Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 7 September 9 >

September 8[edit]

Category:Violence against men in North America[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: POV-pushing category. Men's rights movement bullshit. Gamaliel (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shawn in Montreal: I don't think that the category is a coatrack; there is a Category:Violence against men which includes androcide, castration, male rape, ect. and given that such categories are frequently broken down by region, it seems like a legitimate category to me to encapsulate the sort of crimes which are against specifically male victims (as opposed to crimes which happen to involve male victims). It seems not unreasonable to have a parallel category; if people use it as a coatrack for POV-pushing, then we should deal with it on a case by case basis, but on the whole, it seems like a legitimate category for things like serial killers of men (which are extremely rare, but at least one exists), castrations, and the like. Dunno how many articles there will be on the subject matter, but just because MRA sorts complain about it doesn't mean that it is wrong. It just seems like the category was created and a bunch of garbage was added to it, then purged, so it seems kind of empty. Given the parallel in Category:Violence against women in the United States, it seems like the category should be perfectly usable, even if people do want to stick hats all over it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Category:Violence against women in the United States supposed to be about? It seems to be something of a grab bag category as well. If it is supposed to be basically hate crimes against women, that would mean that this would be a legitimate category to record violence committed against men in the form of a hate crime - i.e. because the people in question were men. The Isla Vista killings might actually qualify, given the killer's bizarre motivations, and we DO list it as violence against women even though he murdered both men and women. Aileen Wuornos probably qualifies, seeing as she was a serial killer who exclusively targeted men, similar to Robert Hansen, who is listed on the violence against women list. That being said, that's... two articles. Is that enough to form a category? Are there more articles which haven't been categorized?
The problem is I'm not really sure what this category (or the female equivalent) is intended to accomplish; is it supposed to encapsulate all violence against people who happen to be male/female, or is it meant to be about hate crimes, or sex-specific crimes, or what? I'm not really clear on what these categories are supposed to be, and the women's one seems to be pretty broadly defined as well, as it includes things such as rape and sexual harassment, which are not hate crimes. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading over the previous AFDs and WP:CATEGORY, it appears that these categories are meant to encapsulate violence which is committed against people on the basis of their gender. I disagree that this is a POV-pushing category; androcide, male rape, ect. would all fall into the category of Category:Violence against men - a category which unquestionably exists, and is legitimate - and having subcategories by region is not illegitimate, as we already do that for women, and it makes sense to use a parallel structure (though I wonder why this is North America vs United States - is that simply because there isn't much content?). If people use it to push a POV by appending it inappropriately, then we should deal with that on a case by case basis; the category is legitimate, if sparsely populated because there are relatively few crimes specifically committed against males. The category is meant to talk about gender-based violence against males, and as long as it only includes gender-based violence against males, I see nothing wrong with it. It probably could do with some more additions - given that Castration is listed, it seems like we could include several more instances of such in this category. It probably will be sparsely populated relative to the female category, but I see nothing wrong with it. Strong Keep. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where is the article based on scholarly sources showing there is such as thing as "violence against men in North America"? It's just a made-up term as part of a MRM campaign to assert that there is some kind of equality between the routine violence handed out to many women vs. isolated incidents in the reverse direction. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the first comment. Given that this has survived two CfDs, would you care to provide something more for a deletion rationale than "bullshit" because there isn't much to discuss in that? Also, it would be good if you didn't poison the well with that "people who voted keep for this category are MRM POV-pushers" rhetoric already in the nomination. --Pudeo' 15:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated this without knowing it had been previously put up for deletion twice, but I don't see any reason why that should prevent us from revisiting this issue, especially given the small number of editors who participate in CFD discussions. If other people want to have a different opinion than me, that's fine. I made no comment about them and their intentions may be completely pure, but it's my opinion that this category has no purpose beyond pushing a POV, regardless of the intentions of those who voted keep. (e.g., systemic bias) Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, I know, but for instance if I started a CfD with "POV-pushing Russian nationalist bullshit" I think it would be kinda directly implicit that those who were working on the category were such. No offence of course, just not a very constructive way to start one IMO. --Pudeo' 17:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy crap, so I did. It's been an eventful summer for me in real life, and I have zero recollection of the previous discussion or even the existence of this category prior to the current discussion. In regards to the rest, please see my already posted response to Pudeo. Gamaliel (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep no rational reason offered for deletion--bad language counts for nothing but denigrating the person who offers it. No reason at all offered for considering this again at this time. Hmains (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm absolutely terrible. Would you believe they let me teach college students? POV-pushing is certainly a "rational reason" for deletion on a project where NPOV is one of our Five Pillars. Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a NPOV violation to just have one when the issues that one gender faces are not directly equal to the ones that others do. If that were the case then there would be no such thing as sexism. Anyway, we should base this on sources, NPOV and IDONTLIKEIT are shoddy accusations to make for those who find the category is not reflective of a field of academic study 109.148.126.200 (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must be the only Wikipedia editor with no opinion on this category! But I do wonder at one point repeatedly nominating the same category stops being constructive. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there is POV-pushing, it is by those who seek to remove this category. With things like male rape and castration, as well as others, the arguments they bring forth are hard to hold water. Anyway, any comparison of gender issues to race/ethnicity issues ignores that the first is binary, the second only binary to people who have very narrow world views. In Bruma they recognize over 50 races, and that leaves most of the world not in any of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Take a look at the content of this category: mostly serial killers whose victims were male, plus a handful of very POINTY tags on articles about types of violence that in most cases are mostly directed towards women. It's used to pretend that men are as frequently targeted for our gender as women are. "Look, look, see, men get sexually assaulted in the military too; so shut up and make me a sandwich and quit your bitching!" --Orange Mike | Talk 03:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatant WP:POINT making. Given the timing and context from which it emerged make it clear that it exists simply to advance a particular agenda, not for encyclopedic, informational purposes. No academic work connect the tagged events in the way this category suggests they are connected, this constitutes WP:OR GRMule (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with proposed alternatives - Men make up the majority of murder and assault victims. Violence against women is outside the norm, which is why it gets its own category. Since most of these articles seem to be about rape, which less commonly has male victims than female ones, I propose instead making a category called "Cases of rape with male victims". The title is broad enough to include victims of female-on-male rape as well as male-on-male rape. There could also be a category for "Cases of domestic violence with male victims". Both of those tend to be statistical outliers, and thus worthy of their own categories. Androcide, circumcision, castration (also a trans issue) could be place in a parent category of Category:Men's rights. Sound reasonable? Asarelah (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Aileen Wuornos is probably the most famous hateful man-killer and didn't rape them or live with them.

InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then a subcategory of men's rights could be "Gender-motivated violence against men" could be created, and she could be placed in it. I still maintain that the term "Violence against men" is just too broad. Asarelah (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might do. A bit longer, but a bit more precise. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Earlier nominations have revealed a great amount of scholarly research relating to violence against men, not fringe blogospheres, either. Strong sourcing in regards to the academic topic of violence against men. The nomination in the OP is blunt and does not have an echo in policy. I also see Orange Mike making an attribution to saying that It's used to pretend that men are as frequently targeted for our gender as women are. "Look, look, see, men get sexually assaulted in the military too; so shut up and make me a sandwich and quit your bitching!" having the cat in place on Wikipedia makes one jump to the conclusion that all women are kitchen dwelling subhumans. I'm not sure how one could have such a conclusion by having a cat on Wikipedia. Anywho, in all, academic research, strong sources, and everything related. (I'm not gonna copy and paste the list from the earlier ones, but it's quite long, but I might if people continually say 'OR' or 'POINT' making.) Tutelary (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a number of questionable inclusions that broaden the topic to it's breaking point. The topic itself is well documented. That is violence that targets men and boys because they are men and boys.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename Suitable for subjects sources describe as gender-based attacks (chosen for being male, not incidentally). Should be called "against males", though, because of the boys. The "violence against women in the United States" is the one that needs help or deletion. Doesn't specify any inclusion criteria, and we end up with a hodgepodge of original research, including many Jane Does, about whose violent ends almost nothing is known. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. Gender-motivated violence against males would be a good rename, and then a subcategory of Rape against males would work nicely. Asarelah (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has the potential to be a useful category. It seems most of the issue regarding cat has occurred due to misuse or uncertainty regarding inclusion criteria, but the category inclusion criteria is actually rather clearly defined on main category page: Category:Violence against men. Recently added a link on the VAM North America page, to please see main category page for detailed inclusion criteria info. Hopefully, this will alleviate some of the confusion/misuse. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2014 (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:Judaea (Roman province)[edit]

