Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 5 June 7 >

June 6[edit]

Category:Universities and colleges in Germany by city[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only content is 3 categories. Berlin and Hamburg are duplicated in Category:Universities and colleges in Germany by state, as they are both cities and states. Universities and colleges in Munich are already in Category:Universities and colleges in Bavaria. There are not so many German universities that they need two levels of categorisation.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate category. Rathfelder (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, rather than delete the category, it would be more helpful to create more by-city categories. For example, Frankfurt could support such a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hesse has several important cities each with a few universities and colleges of which Frankfurt is just one, others are e.g. Wiesbaden and Darmstadt. It is better to keep them all in the state category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BHG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are not many cities, in Germany or anywhere else, which contain large numbers of universities. I think they should be categorised on a bigger geography. Rathfelder (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes exactly, and Germany in particular doesn't have any huge cities like London or Paris, the population is much more spread out. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 11 June 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:History of Nyasaland[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:History of Malawi. bibliomaniac15 03:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of Nyasaland is history, as this is the name of the British protectorate in present-day Malawi between 1907 and 1963. There is little reason why 2 articles and 2 categories (for establishments and disestablishments) are singled out in a history subcategory, while e.g. Category:Decades in Nyasaland is not. Place Clichy (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this rationale would apply to all of Category:History by former country. Oculi (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. For some former countries, e.g. neighbouring Rhodesia, we have substantial material, such as geography, political institutions or people categories, that go well beyond the sequence of historical events that it makes sense to split content between a mother Category:Rhodesia and a child Category:History of Rhodesia. In the case of Nyasaland, not only is the rationale for such a split not obvious, but if you look at the current state of these categories, content seems to be placed pretty much at random between the two.
    Note that in general this hierarchy is currently far from perfect, e.g. Category:History by former country and Category:History of former colonies seem to be pretty mixed up. I am humbly suggesting what I think is a modest improvement. Place Clichy (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. One might argue it is part of an established series. If kept, nearly all content of Category:Nyasaland should be moved to Category:History of Nyasaland (but not the people subcategory, that should remain separate). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping a bogus category because it is part of a bogus hierarchy is not very satisfactory. Place Clichy (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - no meaningful distinction between what articles belong in the history category and what belong in the parent category. Many (perhaps all) other "history" categories (e.g. Category:History of the British Empire) have the same problem, but that isn't a good reason to not merge this one. DexDor (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but into Category:History of Malawi. Malawi is the successor country, with precisely the same borders, do that there is not justification for separate categories. The key to this is the identify of the category's main article. Leave redirect as it is a credible search term. The est/disest-ablishment categories should be merged into their Malawi equivalents, as we discourage such categories for former countries, particularly where it is a mere change of name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see some more discussion into which merge target is preferred, if a merge is indeed the best course of action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 22:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect to find this material in Category:History of Malawi. Many of these former country categories are very difficult, but if the boundaries dont change I think the history should normally be in the History of the present country category. Rathfelder (talk) 23:14, 6 June 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:Television stations in Greensboro, North Carolina[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 17:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More accurate market description Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:12, 6 June 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:Ultra-peaks[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 05:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains just the (nearly) eponymous article and one article about a peak (i.e. most ultras have not been categorized in this way). Articles about mountains are already well categorized (not least by mountains-of-country categories).  The Ultra-prominent peak article should be moved to Category:Mountains, Category:Topography and Category:Tallest things.  If not deleted the category should be renamed to Category:Ultra-prominent peaks to match the article. DexDor (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recategorize eponymous article and delete category per nom. The topic is notable and deserves and article, but it is too subjective to serve as a basis for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "[M]ost ultras have not been categorized in this way" suggests there are other articles which could be in this category, which does at least suggest that renaming is a viable alternative. As for being arbitrary, it's no more so that Category:Munros, Category:Nuttalls, or Category:Southern Sixers. Grutness...wha? 04:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the articles (e.g. Denali) don't mention the ultra status, although they do state the prominence, so I think it's a case where lists (which exist) are appropriate, but a category less so. DexDor (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete While many of the articles don't mention the ultra status upon a quick look through the lists it looked like most did mention it making it quite plausible that it is defining. The test for being defining is not what we say however so I took three different ultra prominent peaks opened the first few google search result and checked if they mentinoned them being ultra prominent and only very few did making me think that reliable sources don't commonly and consistently define these peaks as ultra prominent. --Trialpears (talk) 22:23, 11 July 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.

