Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24 February 26 >

February 25[edit]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Jacksonville Jaguars[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Better grammar NASCARfan0548 ↗ 23:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I assume that this is the name of a team, so "the" is probably needed. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2021 (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:7th-century Gallo-Roman people[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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, in the 7th century the Frankish kingdom was firmly established in former Gaul, it no longer makes sense to distinguish between "original" Franks and inhabitants of Francia. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This contradicts the articles concerned. For example:
  • Oppose I think its complex and merging these wont help. Rathfelder (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw, after defending 6th-century Gallo-Romans at WP:CFDS I was too quick in applying the opposite reasoning for the 7th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2021 (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:Lists of engines[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. I had to remove List of aircraft engines, which goes in Category:Lists of aircraft engines. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What about airplanes, ships, etc. (e.g. Comparison of orbital rocket engines)? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2021 (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.

Al-Faisaly SC[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per CFDS C2D, match article name. GiantSnowman 12:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per C2D. I guess it's there to distinguish from Al Faisaly FC but the SC vs FC is clear enough disambiguator. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2021 (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:Welsh clergy[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: Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No articles about Welsh clergy who arent Christian. Rathfelder (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - down-merges don't work. The present set-up works perfectly well and would need considerable efforts to ensure that all the subcats stay in their correct trees. Norman Solomon (rabbi) appears to be a Welsh rabbi. I expect there are Welsh imams. Oculi (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Oculi. Dimadick (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw this now we've found a rabbi. Rathfelder (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2021 (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 positive to COVID-19[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 per G4 (original discussion). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary; there are likely hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people on Wikipedia who have contracted COVID-19. Nehme1499 14:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dr Salvus (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could go either way on keep or delete. If kept it needs to be renamed for grammar and to take into account that testing positive for COVID-19 is not an enduring state. Would need to be People who have tested positive for COVID-19 or similar. I can only find one other people-with-virus category, and that's for HIV, which, once you're positive, you're positive for life. Gricehead (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category is WP:NONDEFINING, as for most of the thousands of articles in the category, it isn't/wasn't an important part of their life as whole. We already have Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic, which is a defining category as it's a cause of death, but I don't see how just testing positive for COVID would be a defining characteristic. And agree correct grammar is People who have tested positive for COVID-19 if kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless. Like people who didnt die from various diseases. Rathfelder (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was expecting to find Donald Trump and Boris. It isn't defining. Oculi (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Has been deleted before. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G4. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a life defining disease, and I am quite weary of false positives. During the summer, both me and my brother tested positive in a hospital test, and the next day a second test came negative. At the time we were both actually suffering from gastritis. How many other people had false positive results in faulty tests? Dimadick (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining and as vaccinations increase becoming less so as presumably they make people "positive to COVID-19" whatever that may mean. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2021 (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:Period television series[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 2#Category:Period television series

Category:Period horror films[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 (as Carlossuarez46 also opposes the proposed merge). I suggest that this might be revisited after closure of the above CFD re period television series. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They're the exact same thing. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, possibly leave a redirect. In fact the content should be dispersed to the subcats of the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Same scope. Dimadick (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure this is a recognized genre. Period horror film and Historical horror film don't seem to be written, and placing later films into the period in which the books about them were written (in universe) is sufficiently common to not be defining. I expect a Dracula or a Frankenstein film to be set in the 19th century, and most of them are. Then, of course, my objection to the use of 'historical' applies with greater force here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a comment about the whole tree. That might better be left to a fresh discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2021 (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:Period action films[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. I suggest that this might be revisited after closure of the above CFD re period television series. If anyone wants to pursue reverse merge, the whole hierarchy of historical films by genre should be put up for renaming. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They're the exact same thing. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, possibly leave a redirect. In fact the content should be dispersed to the subcats of the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Same scope. Dimadick (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure this is a recognized genre. Period action film and Historical action film don't seem to be written, and placing later films into the period in which the books about them were written (in universe) or using past events as a backdrop (future ones are notoriously difficult to do - weren't we supposed to have regular flights to the moon by 2001?) is sufficiently common to not be defining. I expect a film featuring wooden ships and iron men to be set in or before the 19th century, and most of them are. And, of course, most films set against the backdrop WWII were made after the war. Then, of course, my objection to the use of 'historical' applies with greater force here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a comment about the whole tree. That might better be left to a fresh discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge — the improper usage of historical here makes too little sense. These are Category:Works by period of setting, although some may be about actual history.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per William Allen Simpson's rationale. Historical films may be seen as a subset of period films. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2021 (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.

