some sense, but it collapses the differences and may imply that they were criminals when they were not, to be lumped in with others for no reason aside from that it seems simpler to us. Dan Carkner ( talk) 14:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Good point, thank you for clarifying that. Dan Carkner ( talk) 17:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Containerize This is a defining topic that readers would likely want to navigate so I'd like to keep it if we can get past the subjectivity concerns. Unfortunately, most of keep !votes here really boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which doesn't come close to getting us around WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. In contrast, User:Piotrus does suggest a hatnote or relying on classifications by groups like Hong Kong Watch. I've given up on hatnotes since it doesn't help with WP:HOTCAT but that second suggestion seems right to me: being classified by human rights group seems like the only path here that lives up to WP:NPOV. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ RevelationDirect We should require a citation to a reliable source for the status, but limiting ourselves to just NGOs is not ideal. For example, I don't know which NGO did call Martin Luther King Jr. a political prisoner, but he is called such by a number of academics; for example he is one of the main "examples" discussed by the Greene, Helen Taylor; Gabbidon, Shaun L. (2009-04-14). "Political Prisoners". Encyclopedia of Race and Crime. SAGE Publications. pp. 636–639. ISBN 978-1-4522-6609-1. Now, that entry is rather US centric, but this is because the entire publication is, with its focus on the "race in the USA". That doesn't make it unreliable, and it would be strange if a specialized, academic encyclopedia focusing on crime, with a dedicated entry for political prisoners, would call someone one, and we wouldn't allow him into the relevant category, wouldn't it? If reliable scholars, in a reliable publication, call someone a political prisoner, that should be good enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
In the article space, we can absolutely write nuanced "so and so described someone as a political prisoner based on their expertise" with a reliable citation just as you've described above. Categories are binary though so Wikipedia editors would need to make a subjective include/exclude call for each article. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ RevelationDirect Well, right now my view is that anyone can be bold and remove any controversial category, particularly if it is uncited (per WP:V). I do agree that in come controversial cases, binary system is not ideal, but then such cases can be discussed on talk page of the relevant article. In fact, I just remembered another case, arguably even more controversial, that has bearing on this - Category:War crimes (or was it Category:Crimes against humanity?) I forgot which one was it, but I made the same argument - first, this category can be removed from articles it is not backed up by a reference, and also, it should not be used in articles where sources for it are problematic (undue, fringe, etc.). Again, this should be decided on the case by case basis, and it should not prevent us from adding such categories to numerous articles that are applicable for and not disputed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - any POV problems can be dealt with on article by article basis. Volunteer Marek 21:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • An article by article approach cannot resolve the lack of a broadly-accepted definition. Without that definition, any individual article will be assessed without clear criteria, and the sources will reflect their POVs. Policy is to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, not to assert a perceived majority POV as fact. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As others said above, it is an absolutely defining characteristic for lots of people. Any doubts can be dealt with a hatnote in the categories notifying editors of backing the categorization with a reliable source on an article level. In the former Eastern Bloc, where I come from, it is an absolutely uncontroversial label. We have plenty articles (and we will have more) on notable people who were imprisoned by the communist regime simply for not falling in line with the regime - politicians, sportspeople, musicians, religious personalities, scouts, LGBT figures etc. Those were all political prisoners and nothing else. The only discussion here should be whether the naming should be Category:Fooian political prisoners or rather Category:Political prisoners of Foo. - Darwinek ( talk) 01:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Darwinek In the long run we probably need both; while rare, there are cases were foreign nationals are imprisoned by a given country. Well, come to think of it, not that rare - all those Polish revolutionaries imprisoned by Russia, for example... etc. They were Polish political prisoners of (in?) Russia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I have seen to many cases where people accused on murder with very credible evidence that they are guilty, are still by some people classed as political prisoners, and this gets even more controversial when the charges are things like fraud and conspiracy. This is too disputed and loaded of a term to apply in a way that avoids NPOV issues. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Johnpacklambert Per WP:FRINGE such claims don't get categorized, and are even rarely mentioned in an article. For example, I noticed Bill Crosby (accused of rape) tried to frame himself as one (trying to use racism as an excuse, IIRC), next to nobody took him seriously. Very few cases, in my experience (and I did a lit review and improved the main article on political prisoners recently) are really controversial; for most there is a clear majority consensus that someone was (or wasn't) a political prisoner. We have plenty of similar categories (as discussed above), none of which seems to cause any visible trouble. All that said, I am still curious if we have a policy about best practices for the rare but real borderline cases, where the public and academic opinion is split. Still, they are rather rare and theoretical, as evidenced that not a single example of edit warring over this category, or even any significant discussion about its applicability to a particular article, has been presented. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • A very easy example of controversialness is the people who were detained in Guantanamo Bay. A problem with political prisoners is that many people tend to think that political prisoners only occur in other countries than their own. Which is reflected in sources too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    It's a controversy but I am not aware that the majority of Guantanamo Bay prisoners are widely recognized as political prisoners. They may well be recognized as other things (for example, forced disappearance subjects or extrajudicial punishment ones), but in my lit review, I did not see that they were generally recognized as political prisoners. It seems like calling them this is FRINGE and as such it would not pass muster once questioned. As I said earlier, this category would do well with a warning that entries that are either unreferenced or where attribution of this concept is FRINGE will not be allowed. Problem solved. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:06, 1 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:Notable taxidermy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 7#Category:Notable taxidermy

