Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2 June 4 >

June 3[edit]

Category:Teen superhero television shows[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) 00:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most if not all are television series, so this should be titled as such. Anything not can be moved to Category:Superhero television shows. Gonnym (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gonnym: as you mentioned in the discussion below "Then withdraw nominations." in plural, did you also mean to refer to this nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A typo. This was opened after and is still relevant. The content of this category should be a sub-category of Category:Superhero television series, but can't because it uses the naming style of the parent. Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:54, 10 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:Natural cultivars[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) 04:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per a discussion at WP:PLANTS, this category makes no sense. Abductive (reasoning) 18:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the creator seems to be no longer active on Wikipedia, so his intent can't be interrogated. At best the category is misnamed, but in the absence of knowledge of intent it's not possible to rename the category and clean up membership. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:52, 4 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:Superhero television series[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There really is no real distinction between the categories here and even if there was, as evident by the pages in the categories, no one either knows what it is, or cares about it. Gonnym (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wasn't "televison shows" supposed to replace "television programs"? Wasn't that a discussion had about a year ago? So Television shows should be a parent category to TV specials and movies as well.★Trekker (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any that fit that criteria? Currently everything is thrown in the parent category. Gonnym (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Justice League of America, Legends of the Superheroes, Wonder Woman, DC Super Hero Girls: Super Hero High, Ultraman vs. Kamen Rider, Generation X, Dr. Strange, Ben 10 Versus the Universe: The Movie, Ben 10: Destroy All Aliens, The Trial of the Incredible Hulk, The Incredible Hulk Returns and Firebreather do.★Trekker (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Then withdraw nomination. It just needs a massive cleanup. Gonnym (talk) 20:52, 3 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:LGBT gangsters[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) 04:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:EGRS / WP:CATLGBT. User:Namiba 15:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have a longstanding consensus that we do not want a "people who happen to be both X and Y" category for every possible combination of traits that happens to describe two or more people — to justify a category for this, it would have to be possible to demonstrate that the intersection of LGBTness with gangsterism is a WP:DEFINING characteristic — namely, it would have to be possible to write an actual article about what would make "LGBT gangster" a thing. Absent that, it's WP:OCTRIVIA. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And no, I don't consent with these peculiar musings of Bearcat ("LGBT gangster" a thing). Instead I refer to the good old tried and tested Ockham's Razor: Wp readers/users are certainly curious if there have been historical gangsters that were known as LGBT. IMHO it's definitely not our job to blame curiosity. Please be aware that categories are not necessarily about causality! ---Just N. (talk) 14:10, 10 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:Sexual misconduct allegations involving Buddhist leaders[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) 04:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Attempt to bypass the recent decision to delete a similar category [1]. Decision was that only convicted persons should be so categorized and this applies to none of the categorized persons. Skyerise (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has at least two categories, Category:Sexual misconduct allegations and Category:Sex scandals, that include public figures who faced controversy over published allegations of sexual misconduct. This category simply sorts out those sex scandals and allegations of sexual misconduct that involved Buddhist leaders. In every instance, the allegations of sexual misconduct were published by media outlets, and they feature prominently in the person's Wikipedia entry. Why include the published allegations in the entry but not include them as a category? Finally, it doesn't make sense to limit the category to people who have been convicted, for a few reasons: (1) there is no such limit on the other two Wikipedia categories I mention above; (2) there is no such limit in the individual Buddhist leaders' Wikipedia entries; (3) in many cases, like Sogyal Rinpoche and Sakyong Mipham, at least some of the allegations were substantiated through internal investigations by the leaders' own organizations; and (4) not all sex scandals or allegations of sexual misconduct involve criminal offenses — it's not a crime, for example, for a Buddhist monastic to have sexual affairs with female students, but that type of behavior has caused many public scandals within Buddhist communities. I understand wanting to keep the category clear of allegations that have not been published by a reputable media outlet, that have not been a source of public controversy or that are not a part of the leader's main Wikipedia entry, but none of that is the case — at least, not so far — with this category. Joshua Eaton (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is when you quote yourself at length when that is not necessary to convey the facts. It is "not COI" only if it is "not excessive" and does "not place undue emphasis on yourself." Surely there was a second source you could have cited and the length of the addition was excessive for its purpose. Still is, even after the removal of the long blockquote.
One might also wonder whether the recreation of a category that had been definitively deleted with clear reasons had something to do with the fact that your work was quoted at length (by yourself) in one of the articles in that category. Skyerise (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, the block quote in Surya Das was from his press release responding to the allegations. I quoted it in the interest of fairness — I was trying to avoid bias.
Second, as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Reporting to the conflict of interest noticeboard says, "During the COIN discussion, avoid making disparaging remarks about the user in question, their motives or the subject of the article(s)" (emphasis added). This obviously isn't Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but I think it would be best if we followed the same guidelines here.