AA2 OVERCAT[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of these categories were recently created by User:Solavirum, who is now indefinitely topic-banned from any pages or discussions relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan (WP:ARBAA2), broadly construed, due in part for misusing categories. All of these cateogries fall under WP:OVERCAT and should be deleted, with the ones that are copies of already existing categories having their contents moved to them. Most of these are small categories with no potential for growth, and/or are wrongly classified. Steverci (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Comment, I would expect the smallcats to be merged somewhere, rather than plainly deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out the ones that are basically copies of categories that already exist. They shouldn't neccessarily be kept as a redirect though because they violate WP:NPOV, such as "Persecution of Azerbaijanis during the First Nagorno-Karabakh war" which mostly consists of battles lost. --Steverci (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean. In that case support all per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge all per the rationales given. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 28 February 2021 (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:Eurovision Song Contest pranksters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a category grouping two individuals who pulled pranks at the Eurovision Song Contest. One of them streaked on the stage and the other took to the stage and joined in the choreography. This borders on the trivial and not something defining that we should categorize by. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Eurovision Song Contest is not particularly defining for the articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Grk1011 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these 2 articles don't seem defined by it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2021 (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:Festivali i Këngës presenters[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) --Trialpears (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a performers by performance category, which the guidelines discourage. It's for those who presented, or hosted, at an Albanian music competition. There is a list article here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2021 (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:Albums produced by The Neptunes[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia's guidelines on capitalisation of "the" in artist and band names. Sean Stephens (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2021 (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:Albums recorded at Avatar Studios[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In 2017, the studio changed their name from "Avatar Studios" to "Power Station", as seen in the Power Station article. This is especially necessary since Nickelodeon has just established a similarly named, but non-related, studio named "Avatar Studios". Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 01:26, 25 February 2021 (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:Welsh-speaking politicians[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) 01:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Politicians are not usually categorized by the languages they speak; indeed the norm in categories under Category:People by language and occupation is to classify translators, scholars, lexicographers, grammarians, singers, writers. I didn't look up all the contents, so I cannot vouch this is unique, but we don't have similar categories for Category:Basque-speaking politicians or Category:Catalan-speaking politicians which seem similarly situated. Moreover, by expanding the occupations to include politics, we get down a slippery slope from a categorization based on job necessity to one of job betterment and I can just imagine Category:English-speaking politicians and its utility. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The point is that Welsh is a minority language, thus its use by politicians is far more significant than the use of English. Some English politicians have been forced to learn Welsh in order to represent their constituencies fully in the media. Many people learn Welsh as adults for similar reasons and that too is highly significant. Deb (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have many subcats of Category:Welsh-speaking people by occupation (and same for 65 other languages). Not sure why this would be the only one being discussed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find any other politician one? The normal subcats such as translators, scholars, lexicographers, grammarians, singers, writers are likely defining. A translator is defined by which languages he or she translates from and into. Ditto being a grammarian of Welsh is a different skill than being a grammarian of Babylonian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we should only classify people by language if the use of language is an essential element of their occupation, like writers and singers. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I explained this above. Of course some people have to learn Welsh in order to use it in politics. Deb (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course some people learn another language in order to use it. But that is wholly beside the point. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — This is the only one so far, nip it in the bud. While it might be useful for a politician to speak Welsh in the Welsh parliament, we'd expect that of all of them. We don't really want to start categorizing multi-lingual politicians by every language they speak. It is enough to know the constituencies they represent.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I believe this is a very useful category and shouldn't be deleted as the Welsh political landscape is based around culture and language. I would support a new category of politicians by language (e.e. Catalan-speaking) as it ads detail and depth to wikipedia's knowledge. It's interesting which politicians speaks the mother tongue, and I've learnt and I'm surprised by who can actually speak Welsh. Please do not delete this as it would remove not add and would go against Wikipedia's values. Cwmcafit (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are about the opposite of providing detail and depth. Detail and depth should be provided in the text of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/Delete. Could potentially be useful, but a list is a far better way of doing it, allowing for extra information that a category cannot. Dwi'n credu y byddai rhestr yn dda. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the only rational for deletion is that Politicians are not usually categorized by the languages they speak (Carlossuarez46). That is no rational, no reason, no reasonable excuse even. The same user successfully proposed deleting Category:Welsh-speaking people and limit language cats ONLY to poets, singers, actors etc with but one rational, that, we are sure that they spoke Welsh. But for all people that can't be put in child categories, basically because we do not know if/how/when/why these people were speaking Welsh. In Carlossuarez46's eyes this constitutes OR. That is claptrap. There is ample evidence that Carwyn Jones speaks Welsh, and an editor adding Category:Welsh-speaking politicians on Carwyn Jones' would NOT be guilty of carrying out Original Research, but would be recording on Wikipedia the sum of all human knowledge. He would be adding a category, as he has seen evidence that Carwyn Jones spoke Welsh, and would have added that information with full reference to the reliable citation on CJ's article (see: WP:BLP and WP:VER). It appears that (Carlossuarez46) has tried over many years to deleted many categories about minority languages. Secondly, the fact that this Category isn't on any other languages is irrelevant, as has been said above by Cwmcafit. That's no rational; it's pseudo-rational, and goes against WP:BOLD and ethos. Removing this category is a bias against the Welsh language, and is WP:NPOV. The Welsh language is already being attacked (Redacted) elsewhere. (Redacted). God help minority languages on the English Wikipedia. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why language is defining for writers, singers etc is that their creative works are in a particular language. That does not apply to politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readers only want to know the languages spoken by the creative sector? No! Readers are interested in knowing the language spoken by people in all walks of life, whatever their work. WP has no policy stating that a notable person's languages should be concealed from the reader. I agree with Joseph2302 (below) - this stinks of WP:BIAS and that 'an explanation has not been given'. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is perfectly alright for readers to know the languages that people speak provided it is properly sourced. That is what articles are for, not categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in the reader's benefit and interest for people to be categorised by language. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in WP:DEFINING mentions that language is not a 'standard biographical details'. It also states that a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. Category:Welsh-speaking politicians contains people who fit this criteria: reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define them as 'Welsh speakers'. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per my comments above, and the comments directly above this, this stinks of WP:BIAS. A decent explanation that I agree with has not been given. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no bias at all because we do not categorize politicians by any language. It appears that the opposers are contradicting each other (see previous comment where the objection is based on a general i.e. unbiased phenomenon). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "see previous comment where the objection is based on a general i.e. unbiased phenomenon". What on earth is this supposed to mean? Deb (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is impossible to claim there is a bias against Welsh when there isn't any other politicians by language category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no connection between the two things. The fact that there aren't other politicians by language categories could equally well be seen as bias against all minority languages. Deb (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe: check those articles again, another user has added information and sources about the politicians' Welsh speaking ability and why it's relevant to the political situation in Wales.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That does not show defining, quite the opposite. To be defining, it would be important enough to mention in the lead, such as: "Betty Williams was a Welsh-speaking politician..." Obviously, it isn't that important. (t · c) buidhe 20:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No where in the guidelines like WP:DEFINING WP:COP does it mention that "it would be important enough to mention in lead". Rather, the standard of DEFINING is:

The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. For example, Italian and artist are defining characteristics of Caravaggio, and so of the article on him, because virtually all reliable sources on the topic mention them.

. All of the people in the category as far as I could can be referred to in text as "x is a Welsh=speaking politician". E.g. "Enoch Powell (1912-1988), almost certainly the best-known Welsh-speaking politician of the last 50 years" [3]--Prisencolin (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NONDEF says: "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the keyword, "probably" an few other bios do have reference to the politician's involvement in language policy. Where it doesn't exist it could definitely be added in.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a reference is not enough, it should be one of the key characteristics. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Prisencolin - "probably" allows the use of language as a key characteristic. Deleting this category therefore goes against WP's own policy. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- In parts of Wales, Welsh is the first language of many residents. In other parts almost everyone speaks English for preference. As a visitor to Wales, I am used to coming across conversations being carried on in Welsh. I have been addressed in Welsh at National Library of Wales. As soon as I reply in English to the effect that I do not understnad the speaker immediately switches to English. Welsh speaking is strongly associated with Welsh nationalism. The ability to speak Welsh and particularly if it is the preferred language is highly defining. If there are verifiability issues, the appropriate course is tagging for verification, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we don't have this set up for other multilingual countries, and for a good reason. It is not defining. Being associated with Welsh language activism or Welsh nationalism, yes that is defining. But being a Canadian politicians who speaks French or Inuktitut or a Spanish politician who speaks Catalan or Basque is not defining, because non-nationalists and even anti-nationalist politicians can and do learn the minority language. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to contradict you on this. The reason we don't have it is that a whole set of such categories for minority languages were deleted in 2015 by a blanket motion, without consensus. Where is your evidence that use of a minority language is not defining? Deb (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Deb; still no evidence has been presented. The category should therefore stay. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've gone ahead and created the header article List of Welsh-speaking politicians for this category, which I'm surprised no one has done yet, if this category really is a notable as is claims in this discussion. At the moment I have no opinion on the category's suitability for the encyclopedia and may vote to delete the article if that one isn't notable either.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Prisencolin: it is very well possible to have a list article without a category (provided adequate sourcing). E.g. for awards that is the standard. As WP:CLN says, "a regularly occurring outcome at WP:CFD for some deleted categories is to listify, because there are cases where lists are appropriate while categories may not be". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no reason to categorize people by the ability to speak a specific language in the case of politics. This really should be limited to writers, even with singers it is too ephemeral.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand that statement. In what way is it "ephemeral"? Deb (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2021 (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:Commanders of the Royal Order of the Two-Sicilies[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and likely WP:SMALLCAT)
The Royal Order of the Two-Sicilies was a short-lived award from the former Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and there is only 1 article in this category, Léonard Jean Aubry Huard de Saint-Aubin, which doesn't even mention the award. Doesn't get much clearer than that. I "listified" that one recipient right here in the award article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2021 (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:Khwarizmi International Award recipients[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Khwarizmi International Award is an Iranian award for science and technology. Each year 20 winners are announced: 10 are senior researchers who may be domestic or international and 10 young researchers from Iran. We only have 4 articles so far and they don't treat the award as defining: 3 mention it in passing and 1 in the lede. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2021 (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.
  1. ^ in declarative statements, rather than table or list form
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_25&oldid=1073192873"