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. (Note: I manually checked the contents before implementing this.) – FayenaticLondon 07:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said "Merge to Category:Theologians", but rely on the assurance that all have an appropriate category. All appear to be Christians, but from various denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 10 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:Paralympic competitors for Scotland[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.
Is it at all possible that there could be Scottish Paralympic competitors competing for countries other than Scotland? — crh23 (Talk) 21:46, 6 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.
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:split as proposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge subcats, but move the member articles into the sibling Category:Lists of spouses of national leaders. This category only has the one parent. The only page available for a lead article is First Lady; First Gentleman is a redirect to that page. The parent holds a lot more "First Ladies" categories already. If not merged, category should be renamed to Spouses of presidents. – FayenaticLondon 14:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REname to Category:Spouses of national Presidents, or something like that. There is a difference between being the spouse of a president (who holds office for a term) and of a king (or queen) who holds office for life. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Spouses of national leaders. The current name functions as a seperation by shared name as opposed to anything more substantial. The fact of the matter is that "president" covers a large array of different structures, so it is not a shared office but just a shared name, the shared office is national leader, whatever called.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/split as proposed in nom, with all biographies going to Category:Spouses of national leaders and all list articles going to Category:Lists of spouses of national leaders. The distinction of "president" vs. "king/queen" is more than just semantics, but that's a different proposal entirely which would involve Category:Spouses of national leaders becoming a proper container category with a series of subcategories for presidents/prime ministers/royalty/dictators/etc. It makes little sense to only split out one such title, as was proposed in the alternate here. ~ RobTalk 01:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom. I was going to suggest renaming Category:Spouses of national leaders to Category:Spouses of political leaders, since it seems to be about elected officials, not royalty. And if that works, I'd be fine with it. However, deciding between elected politicians and the various types of -archy leaders can get murky, so I dunno if it's worth trying to make that distinction. I oppose a "national presidents" cat. Not every president is actually the same job, even on the national level. This without even getting into translations of title differences. - jc37 08:59, 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.
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) 08:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nonsensical, unexplained, redundant, and confusing category, which is thoroughly unnecessary. Quis separabit? 01:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate defining characteristic that is a rather common description used to describe these individuals. We have lists of Oscar winners and we don't delete the corresponding categories. WP:CLN, our editing guideline on this matter explicitly states that "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping."Alansohn (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having a star on the Walk of Fame is not defining. Someone may be described as the Academy-award winning actress of Foo, but not whether she has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. A perfect example where a list is more than sufficient. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existing list is all we need here, as having a star on the Walk of Fame, while certainly verifiable, is not WP:DEFINING in the sense that's necessary to be a categorizable characteristic. Categories and lists can coexist in certain circumstances, but the rule is most certainly not that every list always automatically gets a corresponding category to group the same set of topics contained in the list: some types of topics can simultaneously satisfy the criteria for a list and the criteria for a category, but there are plenty of topics where either a list or a category is justifiable while the other is not, and this is of that latter type. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 23 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is for the fly genus, but there is no article about the genus specifically, just a bunch of articles about the species within the genus. Ortalis redirects to Chachalaca, and Ortalis is also the genus name of that bird. So the category for the fly genus needs a disambiguator of some sort. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename in Some Fashion I'll defer to the other editors for the exact target name. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 8 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.