Finally, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, and I'm happy to be wrong about how things work here. So I will gladly withdraw my objections to deleting this category. I am also going to stop contributing to Wikipedia. I'm not interested in discussions where people immediately assume the worst of my motives, and I don't want to risk even the appearance of skirting good professional ethics. Joshua Eaton (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why the policy exists, not only to protect Wikipedia, but to protect you. Using the loopholes can be problematic for the editor so doing. Skyerise (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all fairness, User:Joshua Eaton's earlier keep vote has been stricken just now not by themselves but by User:Skyerise. While the striking is line with Joshua Eaton's latest comment it is not very appropriate to edit someone else's contribution to a discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Skyerise (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations has a similar name but consists mostly non-biography articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP This contains a list of mostly living people mostly not convicted of a crime. Better handled in the article space. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We cannot have categories asserting criminal (or even just immoral) behaviour for BLP articles, unless they were convicted (or, possibly, died while under investigation). If there are parents that offend against this (BLP) principle they must also be nominated. Articles on the subject more generally (without names, or only those of convicted people) could be allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reason: slippery slope. OTOH I can imagine nevertheless that it might be unrealistic to expect high moral standards and well-working judiciary (-> reliable convictions) in traditional societies of buddhist majority countries, Categories with mere accusaations can't be a solution. --Just N. (talk) 14:22, 10 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:Books with cover art by Michael Koelsch[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. As of this close, Category:Michael Koelsch, Category:Book covers by Michael Koelsch, and Category:Film posters by Michael Koelsch still exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable category - article on Michael Koelsch was recently deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Koelsch) and this category exists simply to promote this non-notable illustrator. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Belly button fluff or even advertising ashtray for Mr. Koelsch. --Just N. (talk) 14:26, 10 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:Record labels owned by women[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) 00:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS. This past discussion is another example where the relationship between the female gender and a business activity was not deemed DEFINING. Place Clichy (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep A lot of people/users do see it as defining and are certainly interested to get the info by easy navigation via category. Independent labels (BTW a favorite topic for me personally) are based on a personal athmosphere cooperation as well as the business aspect. I'd even suppose someone could base an empiric academic study or even a popular book on the topic if seeing enough categoried examples to be worthwhile. --Just N. (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification: WP:DEFINING is not about whether people see it as defining but whether it is defining in sources. It is a small difference, but needed to avoid subjectivity. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, it's based on objectivity: is the owner of the independent label female or male. No way any breach for subjectivity. I'm astonished that an experienced guy talks such illogical groundless suspicions. If something is defining in reality for generating business it is DEFINING! Your error in reasoning is that you search for causality. Nonsensically! Please be aware that DEFINING is not about causality! At least in all social, cultural and economic matters the type of actor/protagonist/entrepeneur and male/female is important and DEFINING! Objectively! --Just N. (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was talking about objectivity as being covered by sources. If sources objectively discuss record label ownership by gender then it is objectively defining. So far I haven't seen any evidence about that, so this looks like a WP:OR intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear violation of ERGS rules. Especially since record labels change ownership from time to time, and some have a large number of owners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously you are not seeing the field we are really talking about. It's definitely not about the big players, i.e. the group corporations' imprints which indeed have a (large) number of (stock) owners. It's about independent labels only which are owned by single personalities we're talking about. It's not a huge number but nevertheless it's essential which of them are founded/led by women. The musicians as their customers see it so; otherwise they could't exist. To find and navigate those we need to keep this category. If an entrepreneur retires/dies and the label gets sold (mostly to become another imprint) it stops to belong to Category:Record labels owned by women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that's clear as day. --Just N. (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JPL. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's relevant and useful for musical artists. Skyerise (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS, dedicated group-subject subcategories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 12 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:Western writers about Russia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename, with the second one going to Category:Writers about the Soviet Union. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME and the spirit of WP:C2C
The entire Category:Writers by geographical subject area category tree has a bit of ambiguity about whether it it includes outsiders writing about an area or locals clearly setting their works in their own area. Only these two subcats add "Western" which adds it's own ambiguity: I don't think it means "Western Europe" since there are many American authors and I don't think it means "Western Civilization" since that would include Russian authors. There might be an alternative rename here based on List of foreign observers of Russia but this nomination favors the most common format in this tree which will expand the scope. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It is likely that only non-Russians are known as writers about Russia, because for Russian writers writing about Russia is the default. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You can't rely on logical chin-ips lile Marco's "likely that only non-Russians are". So a renaming would't do/fulfil the job. Better stay with the explicit and therefor reliable notation of the category. --Just N. (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We currently have Soviet Russia (disambiguation), which suggests that using "Soviet Russia" to refer to the Soviet Union is wrong. I'm not sure about that, it just seems like an imprecise, but not necessarily "wrong", way of referring to the USSR. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • General support "Soviet Russia" is an undesirable category, we should talk of USSR or Soviet Union. The fact that this is for foreign writers can be covered in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as nominator) No objection to the alternate rename of the subcategory to Category:Writers about the Soviet Union, as discussed above. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writers about the Soviet Union is the correct name for the second category, and it should be promoted out of the first, since it temporarily contained Russia and fourteen other countries. “Soviet Russia” as a state existed only 1917–22, and as a polity is less ambiguously known as the “Russian SFSR” or “Russian Soviet Republic.” But the first category includes all of these. —Michael Z. 13:56, 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.