Chinese Communist Party committee secretaries

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 25#Chinese Communist Party committee secretaries

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_29&oldid=1073193062"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 28 June 30 >

June 29

Category:16th-century Arab people

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. Since the target already exists, this will be implemented as a merge. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: for consistency with Category:15th-century Arabs, Category:17th-century Arabs, etc. BenKuykendall ( talk) 22:44, 29 June 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:Participants in the Les Houches Physics Summer School 1990

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. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Not mentioned in any of the articles included I've looked at. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:44, 29 June 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.

Churches by name

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. For the disambiguation pages, there is already Category:Church building disambiguation pages. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Textbook case of WP:SHAREDNAME; the churches have nothing in common with one another besides their names, which are rather conventional names for churches. - choster ( talk) 20:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom, nothing in common except the same name. Note: Category:Churches dedicated to Saint Mary wasn't tagged with CFD template, so I added it. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the page was unmerged from (Category:Churches by patron saint) on Wikicommons. It categorises all religious buildings by dedication to persons, which it belongs on a number of other language wikis; Dutch, Greek, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, German, Polish Swedish; plus more. Why is English any different? They categorise churches by saint, that's what they have in common. Moondragon21 ( talk) 14:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • See e.g. CfD 2009 January 3 Churches by patron saint for an earlier discussion. Categorization is intended to capture defining aspects of the subject, and you cannot really say that one church named for St. Mary has anything more to do with another church named for St. Mary than one named otherwise, especially in religiously pluralistic societies where churches with different conceptions of sainthood exist side by side.- choster ( talk) 09:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Of course you can say that, it's something they all have in common. And why is the English-language Wikipedia any different to the others? Moondragon21 ( talk) 14:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply
It doesn't make any more sense to me than to categorize people with the same name, or cities with the same name. You can't even infer much of anything from the dedication, not even who founded or staffed it—I grew up attending a church and school dedicated to a 16th-century Dominican, but it was created by the archdiocese and staffed by Augustinians, and the only recognition ever made of the patron was in passing during the odd eucharistic prayer a few times a year. The name or dedication just isn't Wikipedia:CATDEFINING.- choster ( talk) 17:21, 2 July 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:Coptic emigrants to the United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 20#Coptic emigrants

Category:Indoor ice hockey venues in New Orleans

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) 17:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT (2 articles). I suggest deleting because both the category and the articles are already in the appropriate subcategories. User:Namiba 16:17, 29 June 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:Venezuelan nationalists