Speculative fiction awards by country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 25#Speculative fiction awards by country

Sports trophies and awards by country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 25#Sports trophies and awards by country

Category:Asylum buildings in the United Kingdom[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 22#Category:Asylum buildings in the United Kingdom

Category:Vice-chancellors of Indian Universities[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:Heads of universities and colleges in India Timrollpickering (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Or delete. Unnecessary intersection of topics? Fuddle (talk) 15:13, 6 June 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:London newspapers[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: Do not merge. There is a clear consensus that "Newspapers published in London intended for a Greater London readership" and "Newspapers published in London" should have two different categories. There is however no consensus regarding what the names of these two categories should be. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both have the same purpose. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 13:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This says it is for "Newspapers published in London intended for a Greater London readership." - ie local ones (yes there are a lot). That is totally different from the national and international papers published in London. Correctly, this is a sub-cat of the other. I can't in fact see any duplication on a quick look. One or two may be in the wrong category - The London Gazette and The Westminster Gazette are/were both nationals, I think. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge since this appears to be a unique and poorly named category and maybe rename/re-organise to remain consistent with other categories such as Category:Daily newspapers published in New York City, Category:Daily newspapers published in Greater Los Angeles, Category:Daily newspapers published in Germany, Category:Newspapers published in Melbourne. At the very least to be renamed. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • London has and has had a uniquely large number of papers published there, local, national, and international. This is a sensible division. There's no rationale here. Consistency is a secondary consideration; the main cat is consistent, so are you saying there can't be an appropriate sub-cat just because Melbourne doesn't have one? Rename to what? Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • If renamed, it should become something like Category:Local newspapers published in London. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm fine with that rename in lieu of merging. It's a bit awkward, but it fits into the structure. "London newspapers" doesn't really mean anything, especially since we typically have "topic type in geographic place." I simply am noting the consistency issue because it's an odd duck category and currently it's not clear if you create a new topic which category the newspaper should be placed in. SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's a problem with that in that no one in the UK calls the Evening Standard and other London-wide papers "local newspapers". That means ones like the Camden New Journal (ie most of the category). The note at the category "Newspapers published in London intended for a Greater London readership" is perfectly clear, and to Londoners "London newspapers" does actually mean something. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • What if we flipped the child and parent cats? We could rename the parent article "Newspapers published in London with a national distribution" or "United Kingdom newspapers with a national distribution" or something. Unfortunately "London newspapers" is far too broad, even if it makes sense to a Londoner. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That is not a good idea imho. National distribution is more or less the default, local is an exception (in the case of London there are many notable local newspapers, but that is not generally the case). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • The term "local" in the category name would help a lot to clarify the purpose of the category. The Evening Standard is also described as "local", for example here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - they are certainly not duplicates. It is an odd duck category but then London is an unusual place. Moreover there is no Category:Local newspapers, and many of them are not daily, so 'daily' fails. Oculi (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge - Category:London local newspapers. The London evening papers circulate only in and near London, but the morning ones are often national ones, so that there is a real distinction. Morning Chronicle and a few more that have (or had) a wider circulation should be manually moved to the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think a name including "local" is correct unless there is also a separate category for London-wide papers like the Evening Standard, as Londoners would never refer to it as such, "regional" is probably a better term for those papers. Local papers in London are titles like Newham Recorder. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 9 July 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:Pottery industry[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. MER-C 13:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This has been on the uncategorized categories list for a while. I'm struggling to find a place for it. I guess "pottery" will do, but does Pottery Barn actually make pottery? Fuddle (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't, just sell some. Other contents were correctly in Category:Ceramics manufacturers of the United States. Either redirect to the (of course) huge global Category:Ceramics manufacturers or delete. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I assumed this was created by some idiot newbie, but amazingly it was the experienced User:Rjensen, just this April. Alarming! Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes that was a poor idea on my part. "Category:Pottery" is sufficient and we can drop "pottery industry". Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and !vote - pottery and ceramics are not the same thing. Pottery is pure clay (or other baked material); ceramics usually includes glazes and can contain other media. While most parts of the industry would cover both, it's definitely the case that not all of it does. Category:Pottery is a subcategory of Category:Ceramics; Category:Pottery industry should be likewise}}. The tres of the Pottery and Ceramics categories seem to be a bit of a mess, though. Grutness...wha? 04:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are in a considerable mess, mainly because American museums, academics and so editors like to call all pottery "ceramics". Your definition is not at all correct - the vast majority of "pottery" of the last many centuries "includes glazes and can contain other media" - any types of porcelain for example, never mind fritware, which has very little clay. Pottery is what might be potted by a potter - the term is mainly defined by method of manufacture. You may be thinking of earthenware, but much of that is glazed. The real problem is that glass is also "ceramics". In practice our categories mostly exclude glass from ceramics, or at least split it out. Some sources may distinguish between pottery and porcelain, but we try to avoid that; there is no question that porcelain is pottery as much as earthenware or stoneware. But anyway, this category is not useful. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 9 June 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.

