Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 12

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

April 12[edit]

Category:Catholic cathedrals in Santiago, Chile[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. – Fayenatic London 15:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both members are Roman Catholic, so the greater specificity of "Roman Catholic" is appropriate. Wikiacc () 21:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC) See below.[reply]
  • Merge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT. Very few cities have enough cathedrals to make it worthwhile to have a category for them, and Santiago is not one of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hardly any country in Latin America will have a large population of Eastern Catholic that would be sufficiently large or notable enough to warrant the creation of a category to contain them. At most, they might have an article. It makes sense therefore, for the wider definition to be preserved that can contain both Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic articles. Else we would be creating room for the widespread creation of Eastern Catholic categories with single article entries which would not be helpful to navigation or tidiness. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The consensus is to omit the word "Roman", except where there are other substantial denominations that use the word "Catholic". The Eastern Catholic churches are in communion with Rome but did not worship in Latin, so that they are arguably a variety of Roman Catholic. However, Anglo-Catholic (a tradition in the Anglican church) and Old Catholic are not. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Eastern rite Catholics are not typically included in "Roman Catholic" in the rest of the category tree. Wikiacc () 16:18, 13 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:Catholic cathedrals in Rio de Janeiro (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: merge. – Fayenatic London 15:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current parent categories are inconsistent about whether it should be part of the "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" tree. Since all members are Roman Catholic, the better-developed "Roman Catholic" tree seems appropriate. Wikiacc () 21:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC) See below.[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:Songs about touring[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. bibliomaniac15 22:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I feel that just "touring" is ambiguous and the category needs a qualifier of some kind to specify that it's about musicians who are touring. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think for many the name is sufficiently self-explanatory—it's about touring. DMBFFF (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kinda like it as it is Musicians aren't the only ones who tour; though it might be put 2 cats above in Category:Human migration. DMBFFF (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The songs seem being more about being on the road than about actual tours, and that topic can get pretty broad. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me this means the category has to be purged. If not enough songs about concert tours exist, the category may be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • "on the road" and "touring" seem similar to me; also not all on tour are doing concerts, some are doing gigs. DMBFFF (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After checking more articles I tend to agree that there is little specific content about concert tours and that the topic of touring in general is too vague. Hence I change my vote to delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another "about" category that is rarely, if ever, supported in the text with references. Not worth the bother of trimming. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:54, 24 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:Victims of the Crandon, Wisconsin shooting[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 15:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the pages redirect to the same page. This category is useless. Natureium (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's comment. [1] All the pages are redirects. Much the same as following may be true of some sibling/cousin categories (cats) that contain all redirects, although they are not overt redirect categories (Rcats). [2] For me any such work --diffusion from cats such as Mass murder victims, Murdered American children, 2007 deaths; documented thus by {Redr} and edit summary (instance)-- would have been auxiliary to diffusion from Category:Redirects from people. From the history of the nominated "Victims" cat and that of its member Katrina McCorkle, I see that "she" was not in R from people prior to my contribution (instance, above) and that this cat never was placed in a subcat of R from people. Such a next step must have been intended: creation and population (by documented diffusion from R from people) of some new Rcat --"from mass murder victims", even "from victims of crime"-- parallel to the five subcats {J M R S W} we have now in R from people. (And had then, for I know this quintet as the 2014/15 Rsubcats from people, although I have not worked on redirects since then.) --P64 (talk) 20:07, 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:Incidents of violence against boys[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 consensus. bibliomaniac15 18:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "violence against boys" is way too broad and frankly, a silly category and far t0o vague. Also redundant as we have a category for incidents of violence against men. Praxidicae (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RGW. Your last sentence is wrong; the nom referred to "a silly category". DexDor (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need an "Incidents of violence against boys" or an "Incidents of violence against girls" category. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And as seen by this IP's additions, its broad title can have some people adding the category to BLPs. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The arguments for deletion seem confused. They’re arguing the category is too vague/broad, while simultaneously arguing it’s just too specific (categorizing by gender?). Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. BLPs should be linked by subheadings directly related to incidents of violence, but overall the category is valid. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that's too specific. It is broad to the point that an IP was adding this to BLPs. It has no focus. And where is Incidents of violence against girls? Given violence against women and how it is a much more serious problem than violence against men, why do boys need such a category and not girls? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, I guess I don't see it being any less focused than Category:Incidents of violence against men or Category:Incidents of violence against women. Each deals with incidents of rape, murder, massacres and kidnappings. I checked out after reading your comment, and the BLPs linked were related to incidents of violence against male children... generally serial killers and pedophiles targeting male children. I'm also generally confused by your comparative argument, it seems to be Whataboutism. If you think Incidents of violence against girls is needed, then please make it. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Violence against women" and "violence against men" have Wikipedia articles. The vast majority of violence (including domestic violence) material in the literature is about women and men. It makes sense that we have categories concerning those topics. We don't have a Violence against children article (or specifically a Violence against girls or Violence against boys article); what we do have is the Child abuse article and related categories that sufficiently cover violence against children. Something like "Incidents of violence against boys" (whether as an article or category) is not needed whatsoever. And no one here has demonstrated that it is needed. The arguments for "keep" amount to WP:ILIKEIT. Furthermore, not only are the "Category:Incidents of violence against women" and "Category:Incidents of violence against men" categories applied better, the topics of violence against women and violence against men sometimes cover girls and boys respectively; this is especially the case for violence against women (as seen in the Violence against women article). You can cite the often political "whataboutism" to shut down a legitimate question all you want to, but it's valid to ask why we should have an "Incidents of violence against boys" category when we don't even have one for girls and when violence against girls, as made clear by various scholarly sources, is the more serious problem. And if you don't understand the BLP issue, I'm not going over that. I'm certain that this category won't last long if retained. It will eventually be merged or deleted. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
I mean, I think I really fundamentally disagree with you. It's not so much about WP:ILIKEIT; at least for myself, I see the expansion and complexity of this topic as something that's much needed. Rather than staying limited to "violence against men," "violence against women," or "child abuse," moving Wiki articles and categories toward explicitly reflecting the varying vulnerabilities boys and girls experience in childhood in respect to abuse - physical, emotional, and sexual - is something that is needed. Just because it hasn’t happened ‘’yet’’, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t ‘’ever’’ happen. By keeping the category broad, “incidents of violence against boys” also includes incidences of violence beyond just familial child abuse, such as police brutality (which mostly affects Black and Latino boys), systematic sexual abuse (Boy Scouts and Catholic Church), and patterns of violence against male children (serial killers and rapists). And I think it may be a legitimate question in your own mind, but personally, I just think we’re framing it in the wrong way. To me, it’s less of a question of “why do we need a category about boys when we don’t have one about girls” and more a question of “why don’t we have one about girls yet?” I think writing these articles and building these categories to expand the complexity of the topic is important.Louisianajones1978 (talk) 022:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're using a new account, although you obviously are not new. If you were truly new, I'd chalk up your arguments to being a newbie, at least in part. Either way, I disagree with your rationale. I'm not repeating myself on this matter. I will go ahead and state that creating a "Violence against children" article would be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK to the Child abuse article. Child abuse is not just about familial child abuse. But when it comes to most violence against children? Yes, the perpetrator is usually one or both of the parents, some other family member, or a caregiver. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed and, as mentioned, redundant to "Category:Incidents of violence against men" and other categories. Crossroads -talk- 04:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for abuse of children we do not need a gender distinction. For teenagers perhaps, but then if gender is an important factor they can be added to violence against men. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 24 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:Aviation portals[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) 05:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT: contains only one item: Category:Aviation portal. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 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:Traditionalist Catholic magazines[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 28#Category:Traditionalist Catholic magazines

Category:Research museums[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. bibliomaniac15 22:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT
Just about every museum is driven by a combination of education, entertainment and economic goals, in different ratios which vary over time. The Getty Museum has two institutes publishing peer reviewed research, the University of Arizona Mineral Museum has undergraduates learning how to do research, and the Karshner Museum has elementary students doing their first research project. Since there's no main article on a Research museum, it's impossible to know what the inclusion criteria would be and, even if that article were created, it would be subjective if a museum was enough research focused to qualify. The majority of these articles are already under Category:University museums (and all are under some museum cats) so no merge is needed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. buidhe 00:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I wouldn't have an objection against the concept of a research museum, but most museums in these categories are just about various academic disciplines, not about conducting research per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Museums are about any subject like science. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most -- Many substantial museums are concerned not only with the display of a portion of their collections, but also with research into them. Many seem to be a public face of research institutions and are probably better classified as such. Most are also very small categories. The possible exception is California and I wonder if merger to Category:Research institutes in California might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 13 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:Vessels of the American Sail Training Association[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. – Fayenatic London 14:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC)
Tall Ships America (formerly the ASTA) does not own or manage the historic and replica ships in this category, so it's unlike anything else under Category:Ships by organization. Rather, these ships are part of local sail training non-profits and those organizations are in turn members of Tall Ships America which serves as a trade association and hosts an annual event. All these articles have had the ASTA website added under "External links" but otherwise generally make no mention of Tall Ships America. If any reader is interested in this topic, I listified the contents here. (Alternatively, if kept, rename to Category:Ships of Tall Ships America.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 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:Communist Party of Czechoslovakia 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: keep for now but purge. – Fayenatic London 14:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For much of the 20th century, this political party included 10% or more of the population and therefore it is questionable that it was a Defining trait for Czechoslovak citizens. None of the people in this category are primarily known for their communist activities, and some of them were anti-communist dissidents. In the case of living people the category may violate WP:BLPCAT: "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability".
I propose that individuals' involvement in the Communist party should be discussed with appropriate nuance and where WP:DUE, on their individual biography pages. People with significant activity in the Communist party are best categorized under Category:Communist Party of Czechoslovakia politicians, which should be kept. buidhe 00:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So where do the prominent Czechoslovakian commies who aren't politicians go, such as generals, important bureaucrats, diplomats, or even celebrities? I'm also sure many of those 10% are no longer with us. DMBFFF (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren't notable for being members of the communist party, they're notable for being generals, important bureaucrats, diplomats, etc.—hence WP:NONDEF. buidhe 09:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NONDEF, this is exactly the reason that we do not categorize members of any political party. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Party membership denoted (and no doubt still denotes in contemporary totalitarian states) a range of things about your ambitions, your willingness to collaborate with state agencies, your attitude to the political elite, the way your neighbo(u)rs treated you. On a number of other country's category-sets, people are included as Communist Party Politicians because well-intentioned other folks who take a monocultural view of the world assume the political system under communist dictatorships operates (or in the case of cenral Europe used to operate) more or less the same way they do in the US and so keep deleting the category for Communist Party Membership. It really ain't necessarily so! A wiki-category can be a whole lot more than a mere badge of automated wiki-notability for those without the time to consider such things case by case. A Communist Party politician is one thing. A Communist Party member is another thing. They are both hugely significant in terms of the way society operates and is controlled by those seeking to pull the strings. If you view everything through the prism of how politics works in Washington, you will miss out on a whole raft of understandings. Much of the anglophere is already eye-wateringly ignorant and uncomprehending about the way people think and the way societies work in those countries where folks don't have the sheer human decency to do their politics and write up all their reports in God Own Language. Please don't gratuitously further narrow wikpedia's comprehension in this way. There are many more dimensions in politics - and beyond politics - than the one you grew up with! Success. Charles01 (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Party membership denoted/denotes any of a range of things - e.g. belief in the cause, belief that membership was necessary for career etc. DexDor (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (assuming the politicians subcat is recategorized if necessary). Some of these articles (e.g Tomáš Zima) don't even mention the party. DexDor (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge -- Most of those I checked were politicians and should be in Category:Communist Party of Czechoslovakia politicians, not this category. I suspect that when properly purged, there may not be enough left to be worth keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Charles01 and purge per Peterkingiron. Politicians should be in "Communist Party of Czechoslovakia politicians" only. This category is for non-politician members of the KSČ.