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) 17:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OPINIONCAT. There currently isn't a nationalist party in Venezuela, meaning that articles in this category are prone of original research. NoonIcarus ( talk) 15:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The concept of "Venezuelan nationalism" is really broad and could be dated back up to the dictatorships of Juan Vicente Gómez and Marcos Pérez Jiménez, from where the issue arises that the term should not be confused with "militarism". More specifically, it could also refer to strive for territorial integrity, which can range from irredentism, which currently and historically is a fringe movement in the country, or more commonly the defense of current territorial claims, which I doubt that by itself can be considered as "nationalism". The term is a lot more vague than what can be found in Europe, including but not limited to Italian unification and Pan-Germanism.
In short, the definition of Venezuelan nationalism has not been developed by scholars, and its use can only bring speculation. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 13:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I should also mention that the category currently contains merely two subjects, whose articles don't explain why they are nationalist. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 14:00, 3 July 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:Marine meteorology and sailing

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) 09:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: ill-formed title; plus, sailing is a marine activity, so Sailing weather prediction is a type of Marine meteorology. fgnievinski ( talk) 14:51, 29 June 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:Salimata et Taséré FC players

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, which will be implemented by renaming and redirecting the old page. – Fayenatic London 21:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Salitas is the more common name and other name of the club, merging the two would make it easy to add the category to articles if either of the names are typied Ampimd ( talk) 14:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 19:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - but it would have been helpful if @ Ampimd: had checked the existing category and nominated for moving per WP:CFDS rather than creating a new category at the 'correct name' (the parent article has been moved). Giant Snowman 19:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with the caveat from GS that in future, please nominate for move rather than creating duplicate categories just to then suggest a merge. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:49, 6 July 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:Sinhalese

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: disambiguate. While most votes were for deletion, there was no explicit opposition against disambiguation. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a duplicate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 29 June 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:People who memorized 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: delete ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: While certainly impressive, this will not be defining for most individuals. It is not mentioned at all in either of the two articles categorized in it, so this might be original research. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 29 June 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:Political prisoners

