Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6 May 8 >

May 7[edit]

Category:Puerto Rican people of American 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: delete. bibliomaniac15 21:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Puerto Ricans are Americans. This would be like a category for English people of British descent. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can sort of see a logic behind what the creator was trying to do here — since Puerto Ricans are defined as a specific ethnic group within the larger American umbrella, they were trying to capture people who also have other non-Puerto Rican ancestry from the mainland US — but for the precise reason the nominator points out, they missed, and I'm not convinced that renaming it for increased clarity would actually make it any more WP:DEFINING either. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another useless descent category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46 Rathfelder (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 09:55, 12 May 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:People from Gibraltar[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 both into Category:Gibraltarians. Since Category:Gibraltarian people was created first, that one will be renamed first, and then the other category merged into it. bibliomaniac15 18:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear if there is supposed to be a distinction between the two categories, but I certainly dont see one, unless it is that People from Gibraltar were born there but are notable for what they did somewhere else. The anchor article is Gibraltarians Rathfelder (talk) 19:17, 7 May 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.

Priyanka Chopra (Jonas) categories[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. As a result of the discussion here, the article was moved back to Priyanka Jones. bibliomaniac15 18:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Priyanka Chopra Jonas. Speedy declined. @Armbrust:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, at least temporarily. The page move was recent and arbitrary, and does not appear to have actually been supported by any requested moves discussion to establish an actual consensus for it — at the very least, there isn't any discussion on her talk page (which is where such a discussion is supposed to be documented.) Rather, as near as I can tell, the logic appears to be that her marriage to Nick automatically made her "Priyanka Chopra Jonas", and therefore the page move should just have automatically happened right away — but while I admittedly don't go very far out of my way to follow her career and basically just know her through cultural osmosis, I have never actually heard her referred to as "Priyanka Chopra Jonas", but still as just "Priyanka Chopra". I'm willing to reconsider if somebody can actually produce evidence of a page move discussion that I've missed — but from the evidence I've been able to find the page move was improper, so that's probably what we should be discussing first. I've initiated a discussion at Talk:Priyanka Chopra Jonas over what the page name should be — if consensus settles on Priyanka Chopra Jonas, then I'll support a move of the categories, but if it lands on "move back to Priyanka Chopra", then the categories obviously shouldn't be moved. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 8 May 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:Magazine company founders[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/rename/delete. bibliomaniac15 21:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There isn't a very clean distinction to be drawn between being a magazine founder and being a magazine company founder -- literally by definition, magazines are run by companies or organizations, so founding a company to run the magazine is very often part and parcel of the process of founding a magazine at all. And while it is true that magazines can technically also be founded as new projects under the auspices of media companies that already existed before the new magazine was launched, or new companies can be founded to take over already-existing magazines, those aren't particularly helpful or defining hairs for the category system to split. The distinction just isn't unambiguous enough to need two separate category trees here. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – with the condition that something similar to the nominator's rationale be placed in the category header to explain that magazine and magazine company are "one and the same". Senator2029 “Talk” 01:42, 13 May 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:Iranian Sound recordists[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 18:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just two people. The parent category Category:Sound recordists has just seven people in it, so it has not been and does not need to be subdivided by nationality at all -- and two people is not enough to warrant giving Iran special treatment if we're not subcatting any of the others. And even if for some implausible reason it were to be kept, it would still have to be renamed for the miscapitalization of "sound". No upmerging necessary, as the two people here were never actually removed from the parent in the process of adding this subcategory. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 7 May 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:Pakistani mass media by language[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 19:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same topic, as far as I understand. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:00, 7 May 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:Swiss mass media by language[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 19:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per supercategory Category:Mass media in Switzerland and analogously to Category:Mass media in India by language‎. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:55, 7 May 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:Foreign-language mass media in Ukraine[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 19:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 23#Category:Foreign-language media in the United States and current Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Category:Foreign-language mass media in the United States by state. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, abstaining from voting, but I think Marcocapelle might have a point. Unless it would be expanded, it is more efficient to keep it nice and "trimmed". If renamed, I support per nomination. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (changed vote) Delete -- The one article at the bottom of this tree is about Russian language TV in Ukraine. The follow nom relating to this will appropriately categorise that, so that this one (which is unlikely to get the required 5 items) becomes useless. The point about Catalan in Spain is a good one: Russian is a native language for certain residents. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precise vote to Delete (in practice) from Merge to Category:Mass media in Ukraine per Oculi and Marcocapelle (in principle). In the case of Ukraine, foreign-language is bogus as one can wonder if Russian language media were foreign language in Soviet or Imperial times, or even Polish-language or German-language media in Western Ukraine in Commonwealth or Austrian times. Place Clichy (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that the follow-up nomination decided to delete thus category's only content, the discussion is moot and deletion is the only option. Place Clichy (talk) 21:26, 16 May 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:African Americans in the media[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 with necessary purging of some of the subcats. bibliomaniac15 19:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:American media personalities. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge, this does not seem part of a broader "in the media" tree. The first two subcategories should be purged though, they do no belong after renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 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:Wikipedia images in SVG format[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 20#Category:Wikipedia images in SVG format

Category:Working-class 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: delete. bibliomaniac15 22:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:ARBITRARYCAT, this is a collection of judgement calls based on one's status in the working class. User:Namiba 15:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- Whether this applies to a writer is a POV issue. We cannot have categories where inclusions depends on the editor's opinion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - proletarian literature is an established genre in many languages. --Soman (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that literature can be called working class does not mean we can easly categorize writers themselves by class.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John Pack Lambert and nom. Category:Proletarian literature may be an established genre, and as such it has a category (which needs a lot of work, by the looks of it). The literature, not the writers. Take an example: John Steinbeck wrote about working-class issues, but he was not working-class himself; his actual social status is irrelevant to his writing. Grutness...wha? 04:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with @Soman. If someone wants to know about working-class writers, there should be a category for it.--Historyday01 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, for example "[t]his tradition was beginning to change, and the first two decades of the new century saw the emergence of a new type of author, the proletärförfattare (proletarian writer) or arbetarförfattare (working-class writer), the former term implying a greater degree of political activism than the latter."[1] --Soman (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting comment, @Soman. It definitely bolsters the case for keeping the term.Historyday01 (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a topic for a new article indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic is worthy of discussion in new articles and in the Wikipedia pages of authors. Assigning the category runs afoul of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lars G. Warme (1996). A History of Swedish Literature. U of Nebraska Press. p. 302. ISBN 0-8032-4750-8.
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:Specific letter-diacritic combinations[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 19:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Simpler name. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, also aligning with its Latin and Cyrillic subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Oculi (talk) 12:02, 16 May 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:Country music festivals in London[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 and delete. bibliomaniac15 22:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just one festival, which does not qualify for either of the normal exemptions from smallcat rules: we do not have any established scheme of "Specific-genre music festivals in City" subcategories, and neither of the merge targets are large enough to need special treatment on size management grounds. Genre music festivals are normally categorized at the level of the country without specific-city subcategories below that, and festivals by city are normally filed in one common city category without being segregated for genre -- and with just one festival here, one festival (same one double-filed!) in Category:Country music festivals in the United Kingdom and 57 festivals in Category:Music festivals in London, there's just no need for this. And since this is the only such category that exists for any city-genre combo in the entire world, both Category:Country music festivals by city and Category:Folk festivals by city will simply be empty if this goes. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Even the first target is a small category, but it would not be appropriate to merge that. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 8 May 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 ethnicity and 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. bibliomaniac15 21:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to appropriate subcategories. These fail WP:OCEGRS. User:Namiba 14:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in all cases there are at least 5 people categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) that is factually inaccurate. A number of them have fewer than 5 articles and 2) the size of the category isn't being argued. What is being argued is that they fail WP:OCEGRS as non-notable intersections of ethnicity, nationality, and occupation.