Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 21 June 23 >

June 22[edit]

Category:DYK/Successful nominations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category of Category:Passed DYK nominations. The reason not to merge, is that the category should be a container category so the pages should only be in the monthly categories. Gonnym (talk) 21:58, 22 June 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:Songs with lyrics by Jack Lawrence[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 22#Category:Songs with lyrics by Jack Lawrence

Category:Legislatures of Canadian provinces and territories[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: reverse merge. The Legislative assemblies category page is far older, so I will move it over the Legislatures category page. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. In their current state, the second category holds the articles dedicated to these assemblies, while the first category holds the eponymous subcategories for the same topics. This is not how the category system work, as it confuses the reader in terms of navigation and, per WP:EPONCAT, an article and its eponymous category can be in the same parent category if its scope is defining for both (which is the case here). Per WP:C2D, the merged category should be named after main article Legislative assemblies of Canadian provinces and territories. Place Clichy (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that subcategories shouldn't be in a different category than its lead articles. But a bit more cleanup will be required after this merge. For clarification, after Canadian provinces got rid of provincial upper houses, they were left with the odd situation of unicameral legislatures with different names for the lower house and the general assembly. E.g., the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba is the only assembly of the Manitoba Legislature, which used to also contain the Legislative Council of Manitoba. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These are not the same thing. The legislature of a province is usually the legislative assembly plus the monarch, as represented by the lieutenant governor. Compare Alberta Legislature to Legislative Assembly of Alberta. There is overlap but the target category should be (and is) a subcategory of the nominated category. If it's going to change, I'm not exactly sure what to do, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Reverse merge, effectively for nom's reasons but going the other way from what they proposed. While Arctic Gnome is absolutely correct that there is a technical distinction under law between the "legislative assembly" (the elected body) and the "legislature" (the assembly plus the lieutenant governor), that's not the way these two categories are actually being used: in actual practice, the former category holds the assemblies' eponymous categories, while the latter is a subcategory that only holds the head articles about the assemblies even though they're all already in one of the other subcategories of the parent as it is. There's really not much point to maintaining this separation in this form — but since the former is the one that's actually subcatted as part of the established international tree for subdivisional governments, while the latter is only a subcategory of the former and not of anything outside of that, the former is the one that should be kept.
    I think this was most likely created on a bad analogy to Category:State lower houses in the United States, which is a subcategory of Category:State legislatures of the United States — but Canada does not always have to do everything precisely the same way the US does. For one thing, the USian distinction between lower and upper houses of state legislatures simply doesn't work the same way up here, where provincial legislative councils simply don't exist anymore so all of our provincial assemblies are unicameral. Canada's seen a lot of really weird stuff of no encyclopedic value created on the assumption that if the US had wikicontent for a political concept ("majority-minority districts", etc.), then Canada automatically had to replicate the same thing even if there was no context for it. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. I support Bearcat's proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to categorize articles by jurisdiction and by topic. I don't work with categories much, but would something like this work:
  • Category:Canadian provincial legislatures
    • Category:Canadian provincial legislatures by jurisdiction
      • Category:Alberta Legislature
      • etc
    • Category:Canadian provincial legislatures by topic
      • Category:Canadian provincial assemblies
        • Category:Canadian provincial defunct upper houses
      • Category:Canadian provincial legislature members
      • Category:Canadian provincial ridings
      • etc
—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:08, 24 June 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:Births in Eure-et-Loir[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These appear to be the same as "People from...." Rathfelder (talk) 18:35, 22 June 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:United States regional and state political parties[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) 02:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match parent Category:Political parties in the United States. User:Namiba 16:11, 22 June 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 football chairmen and investors[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) 02:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have no idea what this category is meant to cover. Every club has a chairman. Some invest in their club with sponsorship or donations. Private ownership is no longer a thing. The-Pope (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure if I have a conceptual objection to the cat, but the only article is Geoffrey Edelsten who was associated with the Sydney Swans for less than a year. Curiously, that team article says he "bought" the team but puts quotes around "bought". (Not sure how to quote quotation marks: ""bought""?) Not quite sure what is going on there, but it doesn't seem defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:36, 23 June 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:Glee (TV series) songs[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 delete WP:G4. I will move Category:Lists of songs in Glee up into Category:Glee (TV series). – Fayenatic London 14:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: after closing, I found Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_4#Category:Glee_(TV_series)_music] which refers to some original songs on Glee. This close is no bar to creating a category for original songs, but it will be necessary to make that purpose clear in the category name, e.g. "Glee (TV series) original songs". – Fayenatic London 15:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Glee (TV series) songs to article List of Glee songs
Nominator's rationale: Far too many songs that have been sung on Glee (TV series) do not have that fact as a defining characteristic. Adding the category in those cases is a violation of WP:CATDEF. The category should be listified. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not defining for any of the songs mentioned and redundant with existing Lists of songs in Glee and the many season lists pointed to. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geraldo Perez. The lists already exist and a previous CfD took place many years ago. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Changing to delete per above reasons. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above reasons. Maybe the category could be salted if it's been remade multiple times? Just a thought. Sean Stephens (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because that category is utterly non-defining for the songs in that category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:38, 23 June 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:Reich Main Security Office[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) 02:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After a discussion on the talk page, the main article has been re-named to Reich Security Main Office. I am requesting that this category be re-named to match. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article name has been changed per consensus after discussion. The new name is a better verbatim translation from the German. Kierzek (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Per WP:C2D. CFD should defer to the consensus in the WP:RM for the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:25, 22 June 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:Reich Main Security Office personnel[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) 02:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After a discussion on the talk page, the main article has been re-named to Reich Security Main Office. I am requesting that this category be re-named to match. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article name has been changed per consensus after discussion. The new name for this category is a better verbatim translation from the German and will align with the name of the main article. Kierzek (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Per WP:C2D. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:25, 22 June 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:Madonna (entertainer)[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. ✗plicit 13:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per C2D; the category should reflect the name the corresponding page exists at. If consensus deemed Madonna to unequivocally be the primary topic, categorisation should ultimately reflect that for cohesion. Otherwise, that discussion should be reopened, because if ambiguity occurs in categorisation, it would undoubtedly occur in the naming of the relevant articles too. Some will raise the point that the categorisation is ambiguous, and to those I ask, which is more important: consistency and assisting readers/editors in navigation, or a hatnote which raises more questions than it answers? I think some sort of categorisation hatnote (if any such exists) would be appropriate to assist those who intend to find categories related to Mary, the mother of Jesus. The current solution provides absolutely no context as to why Mary is also known by that name, and will only cause greater confusion. Here's a link to the speedy rename request earlier today which was subsequently denied, resulting in this discussion (if there are any other relevant discussions, please link them below). I lack experience in doing bundled nominations, so I would greatly appreciate any assistance here if anyone wants to add appropriate subcategories. Please ping me where necessary, as I don't make a habit of checking my watchlist. Sean Stephens (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Having helpful article titles that follow WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and having categories that follow that main article is paramount, since Wikipedia is ultimately an encyclopedia for readers and categories are meant to aid their navigation. While I don't agree with the article name and would favor an WP:RM in this case, as long as it stands we should defer to the decisions made in the article space (even if vague names frustrate CFD editors like me in WP:HOTCAT). - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, ambiguity is the only reason I can think of to have category names deviate from article names. Ambiguity works differently in article space and category space; in category space there isn't something like a primary topic, and when assigning an article to a category you may not even visit the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to match the article Madonna. The near-universal consistency between categories and articles provides immense benefit to both readers and editors. This is especially the case where ambiguity exists. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm sure this has been at cfd before (or speedy). It is not paramount to follow the article name when ambiguity exists. Oculi (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: the many sub-cats include Category:Cultural depictions of Madonna (entertainer); would the short form be sufficiently well distinguished from the Madonna? – Fayenatic London 21:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt so as well. This fact alone could base a necessary Contra! --Just N. (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. The cost of ambiguity is outweighed by the benefit of having the article name and the category name conform. Just put a disambiguating hatnote on Category:Madonna, directing users to Category:Mary, mother of Jesus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is too ambiguous. There are other common uses of the term "madonna". We should actually probably rename the ambiguous article name. However ambiguous category names are worse, and so I think we can not justify it, even if we can justify the horribly ambigous article name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Categories and article names do not and should not be treated equally. The proposed name is ambiguous and there is no "primary topic" for categories, nor should there be. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are two approaches here: deferring to main article names even when that creates imperfect category names which is a consistent and easy approach or generating better category names by making individual exceptions that is less consistent and more time consuming. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, but would anyone really say that Category:London, England is a better category name for Category:London? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe? Personally I favor blindly deferring to main article names to keep this venue focused on categories and to encourage much needed WP:RMs. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree that there is more than enough work at CFD than to bother with disambiguating categories that are primary topics in article space. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Birmingham is a better example than London. Blindly following Birmingham would be silly (and one usually finds people in Category:People from Birmingham). Oculi (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Birmingham is indeed a better example because there are two major cities by that name so the current main article title is not a primary topic. That poor article naming persists in no small part because CFD is overriding that decision and using a better name in the category space. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; cfd is a wiser forum, and should support the retention of Madonna (entertainer), a brief passing fad, as opposed to the proper Madonna, the clear primary topic for the last 2100 years. Oculi (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we support the principle of consensus, it is a difficult to argue that CFD is a wiser forum than others. Other fora certainly get more participation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually really appreciate saying out loud the perspective that CFD is a wiser forum than RM; to me that is the central disagreement here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me that is not the central disagreement, the disagreement rather is following article space at all times vs allowing a few exceptions. I do not have an issue with the article title, because in article space you can easily navigate to other pages with the same name if you wish. So we are having two different discussions simultaneously. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as the admin who closed the move discussion last year, where some of the most vocal opposers here also oppose for the same reason. I invite people to read the long justification I wrote for the close, and if they still feel the category should have the old name, factor that into your arguments. Daniel Case (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per RevelationDirect and JPL. "We should actually probably rename the ambiguous article name. However ambiguous category names are worse, and so I think we can not justify it." --Just N. (talk) 12:08, 30 June 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:Sign-language films[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 1#Category:Sign-language films

Category:Bishonen test 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: Nomination withdrawn. It was certainly not my intention to touch such a nerve. I would benefit from moving on to other WP work; perhaps others would as well. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete I understood that the creation/use of categories simply to capture a single user's categorization scheme (in this case, that of User:Bishonen) was at least frowned upon. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question All four subcats are empty and shoud probably be tagged as well. @Bishonen: can you help us understand your intent here? - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @RevelationDirect: this was created by User:Tryptofish, not Bishonen, to fix what was seen to be a problem by User:Liz at User:Bishonen/Useful warnings. See User talk:Bishonen#Red link categories. For some reason, without even discussing it at Bish's talk page, UnitedStatesian decided they didn't like it and changed it.[1] Once reverted, UnitedStatesian appears to have decided to use this route to get their way. Without even notifying User:Bishonen other than by a ping, which is frowned up at other venues. It would also have been a good idea to make the context clear and to say who created the category. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, including subcats There's a lot of ugly history here, but the fact of the matter is that neither this category nor it's subcategories are, or were ever intended to be project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion, and thus should not be kept despite being empty. In fact, these were only created because they once contained pages, to prevent those pages from violating WP:REDNOT, and now they are empty.

    If the subcategories were not empty, I would suggest a merge to Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories, since, as the nominator points out, there is clear precedent against categories for individual users * Pppery * it has begun... 16:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I looked at this, supposedly indicating "a clear precedent". There were similar CfDs that I remember taking part in, that resulted in "keep", that are conveniently not listed there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Doug Weller says it very well, and a lot more civilly than I would. Honestly, some people – and I'm looking here at the nominator and at anyone arguing for deletion – should find better ways to spend their time. A category that is useful to one user? Oh, the horror! That said, there may be a reasonable solution, by Johnuniq, that actually does allow all the categories to be deleted, by making the mentions of them nocat=1 on the page where they were. I want to reconfirm whether Bishonen is entirely OK with that. If so, I'll be OK with deletion. In the mean time, I think those who are deletion-minded a priori should go and improve some articles. For our readers. Remember them? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm now OK with deleting the category and its subcategories, per this: [2]. But only because of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, trout the OP (or hell, block the OP per WP:HONEST and WP:CIVIL if they seem likely to pull this kind of crap again) and stop sneaking around with this crap. Liz demonstrated civility and professionalism by approaching Bish with a request to get rid of the red-linked cats. But this BS right here? It's straight up disruptive.
I'd also like to add that "only one user finds them useful" is an excuse that doesn't appear anywhere in our policies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 22 June 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:Private Secretaries to the Duke of York[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There may well be a titled position called "Private Secretary to the Duke of York", but if there is, there is no WP article about it. Lacking such an article to go by, I suggest we convert this into a descriptive category, de-capitalizing "secretaries" and using the WP name of the person, which is Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support iffthe articles contained are all about the current Duke (and not, say, about his grandfather George VI, who was also Duke of York before ascending to the throne). Grutness...wha? 14:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who ever needs this category and what for? Is it an influential public office? Or is it just an easing of the duty burden of a Royal? If so it's trivial. Anyone rich enough can afford a private secretary if needed. --Just N. (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how influential this position is, but it is mentioned in the first sentence of every article in the category, so it certainly seems to be defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 1 July 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.