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: convert to container category by organisation designating people as political prisoners/prisoners of conscience. Although a majority of participants would prefer to keep the category and discuss inclusion on a case-by-case basis, on this occasion the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers.
I found that the justifications offered for this category did not satisfy WP:SUBJECTIVECAT: an inherently non-neutral inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category. Instead, recording people in Wikipedia as political prisoners should only be done in articles, lists, and categories by designating organisation.
The nominated sub-cats will be merged, plus the newly created sub-cat Category:Dutch political prisoners to Category:Prisoners and detainees of the Netherlands. I will list the current members at Talk:Political prisoner. If this category repeatedly becomes re-populated, it may become necessary to consider renaming along the lines of the precedent Category:Organizations designated as terrorist. – Fayenatic London 11:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category:Political prisoners and its variants and by-nationality subcategories have been deleted at CfD several times: see here, here, here, here, here. The rationale for deletion is always that this is basically a POV categorization and that to be NPOV, WP should not categorize in this way. An alternative to deletion might be to say Category:Political prisoners should be a container category for NPOV categories such as Category:Political prisoners according to Viasna Human Rights Centre and Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience. On the other hand, these can just as easily go in Category:Political imprisonment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The old discussions were from over 10 years ago, and actually, if we look at the big one from Sept 2008 (the first link of yours), it had 3 deletes and 3 keeps, and should have been closed as no consensus. The category for political prisoners exists on ~20 wikis, including Spanish, French, Russian, and Chinese. We have the main article ( Political prisoner). While there are POV issues related to the inclusion of some individuals, the term is widely used in the media and scholarly works, and is quite uncontroversially applied to some individuals; for example, for Alexei Navalny we even have a European Court of Human Rights saying so, and a lot of major media outlets ( The Guardian, etc.). Who but a member of the web brigades would dispute his classification as a political prisoner? And then there are "classics" nobody would challenge, like Nelson Mandela ( [1], [2], [3]) or Aung San Suu Kyi ( [4]), although they both might "fight" over the title of "the most famous political prisoner", given the (cited) RS for such claim being applied to them (Mandela probably wins...). TIME has a list of Top 10 political prisoners: [5] What I'd support is ensuring that each article in this category has a reliable citation to a source that calls said individual a political prisoner, and I would not object to removing articles from it that are not referenced as such. One final thought: looking at the category structure on other Wikipedias, some use 'Fooian political prisoners" (by nationality), and some "Political prisoners in Fooland" (by country of imprisonment). We probably need both, as for example some Ukrainian citizens have been incarcerated in Russia (so they are not Russian political prisoners, but political prisoners in Russia). Just in case, here are some refs for one of them being called a political prisoner 1, 2. As for categories by organizations, we need more of those. For example, Hong Kong Watch has its own list here, so we need to create Category:Political prisoners according to Hong Kong Watch, I guess. There's a lot of work referencing the claims and creating more relevant categories here. We should build the encyclopedia, not censor it by removing information inconvenient to a few regimes. PS. The above also clearly demonstrates it is a defining characteristic for many individuals. PPS. I'd like to remind Good Olfactory about the best practices of notifying the category creators (I created two of these and wasn't notified, just spotting the edit to the category on my watchlist). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • You refer to the 1st link as the "big one" but that nomination had the fewest comments of the 5 prior discussions. I guess it was big in the sense that it was the most broad though. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I would note similar arguments were made for Category:Terrorists, the classification as such being the primary source of notability for most of its former contents. There were more neutral (if not necessarily less controversial, e.g. "'participants' in the September 11 attacks") ways to capture this information without resorting to the POV term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choster ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but depopulate Amnesty uses the term "prisoners of conscience" which is arguably a more well-defined term, and we already have Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience‎. Looking at the actual numbers in the categories the Amnesty IPOC categories are pretty full, with 66 sub-categories and several hundred pages. The numbers in Category:Political prisoners are small, 15 people, mainly historic, in the main category and 19 in sub categories.
  • So I think we should try to follow Good Ol’factory and put modern entries into organisation specific categories. This will leave some historic cases like Gandhi and Mandela and a small number of others. There might be a case for a Category:Historic political prisoners to make it clear current cases should not be placed here.