--User:Namiba 18:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale cited for deletion has nothing to do with size. WP:OCEGRS is not WP:SMALLCAT. There could be thousands of left-handed Filipino hairdressers in Texas, that would still not be a topic. Place Clichy (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge these violate the rule that we should not categorize by EGRS issues when the category has few other likely break outs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge/delete all per nom as ineligible intersections per WP:OCEGRS. I had doubts about the Canadian people of Israeli Arab descent because Israeli Arabs are a distinct population, not an intersection, but I checked the only article in the category, Ghazi Falah, which did not belong in it, so this point is moot. Place Clichy (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:OCEGRS; these descent categories also suffer the same ills as all others: how much descent must one be; how far back may/must it go; and what reliable sources tell us that anyone is within those constraints? Fundamentally, do people of a particular "descent" do their job differently than those not of that "descent"; that's what these categories imply because otherwise there is no notability in them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Carlossuarez46 . Rathfelder (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, WP:OCEGRS does not apply here: descent and ethnicity are two different things. Ethnicity may be based on religion or language or anything else that bonds people together. Descent tells about the nationality of parents, grandparents etc., not necessarily leading to any ethnicity. I have seen this mixing up of terminology several times before. So, in this discussion, overall deletion of descent x occupation categories (Carlossuarez) and WP:SMALLCAT are the more valid arguments. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the above cases, American is the nationality and X is a stand-in for ethnicity. The only nationality we know these people have is American. That's why many have objected to lumping in everyone to "Asian descent" categories.--User:Namiba 12:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not untrue in principle. However, in many case these descent categories are the closest thing we have to ethnicity categories, and are used as such proxies both by editors found of ethnic labels who create such categories and add articles with a shovel, and by editors wary of such labels who have worked in the past here on CfD to rename many ethnic categories to descent categories, supposedly because this could be better sourced and give less room to personal interpretation. Despite the fact that one can have descent of a great-grand-parent of some nationality or ethnicity and not self-identify with this ethnicity, I believe that the wording of WP:EGRS and WP:OCEGRS is precise enough to apply to these descent and descent-occupation categories. It should be the par by which we measure eligible and ineligible categories. Ultimately, the par should be WP:DEFINING, and strictly applied this should have logically led to the deletion of almost all descent-occupation intersections categories (or the renaming of some of them to ethnicity-occupation intersections). Indeed in very few cases (such as feudal societies) is one's occupation defined by their descent stricto sensu. However your attempt to do so, which I supported and would still support as a rational outcome, has led to no consensus. The absence of consensus on this much-needed larger selection effort should not prevent us to delete a smaller set of blatantly ineligible categories when we find them.
Re: WP:SMALLCAT, the amount of descent and intersectional descent categories has blossomed to such proportions, often through the effort of now blocked editors, that CfD has often been stuck with the objection that these are part of a "large scheme". Also, not all such intersections are small: there is afaik no connection between being a plumber and being red-haired or having a German grandparent, however there are probably more than 5 red-haired plumbers or plumbers of German descent, which would make terrible Wikipedia categories. The only issue is therefore the value of the intersection as measured by WP:OCEGRS and WP:DEFINING, not its size. Place Clichy (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As said, I have no problem with advocating overall deletion of descent x occupation categories, which is what you seem to be after in the end. I just have a problem with mixing up ethnicity and descent. The German example is a nice one, because nobody would refer to English-speaking people as belonging to a German ethnicity in case their grandparents emigrated to the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I share this concern of confusion between ethnicity and descent. When individual category inclusions or entire categories use "descent" as a proxy for ethnicity, in my opinion they should often be removed on this ground alone. Place Clichy (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: actually, WP:EGRS explicitly cites descent categories about examples of "ethnicity" categories. There is therefore little doubt that the guideline applies to these categories. Place Clichy (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. Störm (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. I don't know why editors waste their time on these nebulous creations. Oculi (talk) 00:23, 26 May 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:Populated places in Tešanj[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 keep. Category populated by one more entry; withdrawing my nomination. Thanks Oculi! (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Can this category possibly includes more articles right now? If renamed, it could (and should) include Tešanj Castle, Tešanj RK and Category:Mass media in Tešanj as well. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I found quite a few for Category:Tešanj‎, including a populated sub-place. I don't think any action is needed. Oculi (talk) 11:59, 7 May 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:Jordanian internet celebrities[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 22:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: miscapitalisation of the proposed merge target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:33, 7 May 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:Ben Lexcen[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 22:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON and WP:SMALLCAT
Ben Lexcen is a world famous designer of sailing yachts and we have a viable subcategory for Category:Sailing yachts designed by Ben Lexcen. That main article is the only one directly in this eponymous category though and I can't think of a potential second article. (No objection to recreating later if I'm mistaken and we ever get up to 5 direct articles.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 7 May 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:Scrapped ships[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 22:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT)
We have a number categories for the end of ships that are defining like Category:Ships sunk by kamikaze attack and Category:Ships sunk as dive sites. The articles in those categories are at least partially defined by the fates of their ships so readers could use those categories to find articles. But being scrapped is the normal, boring end for most modern ships and, if fully populated, this category would have thousands up thousands of articles and be unlikely to help navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 7 May 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_May_7&oldid=1001995515"