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 (NAC). DexDor (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge The content of both parent and child category are related to the Roman province Judaea. It would probably be best if, after merging, the merged (parent) category would adopt the (former) childcategory's name of "Judaea (Roman province)", to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, then, taking care over parent categories. – Fayenatic London 19:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The parent is exactly not about the province, but preceding and succeeding entities in about the same area. trespassers william (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. Thanks for avoiding what would have been a clear mistake. I'll put a header text in both categories to avoid future confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2014 (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:Whitney Biennial Artists[edit]

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. Regardless of which of the two specific guideline this falls under, it would suggest that deletion is appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A lot of work has gone into populating this category, by a new editor. Unfortunately, I believe it may violate WP:PERFCAT. Additionally, I don't see sibling categories for artists who have exhibited at other major biennials, such as Berlin. A list already exists at List of Whitney Biennial artists. (If kept, we'd need to lowercase the last word.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there's justification for a list, there's justification for a category: one populates automatically, the other can include dates, etc. the serve complementary purposes — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • The unsigned comment above, which I believe is from an admin, is most surprising. "Justification for a list" ≠ a category. That is incorrect, at a most basic level. There are a great many lists here that would not work as categories, and we often delete or listify categories on that very basis. Anyway, my deletion rationale is not founded on any abstract discussion about lists 'justifying' categories, but rather WP:PERFCAT. And I don't yet see anything here which addresses that, in the slightest. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:DGG how can a category "populate automatically" ? DexDor (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it populates when the person adding the categories adds it to the article; there are people here who make a point of dealing with uncategorized articles, and they do a pretty comprehensive job of it. It doesn't get to a list unless someone chooses to put it there. I don't think most of the people assigning categories do that as a routine. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a person here who makes a point of dealing with uncategorized articles, and I do a pretty comprehensive job of it, thank you. Would you explain why you don't feel WP:PERFCAT applies here, in principle? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk)
If I was categorizing uncategorized articles (something I've done in the past) I'd put a bio article in nationality-occupation and y-o-b categories and then move on to the next article - i.e. I wouldn't go looking through the article for other facts that might (currently) have a corresponding category. Thus, it's incorrect to assume that a category will "populate automatically". And, of course, if there's no wp article on a person they won't be added to a category (automatically or otherwise) - unlike a list. DexDor (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Berlin Biennial has only been in existence since 1998, whereas the Whitney was initiated in 1932 with the explicit purpose of presenting what is happening in contemporary American art. The list created by this category functions as one possible canon of 21st and 20th century American artists, seen together on a single layer of information (rather than the many layers of the other Whitney pages). When considered as a form of recognition (which it is), there is much precedence for a category. E.g. the Guggenheim Fellows category. Also, other editors have already populated the page significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherifa2 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note to closing admin: Cherifa2 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, Cherifa2, yours is the only relevant argument for keeping that I have seen to date. WP:OCAWARD sets a rather high bar for categorizing award recipients, but if the recognition is high enough, that could work. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Note: The list includes many people for whom there isn't (currently) a wp article. DexDor (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this category is more about the honor of being requested, I think WP:OCAWARD is the right standard to judge this category by , rather than by WP:PERFCAT which was the original nomination.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The argument appears to be whether it fits WP:OC#PERF or WP:OC#AWARD, but it clearly fails both. This is not a major award even approaching the Nobel Prize, for which categories are allowed. The very size of the category shows how useless it will be as a category for navigation. No need to listify, as there is a list. That might perhaps be split into annual lists, which might then have a category, with a name close to the present one to contain all those lists. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, there is no argument as far I'm concerned. I do agree that WP:OC#AWARD is a better standard by which to judge, based on the comments from category creator -- and as I stated to her back on Sept. 11. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (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:Stanford, California[edit]

