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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:56, 12 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.
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:57, 12 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:Wikipedians willing to provide fourth opinions[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 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:Wikipedians who participate in Spanish Translation of the Week[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 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:Wikipedians who participate in Science Collaboration of the Month[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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category was created in 2006 and there has not been a significant increase in TWiT.tv podcasts. Based on a quick Google search for "TWiT.tv podcast" it would be quite difficult to create any more articles about TWiT.tv podcasts. I believe that means the category would be considered a WP:SMALLCAT with no or very little potential for growth. I'm suggesting that it be merged with it's parent category Category:Technology podcasts. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, borderline case of smallcat; if merged it may make sense to interlink the articles directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category was created in 2007 and there has not been a significant increase of podcasts dedicated to the topic of Linux. Based on a quick Google search for "Linux podcast" it would be quite difficult to create any more articles about Linux podcasts. I believe that means the category would be considered a WP:SMALLCAT with no or very little potential for growth. I'm suggesting that it be merged with it's parent category Category:Technology podcasts. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been taking a look at the different articles in this category and I'm not sure any of them present sources that would suggest they are notable. The only two that might meet Wikipedia's standards of WP:GNG are LugRadio and Linux Voice. I'll look into potentially finding some reliable sources for these podcasts, but if I can't I'll open AfDs. If only a couple are notable enough for articles I would assume the category would no longer be a borderline case of WP:SMALLCAT. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the articles and I think they are all just barely notable enough for Wikipedia, but they all need a lot of work. I think instead of deleting the category perhaps we should just rename it to Category:Linux podcasts. I don't see any reason to limit the category to Category:Audio podcasts when none of the sources take the time to differentiate and having other formats like Category:Video podcasts would increase the scope of the category (albeit a very small increase) so that it's less likely to continue being a WP:SMALLCAT. What do you think of this proposal Marcocapelle? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, borderline case of smallcat; if merged it may make sense to interlink the articles directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 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.
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/merge. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is a sensible follow up to a somewhat heated debate, which reached an appropriate outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:17, 1 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:NONDEFININGWP:OCTRIVIA Academics are not usually categorized by the languages they speak; indeed the norm in Category:People by language and occupation is to classify occupations utilizing the language itself, such as grammarians, lexicographers, singers, translators, and writers. This seems to be the only "-speaking academics" among the occupations.
Moreover, the headnote states:
This category includes academics who speak the Welsh language, regardless of whether they lecture or write in the Welsh language.
Delete per nom. If they write their academic papers in Welsh they be added to Category:Welsh-language writers but I expect not many of them to do that. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clearly you don't understand that some universities and colleges in Wales teach partly in Welsh. Deb (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And some universities in the Netherlands teach partly in Dutch. So what? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Common sense dictates that the reader wants this information. I agree with what Deb says. Also: 80 lecturers at the Coleg Cymraeg teach only through the medium of Welsh. Or is this a part of a wider, more sinister attempt to wipe out all references to Wales and the Welsh language from the English Wikipedia? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reader can have this information in the articles, with adequate sourcing. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWilliam Allen Simpson seems intent on deleting welsh categories, and nothing else. Perfectly acceptable as a category, and being an academic in a language is a defining characteristic. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems pretty defining to me. Why are we suddenly getting all these calls for deletion of Welsh-speaker categories? Grutness...wha? 23:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness I'm surprised as an experienced categorizer that you consider these WP:DEFINING: "reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." That is, we should categorize all mathematics professors in every country around the world by all languages they speak? All engineering professors? All geography professors? All philosophy professors? Note that these are not languages used in teaching or writing by these professors. William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@William Allen Simpson: In order to assess this category, I looked at ten of the articles in it at random. Seven of those articles were about academics for whom the majority of published works were in Welsh (i.e., yes, they are used in writing). Another was for a linguist whose specialist area was the Welsh language. Another was for a collector and collator of traditional welsh folk music. The last was for a holder of the Oxford Chair in Celtic studies whose most important published work was translations of medieval Welsh poetry and prose. Seems pretty defining to me. These are not engineering or mathematics professors who simply happen to speak a language -they are academics for whom knowledge of the Welsh language is integral to their studies and publications. Grutness...wha? 15:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about whether language is defining for this occupation everywhere in every language. I've looked at them trying to discern whether the reliable sources mentioned the language in passing, or it was a reason they were notable. I've concluded the former. You've merely shown that some are miscategorized. William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what this discussion is about - how can it be, since not every language is a minority language? Deb (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This means the category should be selectively merged to Category:Welsh-language writers. Writing in Welsh is a defining characteristic, teaching in Welsh is not. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and it's looking like a snowstorm. This is a defining characteristic. The "Welsh institutes in Wales vs Dutch institutes in the Netherlands" comparison doesn't stand, as Welsh is a minority language, while Dutch is not. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For many people in this category it is a defining characteristic that they wrote books in Welsh, hence they do properly belong in Category:Welsh-language writers. Whether they spoke Welsh in teaching is only mentioned in passing, if at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For all Welsh-speaking people, their language is a defining characteristic. You can ask any of them. It's even got a section in the current UK census. Deb (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Asking them is OR. And we don't categorize by anything that is in the UK census. Please stick to the criteria in WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The person who drew an analogy with Dutch clearly does not know Wales, most academic discussion in Wales takes place in English, so that it can be understood by a wide audience, but there will also be Welsh-language academic literature, which means that there are historical works about Wales that are incomprehensible to me, because i do not understand Welsh. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RenameCategory:Academics who teach in minority languages and Category:Academics who write in minority languages if and only in they teach and write and in Welsh. Can also use Category:Welsh-language activists if speaking Welsh is part of the person's notability part from their academic career. I agree minority-languages need to be treated differently, and the mere fact of a person being an academic and also speaking that language is interesting, but it's probably not a defining part of that person's notability, unless they are also known for their language activism, or teach through the medium of Welsh. Otherwise every minority and indigenous-language speaker who gets famous for something else is likely to be categorized. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kevlar67, "Activists" means something quite different.Deb (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Kevlar67. An academic who publishes or teaches in Welsh is defining. But purge academics who publish or teach in other languages. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Query — @Kevlar67 and Carlossuarez46: while purging the non-notable non-teaching academics would be a good start, we don't really have a good handle on "minority" languages. If we start this new tree, wouldn't it eventually contain every teacher of foreign language in every country? After all, French and Spanish (and other modern languages) are minority languages in most of the world, but very commonly taught. We already have lists of official languages. Perhaps "non-official" languages would be a better parent? Then there are teachers of Latin (definitely minority), what should we do about them? William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the concept of majority/minority languages. People whose medium of work (be it, writing, singing, academics, etc.) is "Fooish" it matters not to me whether or not "Fooish" is the majority where those people work or not. I know WP doesn't consistently follow this convention (compare, e.g., Category:English-language writers with Category:Dutch-language writers). But someone who speaks "Fooish" but writes/sings/etc. in English, the Fooish-speaking is irrelevant. Similarly, the argument about XXX-speaking politicians (apparently, Welsh being the only extant example) is misguided. One can point to many constituencies in the US where the ability to speak Spanish, Tagalog, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, etc. may be a factor in connecting with voters, but is ultimately undefining for the politico as virtually all campaign in English too, and if elected to notable positions here govern/legislate/argue/debate, whatever in English. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This also avoids the issue of how well someone speaks that language and reliable sources saying that. "Ich bin ein Berliner" comes to mind; so JFK to be added to a German-speaking politicians category? Yikes Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Purge per Kevlar The current category is too broad and pulls in people where the intersection of career and language is not defining. (That's not to say they should not be categorized in stand-alone academic and Welsh categories.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated per @Marcocapelle, Kevlar67, Carlossuarez46, and RevelationDirect: to allow purging instead. Thus far, there is no consensus on a tree of "minority" or "unofficial" languages. There appears to be an evolving consensus that teaching using an official language in a country with that official language is not defining. William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reasonable attempt to get a broader consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would also be reasonable since this is defining of only a subcategory. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the language an academic speaks is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with John Pack Lambert. In my local university there are plenty of academics who are capable of speaking languages other than English. It's interesting, and sometimes useful, but its not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 00:23, 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.
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:option B merge. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division or to island. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Islands regional unit is one of the most preposterous Greek administrative divisions. It was fine having it as a supercategory of other, more specific, ones, but it shouldn't have direct articles as members. You could say it's a "gerrymandering" type of division. There is no real geographic, cultural, or historical connection between these areas. I can't think of a good alternative merge right now, but I think it would be better to finish with the mainland categories before dealing with the Greek islands, which require a different approach anyway. --Antondimak (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Lean Toward B — in any case, these will be purged of birthplaces. William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:48, 5 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Kozani (43,000 people), Ptolemaida (32,000 people), Siatista (5,500 people), Servia, Greece (3,500 people) and Vlasti (meanwhile depopulated). The nomination does include people from Askio, Kozani, this is not a populated place but a handful of villages in the Askio mountain range and its eponymous 4th level administrative division. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People from Askio consists of people from Galatini and Eratyra, two communities in the same municipal unit which are a mere 3km apart. Independent communities with thousands of residents each, which were 30km apart, were considered to be the same settlement when all the areas of wider Athens were merged.
When it comes to Eordaia, there is also Category:Ancient Eordaeans. I think it's useful to group modern Eordeans together with the ancient ones, and not have the settlements of modern Eordaia be scattered accross Category:People from Kozani (regional unit) as sister categories to "Ancient Eordaians".
Distance in km is an irrelevant criterion. Athens is by far the most populous city in Greece so obviously distances are bigger as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you saying it's not clear in the articles in "Ancient Eordaians" that the people they refer to were from Eordaia?
For example the article about Ptolemy I Soter tells that his father was from Eordaia but it does not tell about Ptolemy himself. He may well have been at court all the time in his youth. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see now. There generally seem to be more "relaxed" standards for categorising ancients, given the lack of specific information. I don't this should influence how we handle the category though. --Antondimak (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the lack of information they are fine as Ancient Macedonians without assignment to any particular location (to be discussed separately though). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why an upmerge of Category:Ancient Eordaeans would be necessary to keep Category:People from Eordaia (assuming there weren't any problems with the articles in "Ancient Eordaeans"). It would just make everything more confusing. --Antondimak (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Askio/Merge Rest for NowCategory:People from Askio is well populated but the rest hinder navigation by adding layers and breaking people into tiny categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all — in any case, these will be purged of birthplaces. William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:48, 5 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case Sparta, Peloponnese (17,000 people, ancient city). The nomination includes East Mani with 9 articles, since East Mani is not a populated place but a collection of different villages. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep East Mani East Mani has existed since before I started working on the categories. The area is culturally significant, as any other Greek discussant could confirm (see also Maniots). Mani in general has its own culture, which is significantly distinct from the rest of the Peloponnese, and its own dialect, which is more similar to that of Crete (it was even closer to the old dialect of Athens, before it went extinct due to it being made the capital) than the rest of Laconia. Despite the East/West distinction being significant in Mani, East Mani is also part of Laconia, while Mani as a whole is divided between Laconia and Messenia. Therefore it makes sense for it to be a subcategory of "People from Laconia". --Antondimak (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We would then need to upmerge to "Maniots" and include this category in both Laconia and Messenia (which would be inaccurate). This category is for the Maniots from Laconia, and "West Mani" is for those from Messenia, so they should probably be kept (apart from the cultural distinctions between East and West Mani being significant anyway). --Antondimak (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For now I have added Category:Maniots as a second merge target. Whether that category should be split is a different discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You accidentally included Molaoi in the list, despite it having 5 articles and you not tagging it for merging (similar to what happened with Karditsa). --Antondimak (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep East Mani/Merge the Rest for Now These small categories hinder navigation but no objection to recreating any that ever get up to 5+ direct articles. (Category:People from East Mani is at 9 articles and, despite the conversation above, I don't see a WP:SMALLCAT reason to merge. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all — in any case, these will be purged of birthplaces. William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:52, 5 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:Books about Buddhism in the Heian period[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:withdrawnMarcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, is there any way to unlist this rename request? Daiichi1 (talk) 07:52, 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:Australian rules footballers' wives and girlfriends[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) 08:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Weird mix of lesbian footballers married to other footballers, sportspeople married to (some very low profile) footballers and only 1 or 2 women who fit the English celebrity stereotype of a WAG. Use wikidata to find spousal connections if you need to. Not this cat. Poorly defined qualifications, no parent article exists, not even a mention in WAGs#Other sports. WP:NONDEFINING for most of these women. The-Pope (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely WP:NONDEFINING. This category seems to includes someone who were once in a relationship with an Australian rules footballer, but is married to someone else. This is not an encyclopedic category. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what it seems to be. Delete - RevelationDirect (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominators very first line is homophobic, sexist and offensive in my opinion. Should not be tolerated on Wiki. Category was created as a subcategory of Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). How is that a category allowed and this not ? Needs to be some consistency. Plus your main object seems to be that the WAGs are more famous then their partners. DjlnDjln (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're saying the category is not a defining characteristic, because it has a mix of many different sets of unrelated people. Nothing homophobic at all about that. The "weird mix" comment clearly refers to the rest of the comment i.e. it doesn't use the standard definition of WAGs. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing they have in common is that they "wives or girlfriends of Australian rules footballers". Exactly what it says on tin. DjlnDjln (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I demand that Djln retract's that personal attack on me. Absolutely nothing homophobic or sexist in my nomination statement. It's purely descriptive. I found this cat when the captain of my favourite team was added to it. She's married to another one of the players. But neither of them are notable for being a wife to a footballer. They are notable because they ARE footballers. The "weird mix" is referencing the multiple reasons for being placed in the cat. For only a few, it is defining. For most, it may be factually correct, but not at all defining, and definitely not with the WAG connotations that the parent cat/English centric article focuses on. The-Pope (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can demand all you like. There will be no retraction on my part until you withdraw opening statement. There are plenty of articles about people who are in categories for which they are not famous. See teachers, doctors, lawyers etc. DjlnDjln (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The English WAGs are indeed famous for being WAGs. These Australian women seem to be mostly sportswomen in their own right and not really notable for being WAGs. The same seems to be true of the Gaelic footballers' wives and girlfriends, so that should go too. Rathfelder (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is it relevant which partner is more famous then the other or if the WAG is more famous then there partner. DjlnDjln (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need to stop defining people by the very ephemeral state of being a girlfriend of someone else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 9 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.
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) 08:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Perpetual traveler (PT) is a term for someone who intentionally lives in multiple countries. The category only has two articles, none of which mention this term, but there is certainly expansion potential. The problem here is that this term has strong connotations of borderline legal tax avoidance schemes. Indeed, "Prior taxpayer" is an alternate name for the concept. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No objection against the category per se, but articles in here should contain adequate sourcing to qualify as a perpetual traveler. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete our article seems to imply that this label is for people in certain tax avoidance schemes (as per nom), neither of the articles in the category mention this alleged aspect of the individual. I'm not sure that engaging in tax avoidance schemes (short of convictions for such) is defining but it certainly is a BLP issues and an WP:OPINIONCAT, where someone (a wikipedian?) has an opinion of someone who is doing such behavior. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 1 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.
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) 08:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have a category for Category:Deaths from stroke so this is for people that survived strokes. There are 300+ articles in the category which generally mention having a stroke later in their lives. That could be just the beginning though: according to the main article strokes are the 2nd leading reason for death globally and about 17 million survive them per year. During the course of lifetime, people will have multiple non-fatal health issues and this seems too common to be defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surviving a stroke is a temporary condition. They will all die in the end. Rathfelder (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Stroke is too common to be defining. It might be possible to have a category for people such as Andrew Marr who go back to work, though disabled by a stroke. This is clearly defining for them, but my feeling is that such as category would be a subjective one. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sufficiently common occurrence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 1 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.