  • There is a need for the top level Category:Political prisoners as a navigation device to hold the Political prisoner article and appropriate sub-categories. There might be a case for some sort of notice on the main category page discouraging use.-- Salix alba ( talk): 06:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Defining category. Many people are not imprisoned for crimes, but because of their dissenting opinions and political activism. Dimadick ( talk) 08:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural Comment I used to think that categories deleted in prior discussions should always be automatically deleted but I've increasingly become more open minded about revisiting past decisions so they're not etched in stone, partly due to conversations with @ Liz:. Our current default for category recreation seems to be to boldly recreate them, hope no one notices, and see if you get different editors in CFD this time around. We need a better process for an editor to submit a "recreation" request here in CFD, tag the prior contributors to try and persuade them, and if that discussion ends in no consensus that means delete in this context. (Or maybe I'm just getting too lenient?) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Tagging all non-banned past participants, regardless of !vote: @ Piotrus, Geogre, Carcharoth, Scott MacDonald, Mike Selinker, Cgingold, Mcarling, Afil, Benkenobi18, BrownHairedGirl, Homunculus, DGG, Johnpacklambert, My very best wishes, Rigley, Oculi, Otto4711, Good Olfactory, Alansohn, Bdelisle, Hmains, Mackensen, Czalex, Eupator, Petr Kopač, Serouj, Narking, Sam, Choalbaton, Dugwiki, and RobertG: RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, both substantively and procedurally.
    Procedurally, thee categories should be speedily deleted per WP:G4. After four deletions discussions with a consensus to delete, recreation should happen only after an RFC.
    Substantively, the problem is simple: these are WP:SUBJECTIVECATs. Most people agree that there is such a thing as a political prisoner, but there is no widely agreed definition. See political prisoner#Definitions.
    That means that any such category is inherently POV, with the result that good faith editors carefully using reliable sources can reasonably reach very different conclusions. That creates unstable categories, and edit wars between good faith editors.
    There are countless examples of high-profile individuals where the label "political prisoner" is hotly contested between well-established POVs, with plenty of reliable sources to support both views: see e.g. Nelson Mandela, Leonard Peltier, Chelsea Manning, Bobby Sands and Julian Assange. The editors above such as @ Dimadick and @ Piotrus who support keeping these categories appear to be choosing to ignore the wide divergence of perspectives on these cases.
    Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, a POV judgement such as political prisoner status should be attributed, not simply asserted as fact. Categories such as Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience and Category:Political prisoners according to Viasna Human Rights Centre do attribute the POV, but there is no attribution in Category:Political prisoners and its by-nationality subcats such as Category:Chinese political prisoners.
    It is also very notable that the sub-categories created so far exclude the anglosphere. I assume that the obvious bias there is an unintentional reflection of Wikipedia's systemic bias, but it does reflect the broad tendency to apply the label "political prisoner" to people whose views the observer approves of, in regimes they disapprove of. If the national categories included the US and the UK, this discussion would be much more heated. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. Should we also delete all terrorism-related categories, etc.? Many subjects in social sciences and history and even some subjects in natural sciences allow multiple definitions. This is not a reason for deletion. The categories simply serve to facilitate navigation in the project. That one does help to navigate. Nothing else is required. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The terrorism category titles are very precise to avoid WP:NPOV: Category:People charged with terrorism, Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges, Category:People convicted on terrorism charges, etc. Your comparison isn't really a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS though since the equivalent category, Category:Terrorists, does not exist. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 16:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Meh. We also have Category:Holocaust deniers as parent to Category:People convicted of Holocaust denial offenses. And Category:Rapists in addition to Category:People convicted of rape . So OTHERSTUFF in this vein very much exists. And neither of those appears to be a container category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The entire Category:Terrorism can be disputed on same grounds, i.e. there are multiple and conflicting terrorism definitions. Nothing in humanities can be precisely defined. Deleting all such categories would be a disaster for navigation. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Containerize / depopulate as per Marcocapelle and Salix alba. The problem with categorization is never with the obvious candidates like Aung San Suu Kyi or Andrei Sakharov. There are countless cases where educated opinion may differ, however, from Konstantin Yaroshenko to the the Guantanamo Bay detainees, and the inclusion of borderline cases always invites the border be moved even further away. As categories cannot be referenced, it would be better to use lists, and/or to use a few defining, well-known, footnote-able lists of political prisoners such as those released by Amnesty, as we have. Otherwise, expect Derek Chauvin and Gage Halupowski and others to be edit-warred in and out of this category for the foreseeable future. -- choster ( talk) 21:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    Categories can be referenced, in text. As for whether to include them or not in controversial cases is something that should and likely was discussed on a wider level. As noted above, the existence of many similar potentially controversial categories (rapists, Holocaust deniers, etc.) show, the fact that a term is controversial doesn't make it non-categorizable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Obviously defining. Support Piotrus's idea of a hatnote or such warning editors that this category may be removed from articles not backed up in text by reliable sources. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 00:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — Is it a defining characteristic? Yes, for sure. For some subjects, it’s the main claim to notability. For others, detention forms an important part of their biography.
