Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 11 December 13 >

December 12[edit]

Category:Century Association members[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. Editors supporting keep outnumber those supporting delete, but WP:NOTVOTE. The keep arguments mostly failed to address the central issue of WP:NONDEF, and instead either relied upon assertions or cited guidelines which relate to articles rather than categories. One editor did commendably produce a long list of sources on the history of the Century Association, but their relevance to this discussion was contested on grounds that they did not address whether membership of the Century Association is defining for its members.
Per WP:Consensus#Determining_consensus, consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy ... and in this discussion, the arguments for deletion were much better founded in policy.
Editors may wish to consider creating a list of members of the Century Association, so I have made[1] a list of the category's content at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 12#Century Association_members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing by non-defining characteristic. Most notable people are members of many organizations during their lives. Nothing indicates that being a member of this club is defining for David Bispham, Samuel Hopkins Adams, or nearly any of the other 1,700 biographies in this category. The vast majority don't even mention their membership except as a category. A list would be more suitable for this information. TM 22:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as category creator. Rationale:
There is extreme precedent for listing notable memberships of organizations. The Century Association is an immensely significant organization, which has more notable artists, architects, and politicians than most any other organization I've heard of. Would you delete all of the categories in Category:Members of clubs and societies in the United States, which probably doesn't even include all of such listings? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While at it, you could delete Category:Members of organizations and all of the dozens and dozens of subcategories. The precedent for this category is extremely well established, I'm surprised this is even an issue. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, nearly every school or university article has categories for their alumni, even if the article briefly mentions - or doesn't mention - that they went to school there. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What policy or guideline is this category violating, Namiba? Otherwise, your opinion that a list would be better is just one user's opinion, and not worth anything over my opinion, or that of other editors... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia supports categorizing people by association, as is described here: Wikipedia:Categorization of people (section 3.1). There is no such rule condemning categorizing by organization membership, and there is an enormous precedent for it as well. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONDEF offers guidance on this. I suggest you read it over. It should answer the questions you've posed to me.--TM 00:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasoning on very subjective grounds then. Yet precedents are well established, and the Categorization of People guideline seems to support it. A great many biographies will include a person's membership in the organization, and sources could be found to describe those members' times in the clubhouse or with other members (Just because an article is incomplete doesn't make the category not worth inclusion). Those members' interactions have also caused a great many hugely significant outcomes, including for instance, the founding of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the largest art museum in the United States. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles must be categorised by information within the article, not from an external list. Information not within the article cannot be claimed to be defining. We have deleted any number of 'membership' categories. Oculi (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed that membership category deletions have taken place. And incomplete articles are not my fault. All Wikipedia rules point that just because an article is missing some information, doesn't make it grounds to delete anything. That's basics of any AfD. Merit for content is important, not the presence of content. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong. There has to be information within the article to justify its inclusion in a category. No info, no category. A list in comparison can refer (within itself) to sources which justify each list member. Here is a list of deleted membership categories. Oculi (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I backed up my argument with Wikipedia policies, you backed yours up with "wrong" and bold font. And that list of deleted cats is all for different random reasons, with most having very few voters or votes, very little discussion, just you and maybe one or two others deleting categories, mostly years and years ago. That's pretty weak evidence. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plus this category is crucial to my work improving articles on the Century Association. WP:IAR says "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I need this in place, and your opinion that the category isn't relevant enough is simply blocking my access to work, not helping the encyclopedia. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – many newspaper articles and biographies mention membership in this club, so it seems defining. Insufficient support and sourcing in individual articles is no reason to delete the category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this should be a list, not a category. The organization may be of extreme significance but membership of it is not. Oculi (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So would you delete all of the thousands of categories listed under Category:Members of organizations, Oculi? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That other stuff exists is not a reason to keep a category.--TM 00:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ, there are literally hundreds or thousands of other examples of this. It's as common as anything else on this encyclopedia, so why attack this one specifically? Precedent is important. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As well, I'm using this category as a very important and useful tool in creating two drafts, one on the Century and one on its members. And "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." (WP:IAR). That's a policy, not a guideline. As well, this category could also help other people in editing Wikipedia or even just researching, by finding out who is a member, or by determining which members had certain occupations, were members at specific times, etc. The categorization offers many more search criteria options than a simple list would . ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia have any other list for >1700 entries? I think the arguments at WP:CLN favour a category in this instance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And there's historically 11,000 members, so potentially, 11,000 entries. I'm adding more as I find them, all the time. As well, the category is most useful (as somewhat indicated above) for tools like WP:PETSCAN, where I can find intersections between members and other affiliations, ages, professions, etc. All sorts of useful data that couldn't be possible otherwise. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't want articles added to this category unless there is a reliable source that indicates that the subject was a member. (WP:V) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted on the category page, I am adding these categories based on a list of members pulled from the various yearbooks that the Century Association has published for over 100 years. These can be publicly accessed, as I mentioned on your talk page. As well, many of them are listed in the public 1946 history of the club. Rest assured that no articles are being added without reliable sources for them. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is significant precedent for such a category to exist. Given the size of the organization, it is impossible to make a list that huge to encompass all those members. For example, Category:New York Yankees players exists to encompass the over 1500 players who ever ever played in a New York Yankees uniform. There is no list of all Yankees players. It is a professional organization, similar to the Century Association. While "other stuff exists" is a valid argument in many cases, it is not a rule that an "other stuff exists" argument is automatically invalid. Sufficient precedent exists for the creation of such a category. Additionally, if the category is useful for Wikipedia work and other work, I see no reason to delete it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NONDEF and please nominate similar categories for deletion if there are any. The argument against listification does not hold, one can easily make a series of multiple lists per letter of the alphabet, and put those lists in a category. We shouldn't create a precedent allowing categories with non-defining characteristics, the category clutter in articles would become huge if we would, and the whole category system would lose its usability. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle: there already is a huge precedent. There are thousands of societies with categories for members here, and with thousands or more articles for people in them. See above. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and I am repeating: if they are similar, please nominate them too. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your multiple list idea makes no sense, and the arguments above are hugely relevant. There are no lists of 1,700 people (potentially 11,000 people), and this category helps me and others find useful information, e.g. using WP:PETSCAN. There's no other way to do that, and it is extremely useful. So read WP:IAR again, please. And whether something is defining or not is subjective, and will vary per member. Some members dedicate their lives to the club; others may rarely even show up there. The same goes for any of those organization cats. Yet like I said, reliable sources could be found for most club members' involvement, and could be in their Wikipedia articles. The fact that those articles are incomplete is not a fault that should affect this category. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make sure, I'm not arguing we should have lists, just proposing an idea how to implement it. But actually I start to think that lists are probably inappropriate as well, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This whole exercise looks like something that should be moved to a private website, instead of on Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize this isn't Vassar Video Game Club or anything, right? Eight Presidents of the United States were members. There's 29 Nobel Prize winners. Most American artists and architects. 43 Cabinet members and 10 on the Supreme Court. Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, and way, way, more. This is exactly the sort of organization notable for Wikipedia, more than almost all others... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, and why is a president of the United States in Wikipedia? Because he was a president of the United States, not because he was a member of Century Association. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet you're wrong. Many members have had huge dealings with the club, including President Theodore Roosevelt. His club interactions are so notable there could be a separate Wikipedia article on them. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there is a huge article on Theodore Roosevelt, I can't find any mention of Century Association in the article at all, while several other associations are mentioned. I'm not arguing that there should not be any mention of Century Association in the article of Theodore Roosevelt but if this is the prime example of a person for whom the membership is supposed to be defining then the membership is very clearly not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking this one step further, while there are over 1,700 articles in the category, there are fewer than 200 internal links to the page itself. Many of them are related to the club's landmark status and do not include mention of an individual's membership. It is so clearly non-defining for the vast, vast majority of members.--TM 00:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you written a single article on a club? Every last one of them is remarkably poor and underdeveloped. It's a fault of Wikipedia, not the clubs. It's nearly as bad as the state of food articles on Wikipedia. The wiki might look great when only viewing military topics, architecture, or science, but overall it still is rather poor. As for the Century specifically, there could be 2,000 links easily. Once my work is done, there might be. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is really the case, you could spend your energy much better with expanding articles than with creating this category. However, before you start doing that instantly, what reliable sources are there to base expansion of the articles on? For example, where can we can find the achievements of Jonathan Brewster Bingham on behalf of the Century Association? I'm just taking a random example here. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Namiba: That a category should be deleted because it's not yet fully populated with all its members is a novel argument. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what I am arguing at all. Please read my statement again. I wrote that the Century Association is not defining to the vast majority of biographies on which the category is included. This is proven by the lack of internal links to the organization. Not sure where you got an argument about being fully populated.--TM 13:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well Category:Cornell University alumni or really any alumni category is almost never defining. Why should org membership be treated any different? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is barely ever enforced, and shouldn't even exist, face it. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree that the arguments at WP:CLN strongly favor keeping this category. According to WP:CLN, Wikipedia offers various ways to group articles including using categories, lists, and navigation templates. The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for grouping the same information. Each method of organizing information has its advantages and disadvantages and is applied independently of the other methods as long as they follow Wiki guidelines and standards. Accordingly, these categorization methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the other. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other. Ajfeist (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CLN is beside the point of the discussion. It just says that there may be instances in which lists and category exist next to each other. It does not discuss when either lists or categories are appropriate at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CLN is not beside the point because a list has been proposed here as an argument in favour of deleting the category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been proposed as an alternative, it hasn't been proposed as the reason to delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the nomination: "A list would be more suitable"; and further down: "Delete – this should be a list, not a category." Those are arguments in favour of the proposal, to delete this category. Such arguments invite consideration of WP:CLN. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NONDEF. Anyone who is even thinking about categorizing articles based on something not mentioned in the article needs to read the guidance pages and find a better way of achieving what they are trying to do - e.g. using WikiData. DexDor (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I heard about this through Wiki NYC discussions because this is a New York City-based project. The category is Wikipedia:Defining so we should keep it. Being "defining" is relative, so since we already say that other kinds of membership like being a university alumni or in Category:Fraternal service organizations are defining, this must be also because this membership is more exclusive and tells more about a person than those other categories. People do not incidentally or casually join the Century Association because joining is a commitment and restricted. Unrelated to deleting this article and sidetracking the discussion here are people talking about whether this category should be placed on ~2000+ biographies. If the category is correctly placed on even 5 people with the possibility of expansion then that justifies not deleting it. I am sure that membership in this organization is more meaningful than many other categories we use, but at the same time, Wikipedia's category system has unclear rules about when something should be in a category versus on a list versus in Wikidata only. I can understand why we would not want to tag Century Association membership in articles which do not say in the body of the text how and why this membership fits into a person's life. We usually expect this of schools even though that also often happens without references. I advise no further indiscriminate application of the category except in cases where the body of text mentions the association. Instead as DexDor says go to Wikidata and do "membership -> Century Association" tag with a reference to the the self-published membership roster. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is more exclusive and tells more about a person than those other categories" (quote).
For the biographies in this category, are there any reliable sources that tell significantly more about these persons from the point of view of their membership? I don't expect so because the articles do not provide any further details about the membership, but I'll happily stand corrected. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duffy, James, ed. (1997). The Century at 150: Excerpts from the Archives. New York, New York: The Century Association – via CAAF.
  • Cooper, Jr., Henry S.F. (1997). Inside the Century (2nd ed.). New York, New York: The Century Association – via CAAF.
  • Durand, John (1882). Prehistoric Notes of The Century Club (PDF). Retrieved August 18, 2017 – via CAAF.
  • The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Founding of The Century (PDF). New York, New York: The Century Association. January 13, 1897. Retrieved August 18, 2017 – via CAAF.
  • Gourlie, John Hamilton (1856). The Origin and History of "The Century" (PDF). New York, New York: Wm C. Bryant & Co. Retrieved August 18, 2017 – via CAAF.
  • Mayor, A. Hyatt; Davis, Mark (1977). American Art at the Century. New York, New York: The Century Association – via CAAF.
  • Commager, Henry Steele; Pringle, Henry F.; Burlingame, Roger (1947). The Century, 1847-1946. New York, New York: The Century Association. Retrieved August 18, 2017 – via CAAF.
  • Cooper, Jr., Henry S.F. (2014). Inside the Century (3rd ed.). New York, New York: The Century Association – via CAAF.
  • Nathan, Frederic S. (2010). Centurions in Public Service (PDF). New York, New York: Century Association Archives Foundation. Retrieved August 18, 2017 – via CAAF.

