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:Eponymous category for a person who does not actually have the volume of spinoff content necessary to need one. Many of the entries here are being categorized on an WP:OCASSOC basis rather than a defining relationship -- four people he collaborated with once, and a musical group that once performed some of his songs in a show, and even most of those articles don't even mention Bucchino's name at all except in the category declaration itself. So none of those belong in an eponymous category for Bucchino, because they aren't defined by their one-off collaborations with him. Remove those, however, and all that's left is two of the collaborations themselves and one direct-to-video film for which he wrote some music on his own -- which is not enough content to require an eponymous category. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just 'what links here' (at most). Oculi (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Most of the content seems to be people he has worked with or have performed his songs: not a good basis for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2019 (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: Intermediate category which was apparently created solely to pull some (but not all) lists of lesbian, gay, bi, pan or fluid people out of the existing Category:Lists of LGBT-related people for no identifiably useful reason. As with Category:Non-heterosexual people, further, it's categorizing them on a terminology that communicates what the people in the lists aren't, rather than what they are, which is not an appropriate way to categorize people (or lists of people) on Wikipedia. Just for the record, I don't love the current name of the existing category, and would be open to having it renamed as well — but that's a separate discussion, and this isn't the right alternative. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. You cannot define people by what they are not. At first glance it seems to be an issue of people not happy with the LGBT/LGBTQ/LGBTTQQIABCDEFGH+ naming debate. Place Clichy (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I actually suspect the real idea behind all of these was to create as much of a firewall as possible betwen LGB and T — basically, all three of these categories I've listed seem to exist precisely to separate the content that's trans-inclusive (which was left in the existing category) from the content that's LGB-specific (which was comprehensively moved to "non-heterosexual"). So I don't know if this was an intentional "Drop the T" thing, or just an accidental side effect that didn't occur to the creator in the process — but either way, placing a wedge between LGB and T is the actual effect in the end. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Bearcat, we shouldn't define people by what they're not. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- However, I seriously wonder how useful the enormously long alphabetic lists are, but that would require a series of AFDs. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While I do see merit to those who argue LGB and T are very different things (although where that puts Q and I and whatever else I dont know), Wikipedia follows existing conventions, and existing conventions talk of the LGBT group in whole, conflate the issues involved, and so on. There are a few here and there who push back, especially Lesbian sports figures, but there are also some L and G who dislike inclusion of the B, so the whole thing is messy. However we would need more reliable source use of this as a term than we have now to justify it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2019 (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: There are two key problems with this. Firstly, it's using a term that results in people being categorized by what they aren't, instead of by what they are, which is not a thing we do on Wikipedia. And secondly, it's being used only as a superfluous intermediate step betweenCategory:LGBT people and the narrower subcategories that are specific to each subgroup of the queer community -- so it's not actually adding anything of navigational value to the category tree. The parent category can easily and naturally contain the subcategories as is, without needing this to sit between them. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. You cannot define people by what they are not. Place Clichy (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While there are some who embrace this approach to exclude transgender from the classification, we lack enough reliable sources at present to justify the creation of such a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2019 (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: Category which was first created in 2016 and got redirected to Category:LGBT people per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_8#Category:Homosexual_people, but was subsequently recreated a few weeks ago as a new container for gay men and lesbians within a new Category:Non-heterosexual people tree of dubious utility. "Homosexual" is inappropriate terminology for labelling people; men must be described and categorized as gay and women must be described and categorized as lesbian, not as "homosexual". The "non-heterosexual people" category will be listed for a separate discussion so that the issues don't get conflated with each other -- but even if it were were to get kept, it could directly parent the existing categories without needing a new intermediate step that uses problematic terminology to reduplicate other categories that already exist. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Clear duplicate. The "LGBT" wording, although unperfect, seems to be by far the uncontested standard naming these days. Place Clichy (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2019 (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.
But do WMF or external researchers make use of the category for that purpose? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, since it's only been around since December and is currently named NOTLABRAT. But it could be used for that purpose. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a useful way to group people in advancing the building of the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2019 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2019 (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.
Support With notable Polish exceptions, we usually do not have century categories for countries that did not exist yet. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2019 (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: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, we currently have only one article in each of these categories, while the city parent of each also has few articles directly in the category. For more information about each of these cities, see Świętochłowice (54.000 people), Świnoujście (41.000), Trzebinia (20.000), Zaraysk (25.000), Żory (58.000). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now Obviously there are other buildings, but it seems unlikely we'll get up to 5 notable ones. (No objection to recreating if we do though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2019 (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:Medieval Bosnian state institutions[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.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, both this category and its (only) parent category have very few entries and there is no other country that I know of that has this kind of 'state institutions' subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am cool with any outcome here as well, this one is maybe even less "contentious", so I don't see any problem either way, whether we agree to keep it or merge two into one. Other examples are irrelevant, what is important at this point is that there is only a small number of articles specific enough for such separation. I could elaborate further on my rational for creation, if deemed necessary.--౪ Santa ౪99° 03:11, 18 April 2019 (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:Recipients of Honorary Doctorate of Fine Arts from Rhode Island School of Design[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.
Articles like Caterina Fake and Edward Ruscha do indeed mention in passing that Rhode Island School of Design gave them this honorary degree but they curiously don't ever seem to say why outside of footnotes. It's because she gave a commencement address source and he participated in a symposium source at the school, respectively. Maybe they volunteered their time and the school felt appreciative, maybe they were paid and agreed to reduce their honorium by 10 or 15 dollars in exchange for the honorary degree, who knows. Either way, this is a non-defining award based on an (unmentioned) individual performance. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge per nom. Honorary doctorates are usually not valid category topics. Place Clichy (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: My suggestion was for deletion. I think you either meant to vote "delete" or, if you do prefer a merge, please specificy the target the category. Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Listify (perhaps) and delete OCAWARD applies. People are generally given honorary degrees because they are already famous. It adds little to their fame. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2019 (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.
