Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 9 April 11 >

April 10[edit]

Category:Survivors of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic[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 delete per WP:CSD#G4. ƏXPLICIT 04:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We've been through this already. WP:BLP issues galore. Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per G4, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_9#Category:People_with_coronavirus_disease_2019. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose deletion 1. been through this already? This is my first time; 2. The word "disease" doesn't appear once in BLP; 3. support the 2 cats as per Category talk:People with the coronavirus disease 2019#Contested deletion. DMBFFF (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, of the 192 people in this 9 year-old page, Category:People with HIV/AIDS, it it possible that any of them have been misidentified as such in WP through poor sourcing? DMBFFF (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, there seems to be an Arabic WP version of Category:Survivors of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic: ar:تصنيف:ناجون من جائحة فيروس كورونا 2019–20. DMBFFF (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Perhaps I should get in touch with some Arabic-speakers I know. DMBFFF (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Per WP:G4. We've already had this same conversation a month ago. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I wasn't part of it. The time between nomination of Category:People with coronavirus disease 2019 and deletion seems to have been about 8 days—it doesn't seem long. DMBFFF (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DMBFFF: XfDs normally run for 7 days and are binding. "I wasn't there" is a terrible argument. Also, please adhere to MOS:LISTGAP. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 04:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • MOS:LISTGAP indicates two "**".   Okay: 7 days are good for a covid-19 category and salt away because decisions of this fluid situation must stand no matter inappropriate the salting might be in the next several months. Gotcha.  :-/  . (Note: the past few times I clicked "recent changes" and searched something like "coro" I see at least 10 edits.)

        So if a group of editors come up with a consensus that later editors might considered inadequate and/or flawed, they are nonetheless out of luck—save maybe a request to undelete—which I likely prejudiced because someone else had a cat that was the same as one as mine save thon didn't use a definite article in thon's cat. I'm learning. But even assuming I'm correct about the previous consensus, and that it's hurt [Category:People with the coronavirus disease 2019], there was no discussion, much less no consensus, about Category:Survivors of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic!!—which is in the heading of this CfD page. Aside from "WP:BLP issues galore." which nobody here has elaborated on, there is pretty much nothing against my survivor cat save maybe some people here are just not liking it (and I'm not even sure of that). DMBFFF (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read MOS:LISTGAP more closely. I don't really care about this but go to DRV if you think the close was incorrect, you'll get shot down but you might learn something. And actually read the previous discussion, as well as WP:DEFINING. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 05:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the references. I'll probably get around to reading them completely, among the 10s of other meta-articles I've read and yet to read. I will grant there's a decent change they might have something unambiguous and relevant—something that clearly states that I'm irrefutably definitely violating a convention; but I reiterate at least this point, yes there was a discussion about a cat very similar to my "People with," but none about my "Survivors" cat. If you guys are going to shot something, at least give it a trial, and not refer to a previous non-existent trial. DMBFFF (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 04:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G4. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's like you guys didn't read my points−there was no discussion. DMBFFF (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't read any point that changed my opinion. Just a slight name change does not change the scope of the category. We do not categorize people by which diseases they have or had, unless it is the cause of death. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it is Hypertrichosis, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, epilepsy, polio, progeria, ... Elizium23 (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point, so also unless it is something permanent (in those cases I wouldn't call it a disease, but technically it probably is). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling it a slight name change is like saying there is no distinction between US Democrats who ran for House seats in 2018 and those who won. WP has the equivalent of those who lost (i.e. those who died of covid-19). Again, let's try to do it the standard way—if I understand WP policies sufficiently: tag it as CfD and have a proper discussion and not a Speedy Delete on the basis of a non-existent discussion. As for Marcocapelle's last point: interesting. Is this actually the case? Please do me a favour and cite it—if only FMI perhaps. If someone got HIV or polio, but breezed through it, would an article about thon be allowed in one of those cats as the injuries, if any, by one of those diseases, wasn't permanent? What about the opposite? What if someone got covid-19, and survived, but was terribly affected for life by it—even if it was only psychological? Also keep in mind, while this cat might not be terribly relevant in, say 2025, it is now. Things can change, so can WP cats. DMBFFF (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, and my above post was to allay concerns that my cat(s) might be permanent even after they're become irrelevant. But if we shouldn't check the crystal ball for possible future irrelevance, hey, that