--Darwinek (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively Downmerge to Politicians/Then Delete (I think I'm saying the same thing as Peterkingiron even though my vote is worded differently.) Clicking through these, their communist ties either seemed defining when they were politicians but not otherwise. Since nominal party membership is required in totalitarian states to get many jobs, this is often not reflective of people's beliefs. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Charles01. CP membership in a communist country has little to do with membership in a political party in a modern Western democracy. Communist Party in a communist country was the country's sole legal political party, and, for starters, didn't accept all comers. Membership in it not only conveyed an interest in politics, but also involvement in party propaganda, having specific political history and leanings, and last but not least, social status. A weak analogy in a modern society would be securing attendance at a well-known university, or being upper class (although party members were not always better off or in more coveted employment positions than others). I would rate being a member of the ruling communist party in a communist country as less defining than one's religion, but much more so than being an alumnus at a unviersity, and we seem to consider both defining. Certainly it was important enough that here in former Yugoslavia, 30 years after the fall of communism, whether someone was in the Party and what was their role there can still be a worthy political gossip topic on a slow news day. I also support pruning politicians who belong in subcats per Peterkingiron, as well as those for whom no RS can be found to confirm their membership, as it has become a political slur after transition to multi-party democracy. Daß Wölf 23:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Charles01. Membership of the party was hugely significant in Soviet Bloc countries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Membership in it not only conveyed an interest in politics, but also involvement in party propaganda, having specific political history and leanings, and last but not least, social status. Couldn't that be the case with every political party? Why treat the communist party different from others? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle, we treat the communist party different from others because it was radically different from others.
      The role of the communist party in the Soviet bloc had little in common with the role of political parties in a multi-party system. For example, many higher-level jobs were open only to CP members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a matter of degree. In a modern capitalist society public political discourse and decision making is divided among many groups: the government, parliament, corporate (private industry) lobbies, non-corporate lobbies (e.g. religious), non-political lobbies (e.g. MADD in the US), all the way down to (at least nominally) independent activists. In a communist society, the CP filled all these roles and more. 10% of the population may look like a high figure with many hangers-on and card-carrying barflies and armchair politicians in our society -- not so when you consider that you have to draw from this figure much of the bureaucracy in the government and the (would-be) private sector, as well as nearly all executive-level jobs.
Then there are all other forms of influence someone allowed into this monopoly would wield. In essence, in our capitalist society we ensure fairness through the Montesquieuian tug-of-war among varied influences. In the communist society it was ensured through micro-management of all aspects of the society, and the CP consisted of people tasked with this micro-management.
Unfortunately, I don't have a politology book handy to cite for this OR, but this is all fairly common knowledge for people old enough to have lived on the communist side of the Iron Curtain. Daß Wölf 22:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also by keeping this category we will be attributing crimes of a totalitarian regime to individual people who have not been convicted of those crimes. Biography articles should be judged on their own properties, not on what we think about the political system these people were working in. Basically it is a matter of WP:SYNTH. Second and less important, if we would pursue on this we would have to categorize people by party membership in every totalitarian regime, which opens up the minefield of establishing when a regime is totalitarian 'enough' for this type of categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle, that attributing-crimes things objection is very tenuous. By party membership, those people were aligned to some degree with the good and bad things the party did, and there is nothing prejudicial in recording that there was a link.
      And there is no WP:SYNTH is noting that membership of the CP in that one-party communist state was defining. Other one-party states can be evaluated on their own merits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought that the nomninator's concern about false light was not a strong argument. Based on the discussion, I now share the concern.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is an especially strong argument because many people in this category only became notable as a politician after they left the communist party. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: I really have to maintain this is a matter of WP:SYNTH. There is nothing in the biography of for example Jan Kohout that suggests that party membership of the communist party is something extraordinary to him (i.e. different from his membership of the Czech Social Democratic Party), unless one projects general knowledge of political history of Czechoslovakia on the biography. Which brings me to the other point you raised: if other one-party states should be evaluated on their own merits: then by what criterion? That is an especially relevant question as the criterion cannot obviously be derived from the biographies. Is it because the party was discredited in later history? For example the communist party was clearly discredited after 1989, the fascist party in Spain was not so much discredited after 1975, should we therefore not categorize members of the Spanish fascist party? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 19 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_12&oldid=953720416"