These all include varying detail on members' activities within or relating to the club, some little and some tons. There's also some independent biographies, other publications published or collected by the Century, and a great heap of grey literature at the Century Association Archives Foundation. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing them but they are not independent sources. It doesn't show that the Century Association is defining to the people whose pages we are including.--TM 14:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SELFPUB, WP:SELFPUB, WP:SELFPUB. And the Archives are actually independent and neutral, run by a professional archivist. The association is an extremely neutral source as well. And your assessment is very dubious, I doubt you found most of those in a library by now. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And for people as notable in their fields as FDR (also a Century member), can you really say a lot of their categories are defining? People don't usually care about this. His cats include things like 19th-century American Episcopalians, 20th-century American Episcopalians, American Episcopalians, American Odd Fellows, American people in the Venona papers, American people of Dutch descent, American people of English descent, American people of French descent, American Philatelic Society, American philatelists, Assassination attempt survivors, Bulloch family, Burials in New York (state), Dutchess County, New York politicians, Freemen of the City of London, Groton School alumni, The Harvard Crimson people, Knights Grand Cross of the Military Order of William, Livingston family, Sons of the American Revolution, and U.S. Synthetic Rubber Program. The only really defining things for most Americans is the nuances of his presidency, New Deal, and World War II. Maybe Governor. I could do the same argument for most any person in the Century category. So I find your primary argument utterly ridiculous. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how many times you need to be told that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for keeping a category or article on Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with the standards of the project.--TM 18:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate thinly veiled personal attacks, kindly stop. Blindly following rules and applying them universally in every application, even rules that are never even in practice, is just silly. Or here's a higher-priority rule: that the category is helping me improve Wikipedia, so WP:IAR applies. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citing from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, under the shortcut WP:Some stuff exists for a reason: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." Further, WP:OTHERSTUFF states, "'Other similar category schemes don't - and shouldn't - exist' may be an appropriate argument for arguing for deletion of a category." That has an obvious corollary when reversed. It also states, "it should be noted that OSE/OCE arguments tend to apply differently in category space". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2018 (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:Lapsed Catholics[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. None of the people in this category are known for being lapsed Catholics. They are all entertainers or academics who happen to be non-practicing Catholics. TM 17:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nondefining, unclear inclusion criteria. Neutralitytalk 19:20, 15 December 2017 (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:Immediate sequels[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:Sequel films. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Immediate sequel" based on a Google search does not appear to be common terminology, and there's no linked Wikipedia article to make it clear that this is notable in some manner. I question whether this is a worthwhile sub-categorization, especially when there's no clear evidence that this distinction is widely recognized. Lastly, I suspect this is not a defining category. DonIago (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge since this category name is not common terminology and not widely recognized at all. Its use is basically limited to TVTropes. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not just TV Tropes....
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ImmediateSequel
https://reelrundown.com/movies/Sequels-That-Begin-Immediately-After-the-First-Movie
https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/596217-sequels-take-place-immediately-after-original-not-filmed-back-back.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/2456bc/sequels_that_take_place_almost_right_after_the/
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/33imy6/what_are_some_sequels_that_begin_in_a_scene_that/
http://cynobs.com/2014/04/19/10-sequels-that-started-right-at-the-end-of-the-previous-movie/
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/1898202/sequels-that-start-almost-immediately-after-previous-film
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=690572
https://dejareviewer.com/2017/09/05/sequels-that-show-what-happened-right-after-the-first-films-end-credits-rolled/

BornonJune8 (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, those are all self-published sources. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no reliable sources in that list. TVTropes is a wiki anyone can edit and Reelrundown is a user submitted site with little editorial process. The rest are forums (can't be used as sources) or, like Cynob, don't use the term. Canterbury Tail talk 01:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as "immediate" in this context is too varying and subjective. ToThAc (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' not a common categorization. Additionally a lot of the films added to this category don't fit in any definition of Immediately. Aliens was added, it only starts 57 years after the events of the first film. Iron Man 2, nope. No real definition to it and it'll only end up being subjective anyway. If it can't be reliably sourced that a film can belong to this category then we should get rid of the category. I've not come across anywhere that can be used as such a reference. Canterbury Tail talk 18:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I have been unable to find any reliable sources that use this term, let alone define it in an objective way. This seems to be original research and not defining. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the many astute comments above. -----The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As above, too subjective to be defining. Without a topic article this cat would need some formal definition which would likely be pure WP:OR.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Neutralitytalk 19:19, 15 December 2017 (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:Rhodesian Crosiers[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:Crosiers and Category:Rhodesian Roman Catholic priests. Please note, Category:Crosiers by nationality and 2 by-nationality subcats were created during this nomination, and probably should also be nominated. As a friendly reminder, please do not create additional categories during an active CfD discussion, as this presupposes a particular outcome and, in most cases (such as this one), requires additional cleanup work to be performed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. We don't even have a Category:Crosiers (i.e. Canons Regular of the Order of the Holy Cross), so we don't need a by-nationality subcat for a small, short-lived country. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I recently made several Crosier-related categories, so this category is no longer a stand-alone. Also, we have Category:Rhodesian Jesuits, so why not this? In addition, several Rhodesian bishops of the Bulawayo diocese and other vicariates were Crosiers, so there is room for growth of this category. Jgefd (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2017 (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:Vainakh festivals[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, it currently contains only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2017 (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:Religious festivals by city[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, insufficient content for container categories like these. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2017 (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:Swedish ichthyologists[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an intersection of Sweden and ichthyologists that doesn't add any encyclopedic value not already served by the marine biologist list or the list of Swedish scientists. Antrogh (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2017 (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/2017_December_12&oldid=1138410652"