  • Are there POV concerns? Yes, but not insurmountable ones. As argued by Piotrus and others, we should weigh the preponderance of reliable sources. Most cases aren’t even that controversial, but for Assange et al., we will simply have to consider what commentators have to say, on an individual basis.
  • It’s a notable topic, it’s useful to have such a category, and while I see the concerns, I don’t think this can’t work. — Biruitorul Talk 15:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • We analyze what reliable sources have to say about each subject. We discuss, weigh, consider, then come to a consensus regarding inclusion of the category. We cite the sources used to reach the conclusion. In other words, the normal editing process should guide us, and there’s no real reason why it would fail in this case. — Biruitorul Talk 15:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Can you cite a specific example of an impartial source asserting any of these prisoners is not political? — Biruitorul Talk 17:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • As this is inherently a POV topic, "impartial" sources do not and can not exist. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • An excellent, succinct summary, @ Marcocapelle. Any source which labels someone as a "political prisoner" does so using some definition ... and since all the definitions are hotly contested, the label depends on the POV of whoever chose which definition to apply. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    That could be used for any controversial category, and we have a ton of others. Nobody is seriously disputing most of those labels. That a few have been used in extreme examples and are contested doesn't make vast majority of those which are either uncontested or universally recognized wrong. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    On the contrary, most cases are disputed. The govt imprisoning them usually brands them as criminals and/or terrorists.
    However, I agree that this could be said for any controversial category. That's why we have a long-standing guideline at WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and why similar controversial categories have been deleted, such as Category:Homophobes ( CFD) and Category:Terrorists ( CFD). Note in particular the closing statement by @ Nick at the "Terorists" CFD: the absence of a neutral, unbiased, water-tight, non negotiable definition of who or what a terrorist actually is - that raises the spectre of legal action, edit wars, and perhaps as importantly, it makes the encyclopedia inherently biased in favour or against those who see a specific individual as a terrorist, but where they are, or are not categorised as one. Exactly the same issue apply here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    But others were kept, as the examples I noted above show. Some categories may be too politicized, particularly in the US, to work on English Wikipedia. This one is not. You fail to provide any proof for your claim that "most are disputed" by anyone except the relevant totalitarian/authoritarian gov't and its lackeys. In either case, I have no objection to removing this category from articles where there is a clear controversy, or where the claim of being a pp is fringe (Cosby, for example). But my research shows this is not a controversial description in most cases (I've added references to this claim, which is often defining, to dozens of articles, and I am improving the main article on political prisoner concept with academic references, which are plenty, and which indicate this term is significant and not particularly disputed in academia outside technical details - what research and editing in this area have you carried out?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • your comments such as relevant totalitarian/authoritarian gov't and its lackeys are clear expression of the partisan POV which you are trying to push here, based on labelling some govts as "totalitarian", so that their views can be dismissed. Since most sources do not label apartheid South Africa as totalitarian, your definition would exclude Mandela. But basically, your stance seems to be to create a category of bad govts which hold political prisoners, conveniently excluding the western nations where most editors live. That structural bias on stilts.
    As to a source pointing out the fuzziness of the definition, there is an excellent one in the head article at https://academic.oup.com/jogss/article/6/3/ogaa052/6047347. Your claim that the term is not much disputed is bogus, as that paper points out. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    On the contrary, if anyone has POV problems here it is you, as you seem to be arguing that UNDUE/FRINGE claims (rebuttals from unreliable regimes / propaganda outlets) should be given equal weight. As for the cited article, which I have found and added to the article on political prisoner, it simply reinforces my point that in social sciences, most popular terms have multiple definitions and that there are entire works trying to analyze the state of existing ones, synthesizing them and proposing various solutions. Unless you intended to have most of categories in social sciences deleted, from globalization to inequality to others, singing out this category for criticism is pure IDOTLIKEITism. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - We have a well-defined parent article at political prisoner and this is the term that is widely used in reliable sources as both a general term for such people and as a specific term and defining characteristic for individuals who have been imprisoned for their beliefs. In considering " prisoner of conscience" vs. "political prisoner", this Google Ngram Viewer comparison of both terms in singular and plural shows the forms of "political prisoner(s)" are much more commonly used than "prisoner(s) of conscience". The use of the category, as with every category in Wikipedia, must be based on reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating that individuals so categorized are described as political prisoners. Alansohn ( talk) 15:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Alansohn: your first sentence is demonstrably untrue. Far from having what you call a well-defined parent article, political prisoner#Definitions is all about how there are multiple, conflicting definitions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      Nope, having multiple definition doesn't make a term not well defined. In social sciences, multiple definitions are a norm,, it's only obscure concepts that have a single definition. There was a book on definitions of globalization that IIRC compared hundreds of definitions (I am sure I could find a cite quickly if you insist), and when I teach my Intro to Sociology course, I start by discussing several out of dozens definition of sociology, which on the surface look quite different (see my Prezi here). Are you going to try to delete Category:Globalization and Category:Sociology now? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      Agreed. I hadn't had a chance to reply, but I echo the points made by Piotrus. The multiple definitions demonstrate the options available; they don't demonstrate that the concept is undefined. There will always be borderline cases, and those situations should be addressed individually based on discussion at the article level, rather than by deleting the category in its entirety. Alansohn ( talk) 15:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      Straw man, Alansohn. Nobody argues that the concept is undefined.
      The problem is that the concept has multiple, conflicting definitions, so the answer you get depends on which definition is applied. The choice of definition is a POV issue, and per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, those POVs should be attributed rather than asserted as fact. That is what we have done with categories for "terrorist"; the categories attribute the POV to a particular organisation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      @ BrownHairedGirl If you want to talk about fallacies, then yours is a red herring, as you are ignoring other arguments. I pointed out that most terms in social sciences have multiple, conflicting definitions, which doesn't prevent them from being used as categories. Terrorist is an example, not the rule, and it's one that exists only on English Wikipedia - I disagree with this, and note that 54 other Wikipedias don't see a problem with it . Political prisoners is much less controversial, and we should not follow the bad outcome of the C:Terrorists outcome to make another one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      @Piotrus, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is part of a core policy. The closer is obliged to uphold it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      The policy you cite has nothing to do with the topic discussed and is clearly irrelevant (it does not mention categories at all). For the n-th time, you ignore all arguments I and others present and try to discuss other topics. Please stop with your red herring and straw mens, they are not helping. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rather reluctantly I think they should all go. Its not possible to produce an objective definition. Indeed you could argue that all prisoners are political prisoners. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Rathfelder Please see mine and Alansohn's comments above regarding objective definition. Regarding your second argument, I am not aware of any reliable source making it, at least seriously, it seems like a straw man fallacy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This one is a big clash. Most of the votes so far are for KEEP, most of the regulars are against it. Both of them have good reasons. I don't envy the admin at all. Retreat from the proposal? Well, I'm neutral for now. -- Just N. ( talk) 19:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep "political prisoners" categories. The concept of " political prisoner" is a well-established one. The decision as to which persons are to be included in such categories must simply, as with all questions on Wikipedia, rest on reliable sources. Nihil novi ( talk) 21:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Many such historical figures have not been charged with any crime and died in custody without ever having been tried because of their membership in political parties. Not all could fit into a modern definition of having been designated as such by an NGO etc. Dan Carkner ( talk) 14:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Having re-read the proposal, I have something else to add. There is also a problem with creating categories that are called "...prisoners and detainees". Many people interned in concentration camps or internal exile to remote locations were not prisoners and governments specifically said their forced relocation was not a punishment for any crime (As with the Dutch government and Boven-Digoel). Sure, we can say they were all imprisoned in some sense, but it collapses the differences and may imply that they were criminals when they were not, to be lumped in with others for no reason aside from that it seems simpler to us. Dan Carkner ( talk) 14:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Good point, thank you for clarifying that. Dan Carkner ( talk) 17:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Containerize This is a defining topic that readers would likely want to navigate so I'd like to keep it if we can get past the subjectivity concerns. Unfortunately, most of keep !votes here really boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which doesn't come close to getting us around WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. In contrast, User:Piotrus does suggest a hatnote or relying on classifications by groups like Hong Kong Watch. I've given up on hatnotes since it doesn't help with WP:HOTCAT but that second suggestion seems right to me: being classified by human rights group seems like the only path here that lives up to WP:NPOV. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ RevelationDirect We should require a citation to a reliable source for the status, but limiting ourselves to just NGOs is not ideal. For example, I don't know which NGO did call Martin Luther King Jr. a political prisoner, but he is called such by a number of academics; for example he is one of the main "examples" discussed by the Greene, Helen Taylor; Gabbidon, Shaun L. (2009-04-14). "Political Prisoners". Encyclopedia of Race and Crime. SAGE Publications. pp. 636–639. ISBN 978-1-4522-6609-1. Now, that entry is rather US centric, but this is because the entire publication is, with its focus on the "race in the USA". That doesn't make it unreliable, and it would be strange if a specialized, academic encyclopedia focusing on crime, with a dedicated entry for political prisoners, would call someone one, and we wouldn't allow him into the relevant category, wouldn't it? If reliable scholars, in a reliable publication, call someone a political prisoner, that should be good enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
