Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 31 April 2 >

April 1[edit]

Category:Coma patients[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 to Category:People with disorders of consciousness. While everyone proposes different methods of going about this, there is wide agreement that this category should not be kept at its current name and that there should be some category out there to cover disorders of consciousness. This fits into existing category trees that categorize patients by their disorder or disease. There is no consensus on the issue of whether there should be a subcategory for persistent vegetative states. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a specific type of patient is not a defining characteristic of a person, so categories should not (and generally do not) contain the word "patient". Instead, the common Wikipedia categorization for people with diseases is "People with X" - see Category:People by medical or psychological condition. (For full disclosure, there are currently 2 other "patient" categories, located in Category:Patients. These will also be brought to CFD.) In cases where an illness is defining of a person, the article should be categorized in "People with x", where x is the illness causing the altered state. "Coma" is a non-specific term that does not define a person. Any person on mechanical ventilation is in a medically-induced coma, and adding all people ever on a ventilator to this category doesn't make sense. Additionally, many people who have had traumatic brain injuries or hypoxic and ischemic brain injuries have been in a coma. For people that have been in a coma for a brief time after an injury/illness, I do not think they need to be categorized under "coma". I think the intent of this category was for people in prolonged comas, which by definition are actually persistent vegetative states or maybe minimally conscious states. These entities fall under the umbrella of disorders of consciousness. These types of people are better categorized in disorders of consciousness. I have reviewed all of the articles currently in Category:Coma patients, and they now all have other, more-specific categorization relating to their medical issue relating to coma. Therefore, this category can simply be deleted. Scott Alter (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NONDEFINING The vast majority of these are people notable for reason X and coincidentally ended up in a coma later in life. The primary exceptions are some controversies with end of life care with Karen Ann Quinlan and Terri Schiavo but those are also listed under Category:Bioethics and Category:Medical ethics which is really what's defining rather than the coma per se. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Instead reduce and rename to Category:People with long-term comas, restricting to those who are only or mainly notable as coma cases, or those notable for something else who had very long periods in a coma, like Ariel Sharon - 8 years, and anything so significant a person is/does for 8 years is defining in my book. Sunny von Bülow, who I just added, spent 28 years in a coma, and was portrayed in a major film doing so. Not all these cases involve ethics at all. People like Hélène Pastor (10 days) should be removed, but over an (inevitably somewhat arbitrary) limit being in a coma is defining - 6 months perhaps? That gets Michael Schumacher in - his progress was regularly reported across the civilized world. The proposed substitute umbrella category Category:People with disorders of consciousness is not nearly specific enough. The nominator just set it up with a few pages on April 1st, and it should either be done properly or, probably better, deleted. Johnbod (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That must be one boring film. (-: I'm open to some sort of compromise but it would be good to have a medically based time cutoff so we don't run into WP:ARBITRARYCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current Category:Coma patients is not a useful category as it stands now. It is currently a combination of people in "long-term" comas, medically-induced comas, and brief (few days or less) comas. People are not defined by having been in a coma. I went through all of the articles in Category:Coma patients, created and populated Category:People with disorders of consciousness with "long-term" coma patients. This new category contains people only notable for being unresponsive for a prolonged period of time. Everyone else should not even be in a category for "coma," since it is not defining of those people. I created the new category, since "Disorders of consciousness" is actually fairly specific - probably more-so that "coma." Since the current Category:Coma patients has lots of inappropriate articles, I didn't think a straight rename would be appropriate. I don't think we need both Category:People with disorders of consciousness and "long-term coma." Since "long-term coma" has no medical meaning, I would advise against that name. Additionally, creating an arbitrary cutoff for the category also seems inappropriate. That's partially why I think "Disorders of consciousness" might work. If anyone has a better name than this, please advise. So no one has to go through the articles in Category:Coma patients again, I'd suggest deleting Category:Coma patients and renaming Category:People with disorders of consciousness to whatever the group thinks is best. --Scott Alter (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing renaming a reduced Category:Coma patients; who knows what else is in Category:People with disorders of consciousness? If they all had comas, ok. But add Sunny von B, and Michael Schumacher. I see it is a subcat of "People with brain injuries" - is that medically correct? Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I created Category:People with disorders of consciousness, I went through Category:Coma patients, and only put in patients who actually met criteria. Disorders of consciousness is a defined entity, so you shouldn't have confusion about this. They all had "comas," but after a while, most were categorized as a persistent vegetative state. Both persistent vegetative state and "long-term" coma fall under the category of "disorders of consciousness." In order to have a disorder of consciousness, you must have had an insult to the brain. Thus yes, everyone who is in this category (or "long-term" coma, whatever that means), has had a brain injury. There are 2 types of brain injuries: traumatic and non-traumatic. I have also tried to clean up this category structure a bit, which is separate, but somewhat related to this category. Previously, there was only Category:People with brain injuries, which contains Category:People with severe brain damage, which contains Category:Coma patients. There is no technical definition of "severe" brain damage, so I think this is a likely useless category that should no longer exist...but that's a CFD for another time. As subcategories of Category:People with brain injuries, I created the more-appropriate Category:People with traumatic brain injuries and Category:People with hypoxic and ischemic brain injuries‎ (maybe better named as Category:People with non-traumatic brain injuries, but that is not an actual medical term or diagnosis). I then diffused Category:People with brain injuries between these two categories. Anyone with a permanent disorder of consciousness (ie not a medically-induced or "short-term" coma) was not placed in this category, but was placed in the appropriate brain injury category. While a brain injury may lead to a disorder of consciousness, it may not and the person may fully recover. If a notable person has a brain injury causing a disorder of consciousness, then they should be categorized in both places. If a notable person had a brain injury and fully (or partially) recovered, the brain injury may or may not be a defining characteristic and should be categorized appropriately. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Persistent vegetative state I was looking for a medical based cutoff on the Mayo Clinic site and Persistent vegetative state seemed like it might be close to what we're looking for. Our Wikipedia article indicates that the wording of that description can be seen as problematic though so "unresponsive wakefulness syndrome" is preferred in some circles. This might be easier to do as a new category though rather than a purging of this one. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname and Purge to Category:People in a persistent vegetative state or something similar. Patients with head injuries are often put into a medically induced coma. This is clearly not what we are talking about. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are actually different medical conditions (or can be), with different ICD codes etc - see the articles. I don't think we should do a mass re-diagnosis. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - they are different. "Disorders of consciousness" should cover them all though. Thus, why I chose that name. And since "long-term coma" is not a medical term, nor is it defined anywhere, I would not use that name at all. Any other suggestions are welcomed. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2016 (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:Wikipedians who use Chrome[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 and redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Chrome is a short from for Google Chrome and as the Google Chrome user category is more populated I am proposing that the Chrome user category be merged into it. --Devin Murphy (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do either exist? What difference does it make what browser a Wikipedian uses? Delete both but leave and clean up the userboxes that put users into these categories. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would suppose that they exist so that we can consult various Chrome/Chromium/Blink users to see if interface changes to MediaWiki causes problems, and as people to talk to for changes to articles about Chrome/Chromium/Blink/WebKit -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both; if kept, merge in one direction or the other as duplicates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect; do not delete both in isolation without a full nomination of Category:Wikipedians by web browser and all its subcats. Closer will need to edit User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Chrome; lots of user pages transclude this userbox, so I do not understand why more do not appear in the category. – Fayenatic London 06:57, 4 April 2016 (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:7th century in the Rashidun Caliphate[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. MER-C 12:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The caliphate began and ended in the same century (632−661). This sub-classification is redundant. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (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:Rashidun[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: rename. – Fayenatic London 10:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Umayyad caliphs and Category:Abbasid caliphs. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Links @Al-Andalusi: See WP:RM for the templates for a requested move. If successful, he category could then be speedied through WP:C2D. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2016 (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:Sahabah favored in Sunnism[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: upmerge to Category:Sahabah; mark Category:Sahabah favored by Shias as WP:non-diffusing. – Fayenatic London 12:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Sahabah (companions of Muhammad) are all favored by Sunnis, otherwise they wouldn't be referred to as Sahabah. That would be like saying "Disciples favored by Christianity". Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2016 (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:Ebola patients[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a patient with a specific disease is not a defining characteristic of a person, so categories should not (and generally do not) contain the word "patient". Being a patient generally assumes that one is undergoing continuing medical care for the issue. Instead, the common Wikipedia categorization for people with diseases is "People with X" - see Category:People by medical or psychological condition. (For full disclosure, there are currently 2 other "patient" categories, located in Category:Patients. These will also be brought to CFD.) For most infections diseases, people either die from them or are cured of them (with the major exception being HIV/AIDS). For Ebola, the defining characteristic is either death from the disease or survival from the disease. People with Ebola aren't active patients for long. Either they die or they recover. Both the "deaths" (Category:Deaths from Ebola) and new "survivors" (Category:Ebola survivors) categories are more specific (and IMO better) categories than a generic "patients". This schema parallels established categorization with similar rare or potentially deadly infectious diseases: Meningitis (survivors/deaths), Smallpox (survivors/deaths), and Syphilis (survivors/deaths). Scott Alter (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2016 (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:Baseball players from Brisbane[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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has only one entry. Also per multiple CFDs, here[1], here[2], we don't categorize baseball players by city. If a merge is the outcome of this CFD, an upmerge into Australian baseball players should be done for Brisbane also. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK for Brisbane, as the member page is already in the other parent Category:Australian baseball players. Oppose for Beijing and Tianjin as they are not only cities but Direct-controlled municipalities of China, part of the hierarchy by province., in this case Category:Chinese_baseball_players_by_province. – Fayenatic London 07:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate -- Baseball has a professional league in Australia, with six teams in six major cities. It should be legitimate to have such a category for the home cities of teams, but these only. I consider the decision on the precedents to have been wrong. I suspect that the same considerations apply to Chinese cities. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if we are going to categorize sportspeople by every city they played in or lived in, it may well lead to too much category clutter in the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2016 (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:Individual crosses and crucifixes[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 to merge; as a result it is necessary instead to re-populate this category. Although the current contents of the nominated category are almost the same as Crosses by form, excluding only the top level of High crosses, the current contents are incomplete, as many individual crosses are currently only in Crosses by function and not in Crosses by form. Such pages should be added back into Category:Individual crosses and crucifixes. As for the sub-cats by form including articles that are not on individual crosses: there is currently no point keeping Category:Forked crosses as a sub-cat of "Individual crosses", as it only holds one individual cross; but WP:SUBCAT allows flexibility where most of the members fit within a parent category, e.g. 12 out of 13 within Crux gemmata, so that one can stay. – Fayenatic London 09:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to all parent categories, only contains one child category so is an unneeded level of categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The purpose of the Category:Individual physical objects tree is to group notable examples of the items. This category doesn't do that. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It used to function fine, containing about 30 individual examples, and being very useful in that way. Unfortunately one of our obsessive over-categorizers, User:Bermicourt, has recently been at work here and has destroyed all that, dispersing all the individual ones to a forest of un-needed categories by form, function, country etc, and stupidly removing this category. Is there a way to recreate the old lot? If not I can do it manually. In fact he has been deliberately emptying this category, which is downright disruptive. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that wasn't too bad - take a look at it now. We now have about 60 articles on individual crosses, so this is very useful. But Bermicourt is a menace frankly. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree, but if one has to go it should clearly be the other, or there is no way to keep crosses in the "individual objects" category tree, which is an important and rather undeveloped one. Category:Christian crosses is probably not needed either. Certainly there are far too many layers here, but try pursuading Bermicourt of that. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the merge proposal as listed on top, the category was being kept in the "individual objects" category tree, because it said merge to all parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This category area was a mess with confusion between e.g. what crosses are made of and their design. And with the number of crosses in the world, Category:Individual crosses and crucifixes was never going to survive without subdivision, nor does it cater for the many articles of types of cross. So I followed the very helpful Template:Christian crosses which IMHO sorted them out far more constructively. If, Johnbod, you had asked, I could have explained this. In the meantime, please do not make personal attacks on other editors in contravention of WP:PA. If you think I am over-categorizing, try the civil approach of discussing it. Otherwise, please "comment on content, not on the contributor". --Bermicourt (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a mess, and categories for individual objects, as opposed to types, are a significant tree from which you deliberately removed all these. Rather obviously, it is not designed to "cater for the many articles of types of cross". These would have been far better kept together than micro-divided - few readers will bother to hunt through the new sub-categories you have set up. While it may be fun setting-up a bunch of new categories, it is frustrating for actual readers to attempt to find something in a forest of thinly-populated micro-categories. I have tried discussing your edits with you before, and while you are open to "explaining" what you think you are doing, you are not open to considering changing it. Deliberately emptying a category without discussion is clearly against correct procedure, but I doubt that will bother you in the slightest. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I happen to disagree with that point of view and simply acted in good faith to improve the categorisation. But I see why you are so cross: you created the category someone is now proposing to merge. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; sometimes things go the way we would like and sometimes not. But that's no reason to be uncivil or continue with personal attacks. I am open to discussion and change, but I also accept consensus. I encourage you to do likewise. Bermicourt (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod, all editors have the liberty to boldly diffuse categories without prior discussion. Nobody "owns" a category. If you disagree because the new categories become too small, you can simply nominate them for upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT in this very forum. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously it is more than that - if it was merely diffused it would not now be nominated for deletion. Bermicourt was interested in one type of categorization. He achieved that and at the same time (completely unnecessarily) destroyed the existing type of categorization by removing and mixing the articles. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Proposal That works for me. I have no objection to re-creating a true individual crosses category, but if kept in it's current form though, it's false advertising.RevelationDirect (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Its current form, or its form when nominated? As explained, it was absolutely fine when created, containing only articles on individual objects, which it now pretty much does again. Unfortunately I don't think Marcocapelle's suggestion works, not least because the name of Category:Crosses by form isn't clear enough. Experience shows that a) Categories that contain only actual objects are very useful and important and b) if they aren't clearly titled as such they rapidly get cluttered up with other articles. None, not one of the 13 articles currently in the head cat of Category:Crosses by form are about individual crosses - understandably they are all about types of crosses. So it would be inappropriate to parent it to Category:Individual physical objects - "false advertising" as RevelationDirect puts it. Make no mistake about it, supporting this nomination is supporting suppressing a branch of the individual objects tree. The only sensible way of having a category for Category:Individual crosses and crucifixes is to have a dedicated one, called after its contents. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is another problem with the current Category:Individual crosses and crucifixes. It includes articles in the sub-cats which are generic not individual objects e.g. Crucifix, Crux gemmata, Stone cross, Basalt cross, Forked cross, Celtic cross, Conciliation cross, etc. So they would need to be broken out and categorised separately, which IMHO is unnecessarily complicated and separates the generic article from examples of its type. For clarification I add below the template on which I based the restructuring of the categories. It wasn't designed by me, but I think it brings a clarity that the old structure didn't. Both template and category tree allow for future expansion. Bermicourt (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, more restoration to the situation before you got busy messing up the categories is needed. Yes, it is. The template has no articles on individual crosses at all, and is useless as a way of finding them. Just because you are not interested in grouping actual objects, it doesn't mean that our users aren't. Actually the template and current category structure have their problems too, but there's no need to further complicate this discussion. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't act as my spokesman - "you are not interested in grouping actual objects". In fact, you're wrong anyway, I don't mind object grouping at all, but it shouldn't rule out other ways of categorising, nor should it include non-objects. And please stop breaking Wikipedia's guidelines on discussion by attacking me personally "you got busy messing up categories" - it undermines your credibility and is frowned on by the Wikipedia community. Bermicourt (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If so, why did you devote so much effort to emptying this this category, and why are you voting now to delete it? You make no sense at all. Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful with your use of language. If you don't agree with other editors, say so, but don't imply they are idiots because their viewpoint differs or you can't understand them. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Marcocapelle's latest suggestion, this amounts to keeping the repopulated category we are discussing, but under a less clear name. If Category:Crosses by form (which is not well named in the first place, as many are divided by country etc rather than form) is the name, one would expect generic articles to be there. If it is, once again, to be for individual objects only, which is fine by me, the much clearer old name should be used, and this nom withdrawn. Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, it is perfectly clear that Crosses by form contains individual crosses. If it wouldn't, hypothetically speaking, it should be called Category:Cross forms instead. By the way, I'm neutral about the word "form", am open to an alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea why you think this is clear! It just isn't. Experience has shown that it wouldn't be clear even to other WP editors, who have always added generic articles to categories unless they specifically include "individual" in the name. You can't assume that readers spend as much time getting used to niceties of WP category-speak as you have. Johnbod (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're doing as proposed, Category:Crosses by form will become a container category and readers who don't spend time on categories will never see and use it, instead they will see and use its child categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge though the target's name is unsatisfactory and I think that some other related categories may need merging in too. I wonder if the target should simply be Category:Crosses, with a headnote saying that it includes crucifixes. I am not sure why swastikas is on the target category, as it is unrelated to the cross, being an Indian good luck symbol - or would be if pointing the other way. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's fair to say that however it got here, the categories are now a mess. By my best guess, I think we have (at least) three concepts here which should NOT be categorised together: a.) cross designs; b.) typographical or other cross-type imagery; c.) actual "famous" and/or historical objects which happen to be crosses/crucifixes/cruciforms. a and b may have a bit of an overlap in some examples, but c shouldn't be categorised with a or b at all, since these are objects. - jc37 08:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose merge, per my comments above. Individual objects shouldn't be merged with classification "types". - jc37 08:42, 4 June 2016 (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:Roman-era students in Athens[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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, these people are defined by their later occupation, not by their studentship. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case it's also not an alumni category of a particular school. (On the side, I would probably not oppose if someone else would nominate the entire alumni tree.) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- In a period when there were no universities, studying in Athens, the centre of philosophical thought would be the nearest anyone would get to an equivalent of a university course. I thus consider that this is analogous to an alumni category. They may have studied with a particular master, but we are unlikely to find enough articles to make a worthwhile alumni category for any of them. If we should do, we can make that a subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons listed by Peterkingiron. Dimadick (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2016 (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.

Panhellenic Games[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. MER-C 12:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in each category. No need to upmerge, articles are already in correct categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- At one point someone created stub articles for all competitors in the ancient Olympic Games, but in most cases these were incapable of expansion, so that (with a few exceptions) they were merged back to a list article. We might conceivably merge the two competitors categories to Category:Competitors at ancient Panhellenic Games, which could include the few surviving Olympic bio-articles, but will we get enough content? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2016 (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:Bishops appointed by Julius II[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: speedy merge (per C2B or C2C). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. DexDor (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2016 (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:Recursion[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.

Draft:Template:Humor icon An April Fools nomination

The result of the discussion was: Speedy keep, just no. kelapstick(bainuu) 03:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Everyone knows that a category can't contain itself. But this one has to, or it wouldn't make sense otherwise. Just delete outright and avoid the confusion. :P Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:18, 1 April 2016 (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:BMI songwriters[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. MER-C 12:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic for any of these musicians/songwriters in this category. Plus, wouldn't this be true for almost any published songwriter these days? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a defining characteristic; even I have songs on BMI. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally non-defining. Every song released and some unreleased will be with a Performing Rights Organisation. There's only 3 or 4 in the USA. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2016 (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:Deaf educators[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: purge and rename. – Fayenatic London 12:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many of those listed here will be both, but educators who are deaf, but teach hearing people, and educators who aren't deaf but teach the deaf shouldn't be thrown together in a single category. PanchoS (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with that alternative proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2016 (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:Organizations named after people[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME
This category groups a wide variety of organisations in different countries (no two articles are from the same nation), different purposes and different structures. The only thing they have in common is that they were named after someone. One is named after a long dead person the founders found inspiring (1), one was established immediately after the namesake's death based on their will (2), and yet another was founded by the namesake during their lifetime (3). So, even though they are all named after people, they have those names for different reasons. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified SoSivr as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Organizations. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2016 (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/2016_April_1&oldid=1138409442"