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 22:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Recently created category which is totally duplicative of Category:Stanford University. FYI "Stanford, California" is a census-designated place which is pretty much contiguous with Stanford University. MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. An oddity of the way the category was created: it is a subcategory of the Stanford University category, AND the Stanford University category is a subcategory of this one. They are each other's parents! That could presumably be straightened out and it isn't directly related to this merge proposal. I'm just pointing it out so people won't be wondering whether one is a subcategory of the other. The answer is yes, at this point they BOTH are. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! I don't know who decided to put the category "Stanford University" as a subcategory of "Palo Alto, California," but that is an error and should be corrected. This just tends to feed the common misconception that Stanford is in Palo Alto, which it is not. (The university owns commercial property in Palo Alto, but no part of the university itself is in Palo Alto.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2014 (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:Christmas films[edit]

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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Existing title is unclear; could refer to release date for instance. DonIago (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Christmas film is an established term for films where the plot relates to Christmas in some way or another. For reference to release date, "Christmas release" is the usual term. Smetanahue (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, more words are not necessarily better words. jengod (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I see nothing unclear about the current title. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Existing title is much clearer than the suggestion, no offense. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of precision, 'Christmas films' refers mostly to films with a Christmas setting. Perhaps there is a movie that doesn't involve a Christmas time of year yet does concern itself with Christmas (maybe one of those extremely common Santa's helper in the off season tries), but for me they are forgettable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it came up because someone attached the category to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film). While Christmas does occur in the film the category seems inappropriate to me, and the holiday certainly isn't particularly discussed in the article. It occurred to me that someone might misconstrue what the category is intended for (i.e. it is not for "All films in which Christmas is mentioned in any manner"), so here we are. But I'll admit I'm not strongly invested either way. DonIago (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize. Maybe the distinction can be preserved by adding a category for movies in which there is a Christmas scene. Or change the name of this category to "Films set at Christmas." --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any special measure is needed to prevent categorization as in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film). Christmas is simply not a defining characteristic in this example and should thus be removed as a category from the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there's a legitimate question there as to whether this should be titled based on Christmas cats or Film cats. DonIago (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the current title is short and concise Terraflorin (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Christmas films[edit]

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 (NAC). DexDor (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category name is unclear. Is this for films released during Christmas, films in which Christmas plays a significant part, or other? DonIago (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, more words are not necessarily better words. jengod (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I see nothing unclear about the current title. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Existing title is much clearer than the suggestion, no offense. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former military equipment of the Philippines[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't generally do "former" categories. For info: The text of this category ("Former Military equipment of the Philippines is the formerly military equipment developed by the Philippines.) is unclear, the only article currently in the category isn't about equipment developed by the Philippines, this category has no parents. DexDor (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No clear need for a "former" subcategory type of this topic. SFB 17:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem to be a point to this; if they sell equipment or junk it, categorizing by former ownership seems pointless. Note that the creator blanked the CfD template. Philippine Commonwealth Army is almost incomprehensible, and should probably be stubbed and/or put up for deletion. I think we're dealing with a language barrier here. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I'm pretty sure I've seen this division on Wikipedia before, though maybe not as a category. I'll notify MILHIST. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete - We don't distinguish "current" and "former" in categories in this way. Also moot now as the category is empty. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 13 September 2014 (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:Alexithymia[edit]

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. Toronto Alexithymia Scale already links to Alexithymia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category contains only two articles and is not likely to expand. There is no reason to use a category to link two articles together. Gccwang (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge contents. The article base for this topic is not large enough at this time. SFB 18:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge comments, per nomination. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This issue is really how best to link Toronto Alexithymia Scale with the main article. I am not sure whether that is best done by an article merger or linking in with a "main" tag. Work needs to be done on this before a deletion-closure. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2014 (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 from Bihoro, Hokkaido[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. An extremely tiny category for a town of 20,000 that I have been attempting to fill, but finding it hard to find entries to include. The Japanese wikipedia lists five people who could be potentially added if they had pages created, but three (with a potential for eight) is a very tiny town-level category that could be served better by being listed in the general Category:People from Hokkaido one. Prosperosity (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2014 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_8&oldid=1086356190"