In the article space, we can absolutely write nuanced "so and so described someone as a political prisoner based on their expertise" with a reliable citation just as you've described above. Categories are binary though so Wikipedia editors would need to make a subjective include/exclude call for each article. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ RevelationDirect Well, right now my view is that anyone can be bold and remove any controversial category, particularly if it is uncited (per WP:V). I do agree that in come controversial cases, binary system is not ideal, but then such cases can be discussed on talk page of the relevant article. In fact, I just remembered another case, arguably even more controversial, that has bearing on this - Category:War crimes (or was it Category:Crimes against humanity?) I forgot which one was it, but I made the same argument - first, this category can be removed from articles it is not backed up by a reference, and also, it should not be used in articles where sources for it are problematic (undue, fringe, etc.). Again, this should be decided on the case by case basis, and it should not prevent us from adding such categories to numerous articles that are applicable for and not disputed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - any POV problems can be dealt with on article by article basis. Volunteer Marek 21:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • An article by article approach cannot resolve the lack of a broadly-accepted definition. Without that definition, any individual article will be assessed without clear criteria, and the sources will reflect their POVs. Policy is to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, not to assert a perceived majority POV as fact. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As others said above, it is an absolutely defining characteristic for lots of people. Any doubts can be dealt with a hatnote in the categories notifying editors of backing the categorization with a reliable source on an article level. In the former Eastern Bloc, where I come from, it is an absolutely uncontroversial label. We have plenty articles (and we will have more) on notable people who were imprisoned by the communist regime simply for not falling in line with the regime - politicians, sportspeople, musicians, religious personalities, scouts, LGBT figures etc. Those were all political prisoners and nothing else. The only discussion here should be whether the naming should be Category:Fooian political prisoners or rather Category:Political prisoners of Foo. - Darwinek ( talk) 01:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Darwinek In the long run we probably need both; while rare, there are cases were foreign nationals are imprisoned by a given country. Well, come to think of it, not that rare - all those Polish revolutionaries imprisoned by Russia, for example... etc. They were Polish political prisoners of (in?) Russia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I have seen to many cases where people accused on murder with very credible evidence that they are guilty, are still by some people classed as political prisoners, and this gets even more controversial when the charges are things like fraud and conspiracy. This is too disputed and loaded of a term to apply in a way that avoids NPOV issues. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Johnpacklambert Per WP:FRINGE such claims don't get categorized, and are even rarely mentioned in an article. For example, I noticed Bill Crosby (accused of rape) tried to frame himself as one (trying to use racism as an excuse, IIRC), next to nobody took him seriously. Very few cases, in my experience (and I did a lit review and improved the main article on political prisoners recently) are really controversial; for most there is a clear majority consensus that someone was (or wasn't) a political prisoner. We have plenty of similar categories (as discussed above), none of which seems to cause any visible trouble. All that said, I am still curious if we have a policy about best practices for the rare but real borderline cases, where the public and academic opinion is split. Still, they are rather rare and theoretical, as evidenced that not a single example of edit warring over this category, or even any significant discussion about its applicability to a particular article, has been presented. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • A very easy example of controversialness is the people who were detained in Guantanamo Bay. A problem with political prisoners is that many people tend to think that political prisoners only occur in other countries than their own. Which is reflected in sources too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    It's a controversy but I am not aware that the majority of Guantanamo Bay prisoners are widely recognized as political prisoners. They may well be recognized as other things (for example, forced disappearance subjects or extrajudicial punishment ones), but in my lit review, I did not see that they were generally recognized as political prisoners. It seems like calling them this is FRINGE and as such it would not pass muster once questioned. As I said earlier, this category would do well with a warning that entries that are either unreferenced or where attribution of this concept is FRINGE will not be allowed. Problem solved. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:06, 1 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:Notable taxidermy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 7#Category:Notable taxidermy

Chinese Communist Party committee secretaries

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 25#Chinese Communist Party committee secretaries

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_29&oldid=1073193062"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE