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: Empty for a few weeks since images were all moved to Wikimedia Commons and subsequently deleted from English Wikipedia. Category no longer required. DferDaisy (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not needed as a separate page, but why aren't all of these turned into redirects to Category:Veterinary medicine instead of losing the links entirely? (Also Category:Veterinary Medicine, Category:Veterinary Medical Images)? Might or might not be used or linked within WP, but always the chance that they're linked from outside. Ditto within English WP. Elf | Talk 20:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elf - I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "why aren't all of these turned into redirects"? Do you mean create categories to be redirects as those are redlinks? There are no pages in English Wikipedia which link to Category:Veterinary medicine images. It is not possible to know whether or not outside pages link here, but it does seem unlikely given that anyone seriously looking for veterinary-related images would find images on Wikimedia Commons far more readily. DferDaisy (talk) 16:37, 15 July 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.
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.
Delete Empty category. Dimadick (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason the category is empty is because the CFD nominator did so before creating this discussion. That is a no-no per WP:CFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, further comment and proposal that this CFD be closed. There is a difference between Waffen SS and SS. The Waffen SS is a branch of the SS. I have reverted two of K.e.'s edits that were inappropriate. One of which was an improper emptying of a person from the category per WP:CFD rules, the other an article on a Waffen SS person where he removed all SS categories from the page. The SS page could use more filling. I'm pretty sure there'd be entries, here's an example Karl Kahr. I suggest the CFD be closed because of this bad nomination. Pinging @K.e.coffman: and @Dimadick:....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This needs some further elaboration. While it's true that Waffen SS is only one of the two branches of the Schutzstaffel, it is actually the military branch of the SS. So wouldn't that imply that only Waffen SS personnel could be soldiers? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I would suggest an article name SS (Nazi) and a corresponding Category:SS (Nazi). I don't expect Schutzstaffel is the common name. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom'd comment -- "SS soldier" is an ahistorical term as members of the SS were not "soldiers" (i.e. members of the military / army). Waffen-SS was the militarised branch of the SS, and those who served there are properly covered in the Category:Waffen-SS personnel. On the other hand, Karl Kahr was a Hauptsturmführer, "a mid-level SS commander that had equivalent seniority to a captain (Hauptmann) in the German Army". His position is not equivalent to that of a "soldier" (private) in seniority. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as cat-redirect -- This is a credible search term, if strictly inaccurate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the category is no longer empty now, but there is no indication that the person whose article has been added to this category was really a soldier. So the category can still be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the subject of the article that was added (Heinrich Barbl) was part of Aktion T4, the Nazi forced euthanasia program, and then served in the Sobibor death camp. He was surely not "soldiering". K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 28 July 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:Canadian writers of Chinese descent[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. Timrollpickering 11:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of a category previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_25#Category:Canadian_writers_of_Chinese_descent. The same reasons still apply: apart from the broadly general state of whether they're black or Asian, we simply don't care about the intersection of occupation with individual ethnicity. Canadian literature does not treat writers of Chinese descent differently than it does writers of Japanese or Vietnamese or Korean descent — the intersection of occupation with an individual country of ancestral origin is simply not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. We don't care whether a Black Canadian writer's ancestors were Ghanaian or Kenyan or Ugandan or Zulu, and we don't care whether an Asian Canadian writer's ancestors were Chinese or Japanese or Vietnamese — the intersection of "writer" with an individual country of ancestral origin doesn't alter the context of the writing at all. Bearcat (talk) 05:38, 14 July 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 21:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, nearly all categories contain only one, two or three articles and it's quite unlikely these categories will be populated any better. None of the articles needs to be upmerged to a year category, since they are all in a continent or country year category already. A number of categories (the bottom half of the list) don't need an upmerge to a Law-by-decade category either because their article is already in a Treaties-by-decade subcat. This is a continuation of this earlier discussion though the proposal is now a merge to decade rather than century categories, consistent with their treaty subcats by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is sufficent content, I note 1285 in law for example has 6 items. Also if the treaties are merged to decade they should be in the law by year. Tim! (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an exceptional case, not representative for the entire tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support (relying on the statement that they are already in a year category). Treaties do not belong in a "law" category. Some (particularly modern ones) may be a source of international law, most are agreements between states, with no court to enforce them. This particularly applies at this period. Purge categories being merged of treaties. Yes 1285 has six items, but the whole 1280s has a mere 10 about law + 4 treaties. This is not too many and makes a decent sized category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we proceed with this merger, both the law and the treaties categories will be in decade categories, so the issue of whether treaties belong in law can simply be solved by removing the law category as a parent from each treaties category. I'm not arguing we should, but if there is consensus to do so it's easy to implement. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Peter rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 19 July 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.
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. Timrollpickering 11:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge the two articles per WP:SMALLCAT and because the merge target has the same main article. (The subcategory doesn't have to be merged, welfare is broader than rights.) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 14 July 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.