(Dis)establishments of 18th-century British ministries by year[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 all Timrollpickering (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
more disestablishments
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or occasionally two articles in a category. The articles are already in e.g. Category:1710 establishments in Great Britain and in Category:Ministries of Anne, Queen of Great Britain and the articles contain succession boxes, so the possibilities to navigate to related articles are sufficient anyway. Note that there is also one French article in this series (established 1792, disestablished 1794) but since it is the only article in those categories it still does not aid navigation in any way. Also note that we do not have 17th-century cabinets (dis)establishment categories, for exactly the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Unnecessary Small categories, with no scope for expansion. The various ministries are adequately categorised. Furthermore the whole concept of a cabinet is an anachronism in the early 18th century. They did not meet as cabinets except in an antechamber where they waited to be called into the royal presence. I am not clear when cabinets began to meet as such, but it is not that early. Thus there are no Cabinet Minutes until WWI see [1]. Previously the meetings were less formal. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:54, 10 June 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:Projectors (business)[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 the century categories into Category:English projectors, keep Category:Projectors (business). bibliomaniac15 05:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, three categories with one article each. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: For those with an interest in economic history it is clear that that term projector was in wide us in ENglish between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries. It's meaning cannot be assimilated to that of Public–private partnership, a term which primarily arose in the nineteenth century.
As regards the limited membership of the categories Category:16th century English projector and Category:17th century English projectors this needs to be addressed by more work on the economic history of England to bring it up the sme sort of standards enjoyed by such important topics as Neighbours.Leutha (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: We need the category for this particular class of business people, just as we have Category:British slave traders. I've already added William Petty to Category:17th century English projectors and there's going to be loads more! There's a wealth of material here.Leutha (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept the merger of Category:16th century English projector and Category:17th century English projectors into Category:English projectors.Leutha (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose or merge the centuries - do that by the individual articles. There are many bios that could be added. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recateogorize the people to a "businesspeople" category. Possibly also listify (e.g. "Projectors included ..." on the eponymous article). The small number of articles doesn't warrant use of such an archaic term in wp categorization. DexDor (talk) 20:46, 14 June 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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daeron[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: already deleted by Liz per WP:CSD#G6. bibliomaniac15 05:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:HSOCK ("Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny."): Some of the edits by the tagged IPs show disruption but no reason was ever given why this category should have been created. I cannot find an SPI report. Links to a little more discussion are here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was recently a subject of an ANI report raised by Daeron. I created the category some 10 years ago and had forgotten about it. Being familiar with Daeron's contribs, his position on the articles he edits, and the contribs of the IP's I listed in the category, it is very clear to me that some of them are certainly the same person, and others suspiciously similar.
However, if the category's existence is not supported by Wikipedia policy then I won't object to its removal. I have a screen shot of the IP's and their contributions are still there for anyone to see. I don't have time for the detective work to prove a sock case, and it's not current behaviour...as far as I'm aware. --Merbabu (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest delection per consensus between nominator and creator.
  • The category and pages have an appearance of hounding harassment as is consistent with the creator's editing action immediatedly after making the above comment, evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutch_East_Indies&oldid=961028919 where the allegation of "original research" is unsupported and apperance of personal insult. It should be noted that my edit is some six months old and some twelve editors including User:Merbabu himself edited the article during the past six months without objection to my edit, it was only after User:Merbabu responded to this request for deletion that he has located and reverted my edit while also adding an allegation of original research.Daeron (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. I have no view on the substantive merits, but this is the wrong place to deal with this.
The category is populated because the user pages are tagged with the template {{sockpuppet}}, as {{sockpuppet|Daeron}}.
The only way to remove the user pages from this category is by no longer tagging the pages as sockpuppets.
If the tags are removed, then the category will be empty, and this eligible for speedy deletion per WP:C1. OTOH is the tags stay, so does the category.
So the issue here is not whether the category should exist, but whether the IPs should be tagged. And that decision belongs at WP:SPI, not at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one has taken this issue to SPI. All that has happened is that, nearly ten years ago, an editor chose to tag various IPs and, from the above, has nothing more than suspicion based on undisclosed grounds. As mentioned above, WP:HSOCK indicates that there should be no tags so I will remove them to empty the category. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq, I don't know enough either way about the nuances of SPI procedure to form a view on that, so I AGF that you're doing the right thing here. My concern is solely that this isn't a CFD issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, although the part of WP:HSOCK I quoted in the nomination seems clear. I asked a question at the template talk after seeing a rather unhelpful ANI discussion in March 2020. Then I searched around for examples of previous similar categories. I didn't find much but got a feeling that they have been nominated here in the past. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the original category creator, I've largely avoided commenting apart from my noting I have no objection to deletion. But, responding to @Johnuniq's comment I have "nothing more than suspicion based on undisclosed grounds" and "unsupported sock accusation with no evidence"...I have noted that it's in the contribs of both Daeron and the IPs. To elaborate, Daeron and the IPs are WP:SPA editors - all their edits are soley focussed on the West Papua question, and a particularly anti-Indonesian POV, striking similarity. Interesting timing too. It would extraordinarily uncanny if there was more than one editor. Too coincidental for my liking. Once again...to be clear...I'm not trying to pursue this old sock "suspicion", however, if pot shots at me are going to continue, then maybe i do have to respond.
As I said, I have noted no objection to this deletion. I also note that I have no interest in pursuing old history by devoting hours to chasing the contribs up and eating up other editor's time, but as i note above, this clear socking behaviour has long since stopped. Possibly because I did raise it with Daeron?
My concerns with the editor's contributions (and the apparent socks) was one of WP:POV, WP:SPA, lack of WP:V and WP:OR. Ultimately, all of my interactions with the editor has been about ensuring those standards are met...indeed as are all my contribs to wikipedia. So unless Daeron (and anyone else here) have any specific objection/s to my editing on these standards (with diffs), then I suggest it's time to lay off.
So, as I've said since the resurfaced March WP:ANI after one full decade, I'm certain that the socking is ancient history and I'm not pursuing it. I would like to move on. Indeed, rather than this, I was looking forward to spending my last hour awake working on articles on old Sydney ferries (yes, I know how to rock a Satuday night). Others may also want to reflect on the most productive ways to use their time. --Merbabu (talk) 12:08, 13 June 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:Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame inductees[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) DannyS712 (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame requires players to either be of Mexican heritage and active in the American major/minor leagues for 15 years or be active for that same amount of time in one of the Mexican leagues. The award is definitely not defining for those who played in the US. For the players of the domestic LMB and LMP leagues, many of the winners are redlinks and the articles are so short so it's hard to infer too much from them about the defingness of this award. For any reader interested in the topic, the winners are already listified in List of members of the Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame, which could also serve as a to-do list in the article space. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:53, 6 June 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:Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame[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) DannyS712 (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and WP:TOPTEN)
Dave Meltzer is a respected journalist that covers the wrestling industry in his Wrestling Observer Newsletter from a critical standpoint, rather than as a fan magazine. According to Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame article, "Meltzer began the Hall of Fame by choosing a list of 122 inaugural inductees in 1996" and added additional people from there. In the articles, the induction is typically mentioned in passing along with other halls of fame so it doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:53, 6 June 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_June_6&oldid=969489864"