Category:People associated with the Boy Scouts of America[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; subcategories moved to Category:Boy Scouts of America. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's rationale having gone through about half this category way too many of these people have a low level link. An inordinately high number are Louisiana (yes, specifically Lousiana) politicians who served on the board of a local boyu scout council, as well as maybe 3 to 5 other local community boards, this being the only such service they are categorized by. Others have almost as ephermeal links, and we are not going to get into a few I removed like David Archuleta, whose article mention no connection with scouting at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Bduke (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I added a couple articles in this category who helped found the BSA to Category:Scouting pioneers. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Dual Upmerge Subcats The official biographies of politicians often cynically list many organizations with which they have a passing association to try and gain votes (examples: 1, 2, 3). Still others in this category appear to have been sincere volunteers whose involvement in their children's activities was likely important to them but this doesn't seem any more defining than being a Little League official for an encyclopedia. (The 3 subcats should remain well categorized though.)- RevelationDirect (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the Louisiana problem, but there are individuals who would fall thru the cracks if this cat was merged with scoutmasters or BSA officers. An example is sculptor Robert Tait McKenzie who modeled The Ideal Scout. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Tait McKenzie also did sculptures for the Red Cross, Vicksburg Military Park, and the University of Pennsylvania. Categorizing him by every commission would be WP:PERFCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point. If McKenzie's only connection to scouting was doing a sculture for the scouts he clearly does not belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 8 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 about nightingales[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) 04:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One entry, unlikely to be expanded, and the song really isn't about nightingales, it's a love song, "I may be right, I may be wrong/But I'm perfectly willing to swear/That when you turn'd and smiled at me/A Nightingale Sang In Berkley Square Richhoncho (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because "nightingale" is used as a word in the song it does not mean the song describes these birds at all. In this case it does not, the reference is poetic, not literal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because a song has a word in its lyrics or title does not automatically mean the song is about that for the purposes of a "Songs about X" category. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Song lyrics are rarely ever about birds as a biological species. They are mostly about the idea of nightingales, a metaphor for immersion into exceptional musical artistry or falling into love. It's ivory tower or even quixotic to search for biological birds in this context. A love song fits perfectly for the metaphor! --Just N. (talk) 15:57, 10 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:Bisexual rappers[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) 04:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding consensus, we do not want every "LGBT" category to be comprehensively chopped up into separate "lesbian", "gay", "bisexual" and "transgender" subcategories -- this is permitted only when a single common "LGBT" category has become extremely large and needs the subcategories for size control purposes, and not as an automatic feature of every LGBT category that exists. But the parent category isn't large enough to need diffusion, and upmerging the contents of these three categories won't make it all that much larger as most of the articles were left in the parent category alongside these, so subcategorizing it isn't necessary. Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 3 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:Album awards[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Indiscriminate and effectively unmaintainable category for a characteristic that isn't a particularly useful point of categorization. As constituted, this sweeps across every category presented by 11 different awards programs that is presented for albums in any genre, all the way through pop, R&B, hip hop, jazz, world music, new age, indigenous music, country, gospel, classical, norteno, salsa, merengue, bluegrass, musical theatre and polka -- but that's not a useful grouping, because nobody needs a category that places the Billboard Latin Music Award for Reggaeton Album of the Year directly alongside the Juno Award for Children's Album of the Year and the Grammy Award for Best Classical Crossover Album just because they're presented for whole albums rather than individual songs. Categories by genre would be useful; this is not. Bearcat (talk) 02:32, 3 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.

Brooklyn Bulldogs football[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, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Brooklyn College's fight name was "Kingsmen" when the football team was disbanded after the 1990 season. "Bulldogs" was not adopted until 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jweiss11 (talk • contribs)
  • Rename per nom for historical truth's sake. --Just N. (talk) 16:09, 10 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:Jain phrases[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 after ensuring all member pages are in other Jain categories. – Fayenatic London 18:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest merging these two categories into a new Category:Jain terminology, which will match the standard format of subcategories within Category:Religious terminology. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none of the articles is about terminology as a linguistic topic article. Merging is not needed either because all articles are already somewhere else in the Jain tree, e.g. in Category:Jain philosophical concepts. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marcocapelle. Convincing argumentation! --Just N. (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). I am fine with deletion. But if deleted, some of the contents need to be fed back into the Category:Jainism tree somewhere, since for some this is the only Jainism category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 16 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_3&oldid=1079915336"