possible concern is rendered moot by your links. Thanks for helping to buttress my case. As for verifiability, I presume info in the articles are sufficient enough to determine which cats they'd go into—e.g. we don't have to independently cite that Trump was born in 1946 to put him in the 1946 birth cat—the stated YoB in the article should suffice. DMBFFF (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and personally, I share your optimism. Indeed, I wonder if it's even 1%—for people in general—particularly all those children, teens, and early twenty-somethings who unlikely have a lot of WP articles about them. However, I think the for people with WP articles, the rate might be higher—particularly the ones who travel a lot and/or meet lots of people. DMBFFF (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DMBFFF Even if currently wiki-notable people fall into groups with a higher risk of contagion and or of fatality, 90% survival doesn't make survival WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • 90%: Good point. However, that's presuming they all get covid-19 and thus +90% of WP biographies go into my cat and possible subcats—that'd be to engage in crystalballing. (Personally, I'm not sure we should be calling it a "pandemic"—should cancer, stroke, and heart disease be called pandemics because the way I figure it, at least well over 50 000 from NY State have died of such so far this year.) I don't know about you, but I think if Boris Johnson survives his bout—and I think we can agree he probably will (and not much crystalball-gazing in that is necessary), it'd be decently relevant: hence my cat. I've glance at WP:DEF. It says if an actor has a law degree, it shouldn't be catted unless thon did something notable about it. Hmmm. Gary Numan was/is a pilot and it's not catted as such, whereas Caribou and Brian May have university references catted. We also have things like this: Category:People with color blindness: Fred Rogers, Rod Stewart, and Mark Zuckerberg. I know: [OTHER STUFF]. Gee, I'd love to give the pages everybody has linked for me a thoughtful good read, but since my "People with" cat was deleted not even 72 hours after it was tagged—maybe not 72 hours since it was created—I don't seem to have a lot of time. Ya gotta kill it before it does too much damage to WP's credibility (I think less than half sarcastically).   :-/   DMBFFF (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2020 (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:Exhibitors in The Family of Man[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being included in this exhibition is not a defining trait of the photographers, per Wikipedia:Defining, and following the logic of WP:PERFCAT, we should not categorize them based upon involvement in capricious or arbitrary exhibitions, even major ones. Many if not all of these photographers have been part of many exhibitions, but the exhibitions are not an integral aspect of the artists' notability. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Every history of photography gives mention to this exhibition, which is still the one seen by more people than any other and which in the many books written on it is described as having a transformative effect on the standing and nature of the medium, and which show how exposure of such dimension was important in the lives of the exhibitors. I challenge anyone to disprove that the exposure it gave to a very significant number of the photographers was quite evidently formative —"defining", if you like — in their careers, more so than the place they were born (a valid category). This reasoning may be checked by a close reading their Wikipedia biographies. Research since 2016 has led to improving this article and its connected biographies provides facts and examples to qualify this category. I like to consider other possible arguments for deletion in these discussions, so let me give you one: The Family of Man article itself lists all of the photographers, so a more valid argument for the deletion of this category (which itself is now closed to additions as all the exhibitors are now listed there) would be to say it is redundant. I could find no automatic way of adding a large number of articles to a category, so if my effort which took some hours is to be in vain, I would like to see at least one other considered and authoritative response, from editors professionally qualified, to this deletion proposal. I dispute this nomination. Thank you Jamesmcardle(talk) 23:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize you have put a lot of work into The Family of Man article, and created or expanded many of the biographies therein. 'Defining-ness' is largely based on the prominence of a trait in reliable third-party sources, not WIkipedia, in addition to Wikipedia-specific guidelines and conventions. But no matter how famous the exhibition may be, that alone does not determine appropriateness for a categorization scheme. Some information is best left in list format, as described at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. The prominence of the topic does not determine defining-ness: we don't have the category "actors who were in Star Wars" for instance, despite Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, and Carrie Fisher being universally associated with such. If we made allowances for one exhibition, others would surely follow, until the biographies of many prominent artists would be even more cluttered with categories of varying degrees of relevance. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clicked through a number of the articles and they do mention this exhibit, but they tend to mention other venues they showed their photography. This seems like classic WP:PERFCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some don't even mention it - example. DexDor (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2020 (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:The Angry Beavers[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) 07:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contain only the main article and the list of episodes, except for CatDog, which also contains a redirect to main article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All for Now No objection to recreating any of these categories if they ever get up to 5 articles, but they don't aid navigation today. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2020 (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:Cultivars originating in Dedham, Massachusetts[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category (2 articles) for a small town. User:Namiba 19:39, 10 April 2020 (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:American politicians of Coptic 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category (2 articles) for a small diaspora. User:Namiba 19:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment One's a state rep and the other is an un-elected Trumpster. DMBFFF (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another useless "descent" category. How much Coptic blood does one need to be of that descent, how far back must/may it go, and once some NPOV answers can be constructed for those questions, what reliable sources tell us that someone is at least that much and not so far? And ultimately, do politicians with this "descent" do things differently because of that? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if it's a blood or descent thing, as it is religious. I'm not for its removal, but neither am I'm passionately against it being removed. DMBFFF (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2020 (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:Coptic-American diplomats[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: dual merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American diplomats. Small category (2 articles) for a small ethnic group. User:Namiba 19:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Seems our Trumpster is a diplomat—kinda. DMBFFF (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2020 (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:Athletes from Dedham, Massachusetts[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 14:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per standard naming conventions. User:Namiba 19:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment and it's more inclusive, however decently filled the current cat is. DMBFFF (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2020 (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:Scientists from Dedham, Massachusetts[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: dual merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:People from Dedham, Massachusetts. Small category (3 articles) for a small town (under 25k residents) in Massachusetts. User:Namiba 19:20, 10 April 2020 (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:Activists from Dedham, Massachusetts[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: dual merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:People from Dedham, Massachusetts. Small category (3 articles) for a small town (under 25k residents) in Massachusetts. User:Namiba 19:20, 10 April 2020 (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:American people of Coptic descent by occupation[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) 07:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category (1 sub-category with 2 articles) on a very small ethnic group. User:Namiba 19:14, 10 April 2020 (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:Animated television series about insects[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 for now but purge of non-WP:DEFINING entries. Some (e.g. the examples stated, SpongeBob or Wild Kratts) should be moved up to the top category rather than simply removed. By all means re-nominate categories for merging if they become too small. – Fayenatic London 13:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the nomination was invalid as regards half of the sub-categories because they were not tagged. – Fayenatic London 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this batch of hyper-specific categories created by User:Son of Zorn and their various sockpuppets. The categories are being added to inappropriate articles (i.e. articles about shows that have a character that is an insect, dog, rabbit, etc. but are not *about* that character). If we take the category off of those articles, there is not much to populate the category. These categories also lead to overcategorization to the point where it even dwarfs the content of the article. ... discospinster talk 18:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animated television series about animals

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:Women in cannabis[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. – Fayenatic London 10:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Avoiding awkward meaning, as if they were inside the cannabis and per cannabis industry. I've renamed the head article accordingly. Brandmeistertalk 18:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably be OK. Let's see what anyone else's comment says. There's no rush. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter should be a redirect to the former. DMBFFF (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2020 (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 children's animated space adventure television series[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 action. This may be re-nominated for merger to multiple targets, along with relevant siblings. – Fayenatic London 10:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary hyper-specific category. ... discospinster talk 18:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NARROWCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, for two reasons, this category should be nominated in conjunction with its siblings (American, British etc.), and the nomination should be phrased as an upmerge rather than a delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2020 (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:Black (human racial classification)[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. bibliomaniac15 18:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article Black people and some subcategories. Speedy rename opposed twice in 2019. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the current name makes it perfectly clear that it is a topic category, the proposed name could be interpreted as a set category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle, and as the main article for the category says: "Different societies apply different criteria regarding who is classified "black", and these social constructs have changed over time." Using such a loosey-goosey approach to maintaining a category lacks precision. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2020 (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:Gender verification in sports[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. bibliomaniac15 18:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, seems like a case of WP:C2D, per Sex verification in sports, but possibly too controversial to list at CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2020 (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:American models of Singaporean 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to merge to Category:American models of Asian descent as both articles are already in the appropriate sub-category. This is a small category (2 articles) that is unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 12:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I expressed in the "Coptic descent" categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2020 (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:American poets of Tibetan 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: dual merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Possible dual upmerge to Category:American poets of Asian descent as well. Small, triple intersection category (1 article). There are no other articles in Category:American writers of Tibetan descent so that is nominated as well. User:Namiba 12:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I expressed in the "Coptic descent" categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2020 (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:American poets of Malaysian 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: dual merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Possible dual upmerge to Category:American poets of Asian descent as well. Small, triple intersection category (2 articles). There are no articles in Category:American writers of Malaysian descent. User:Namiba 12:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I expressed in the "Coptic descent" categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2020 (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:American poets of Taiwanese 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: dual merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Possible dual upmerge to Category:American poets of Chinese descent if deemed appropriate. This is a small category which is a triple intersection. User:Namiba 12:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I expressed in the "Coptic descent" categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2020 (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:The Corporate Ministry 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, this was a short-term group in professional wrestling without a lasting impact. User:Namiba 12:19, 10 April 2020 (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:The Alliance (professional wrestling) 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF, this was a short-term group in professional wrestling. User:Namiba 12:18, 10 April 2020 (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:Air War College alumni[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:Air War College alumni. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two categories for the same thing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 10 April 2020 (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:Irish police procedural writers[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. bibliomaniac15 18:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Narrow category, with only 7 pages. There is no Category:Police procedural writers, and Category:Irish crime fiction writers is underpopulated so there is no need to create arbitrary groups to subcategorise it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created this category to better classify detective / mystery / crime fiction writers, as at that time, there were just:
Parent: Irish crime fiction writers (2 direct member articles)
Child: Irish mystery fiction writers (7 or so articles)
and I agree, all were underpopulated, but also the structure was unbalanced - one child sub-area of detective fiction having its own little cat. And then more member pages were hunted down, and suddenly we have a parent with only 1 direct article, and two reasonably-populated sub-cats. There is an inconsistent global structure, as the overall categorisation does not reflect the multiple real-world divisions of crime / detective / mystery fiction - when I worked with literary agencies, it was broken into usually around 4 - Detective (with sub-cats: Cosy, Private Eye, Noir / Hard-boiled, etc.), Police procedural, Legal (largely courtroom, often with little mystery), Hybrid (Romantic, SF, etc., usually "sold" in the other parent area). Sometimes Historical would form a 5th option, more often it would be a sub-cat of the Detective cat., and then there was True Crime...
Anyway, I have no hard objection to a merge, but I think it would be a pity to lose specificity, and I am not sure why we would lose Police Procedural sub-cat but keep Mystery sub-cat.
  • Merge per nom, and also "police procedural writer" is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2020 (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:Named phosphines[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) 07:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME
This category groups phosphines together by whether they have a common name versus a chemical name. So, DuPhos is in this category but Dichloro(1,2-bis(diphenylphosphino)ethane)nickel is not even though they are both Diphosphines. How people name compounds does not seem defining to these chemical articles. All the contents of this category are under other phosphine subcategories so no merge is needed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2020 (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/2020_April_10&oldid=953069829"