Interviews by interviewee[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 all (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest dismantling this tree entirely. There are simply not enough articles about interviews to justify subcategorizing them by interviewee. Every nominated subcategory contains just one article, except for Category:Stanisław Lem interviews, which contains two. I suggest merging to the parents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All This is not a viable scheme, given how few interview articles there are even for very famous people. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All We dont want to encourage articles about individual interviews. Rathfelder (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All As RevelationDirect said: "This is not a viable scheme, given how few interview articles there are even for very famous people." Unnecessary categories! --Just N. (talk) 12:31, 30 June 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:Law clerks of Judge Learned Hand[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 22#Category:Law clerks of Judge Learned Hand

Category:Members of the Council of Fifty[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. ✗plicit 13:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a member of this Latter Day Saint council is not defining for most of those categorized in it. It existed from 1844 to 1884 (de facto) or 1945 (de jure), but as the article Council of Fifty states: "Although the Council played a significant role during the last few months of Joseph Smith's life, particularly in his campaign for President of the United States [i.e. in 1844], the Council's role was mostly symbolic throughout the 19th century within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This was largely because the Council was primarily meant for a time when secular governments had ceased to function. Regular meetings of the Council ended in 1884 after the church publicly abandoned its theocratic aspirations." Mention of membership is uneven across articles, but in most cases it is not mentioned in the lead. I would say listify, but it already exists, as does a membership template for articles. All of the articles (except for the non-Mormons on the Council) are appropriately categorized elsewhere under Category:Latter Day Saint leaders, so there's no need to merge anywhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't seem defining, there's already a list, and, while these people are definitely defined by their faith, they're already in other LDS categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlike the council of the 12 this was not a highly publicly known group in which membership was a defining characteristic of the people involved. As RevelationDirect points out basically all these people are in relevant Latter-day Saint categories. Evidently some of the members of the Council of 50 were not actually members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, maybe 3 of the original members. However I am not sure if we even have articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edward Bonney was a non-Mormon on the Council. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stop using bigoted and pejorative terms to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Use of such a term is considered highly offensive and you need to start respecting otherfs and stop deliberately using such offensive language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey JPL, what's that moral flame warring of yours about a correct descriptive English term like "non-Mormon". It's certainly not your good right in Wikipedia to force sth like the self-designation name even if you are a member of that denomination. Or do I err and the clear majority of Wikipedia has made it an obligatory rule to use the long and cumbersome self-designation name? If not so please do apologize to Good Olfactory. -- Just N. (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I didn't mean to trigger anyone. (I know quite a few LDS and they are not offended when when they are called Mormons. Most non-Mormons will not be offended being referred to as such. The view that it is bigoted to use such terms is surely a minority position.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:59, 30 June 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:Bishops of Kotor[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) 02:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per consistency with the rest of this category tree. Per designation of "Roman Catholic" as members of the Latin Church. Per parent category. Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - also per Roman Catholic Diocese of Kotor (Montenegro). I regard the denomination as part of the title, rather than a disambiguation. While Anglican or Lutheran bishops of Kotor are unlikely there could easily be an Eastern Catholic bishop or an Orthodox one (possibly historic). Oculi (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose . There's only a Catholic (Latin) bishop of Kotor. The Latin Catholics are the only Christian denomination holding this title. Plus, it's a historic title. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 24 June 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:Members of the Motion Picture Association[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT & WP:OVERLAPCAT)
The Motion Picture Association is an industry trade association for the major American film studios: Netflix, Paramount, Sony, Universal, Disney, & Warner Bros. Being an American film studio is absolutely defining which is why we already have Category:American film studios and these are all now global media companies that must belong to a number of different trade associations. The category contents are already listified right in the intro of the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 22 June 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:California Yacht Club sailors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 19:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT & WP:SMALLCAT)
The only article in this category is Hal Haenel, an Olympic sailing athlete that competed in 1988 and 1992 and won medals both times. The infobox for that article has a line that reads:
"Club: California Yacht Club"
That's a pretty thin basis for category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the category seems to be manually added, not generated by the infobox, so it will be straightforward to delete it if that is the consensus. – Fayenatic London 13:56, 23 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_22&oldid=1073193051"