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: Per longstanding consensus of WP:LGBT, we keep LGBT occupational categories at the common LGBT level first, and quadrantize them into separate "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual" or "transgender" subcategories only when the category has become overpopulated enough to need that for size management purposes. But since the tree here is already diffused by nationality, with the result that there are just eight articles still in the undifferentiated parent category, there's simply no pressing need to segregate the gay men from the lesbians in this context. Upmerging not needed, as every single article in either of these categories is already in the appropriate national subcategory. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is there some disciplinary procedure for editors who use horrible neologisms like "quadrantize"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You got a better way to say "comprehensively split up into four subcategory trees" while at least attempting to maintain a semblance of brevity? Bearcat (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"we keep LGBT occupational categories at the common LGBT level first, and assign them to one of four categories - "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual" or "transgender" - when the category has become overpopulated". Brevity is overrated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear violation of ERGS rules. Not every overlap of occupation and sexuality is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:53, 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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a highly problematic and subjective category that furthers no encyclopaedic goals. Instead, the selection of many of the 20 films in the category reveals a partisan viewpoint that aligns closely with propaganda outlets of the current Iranian regime.
For starters, any category named "Country-phobia in film" should not be created, because it is very difficult to adhere to encyclopaedic standards when populating and maintaining such a category. Controversy and criticism aimed at a specific film ought to be addressed in the article itself, where there is space for context and contrarian viewpoints. Instead, this type of category simply slaps a derogatory label like "Iranophobic" on a film without addressing who called it that, or whether there is reasonable consensus that this label indeed applies.
I have seen five of these films, and read about most of the others. While a reasonable case might be made to call out some of the POV in Not Without My Daughter (and even that is preferable in the article itself), the choice of films like The Apple (1998), Ten (2002) or Women Without Men (2009) is revealing. These are highly regarded art films where no controversy section appears in the article. What they have in common, is that the current Iranian regime doesn't like them and tries to censor them. The same goes for documentaries like The Green Wave, or the docufiction Rhino Season. And of course the film Religulous is "phobic" towards all religions, not specifically Iranians.
The creator of the category, User:Pwolit iets, became inactive shortly after creating it in October 2016. While he/she might have had good intentions, I doubt the same can be said about the IP 46.62.133.176, whose contributions from 23 December 2018 account for most of the films populating this category (always falsely tagged "External links"). This IP was blocked four days later, but many of his category insertions are still active. In 2019, the film 6 Days was added to the category in exactly the same way by another IP. Because such potentially partisan POV easily flies under the radar, the category should be deleted completely. Sprachraum (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete much like the "featuring" and "films about" categories both being WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and fail WP:RS and WP:V, but with the addition of "Iranophobia" itself a subjective characteristic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:54, 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.
Nominator's rationale: It is not a defining trait if a writer is born in one country and moves to another. Lettlerhello • contribs 21:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being born in a particular country, especially one as ideologically and linguistically over-determined as the USSR was, and then emigrating to that country’s primary ideological enemy and making an impact there as a writer in a non-native language — this is surely one of the most defining traits possible for a writer (an intrinsically ideological profession). Furthermore, many critics have noted the prevalence of this particular generation (“the last Soviet generation”) in contemporary American literature. The purpose of this category is to highlight this unique historical and cultural phenomenon.Marina Kolody (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason, merging this category with the extremely generic Category:Soviet emigrants to the United States would totally fail to capture the importance of writers as cultural workers and representatives. A writer born in a communist country with a non-English native language who then becomes a cultural working in a capitalist country writing in a new language is totally different from a doctor or plumber or hockey player making the same emigration. Marina Kolody (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first article immediately demonstrates why it may not be that relevant at all: Boris Fishman emigrated as a child with his family. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having emigrated as a child does not even come close to making the category irrelevant. Boris Fishman majored in Russian literature and wrote his first novel about a Soviet Jewish immigrant family, as well as plenty of non-fiction about the Soviet emigrant experience. All of which is the clearest possible evidence that his place of birth is hugely important to his identity and work as a writer. Glen Worthey (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your earlier point was that they are writing in a new language which does not apply here, because English is his first language as a writer. With respect to your new point, if the Soviet Union emigrant experience is the topic of this books then he should be categorized accordingly in writers by topic. That is irrespective of his own emigration however. There may also be Soviet emigrant writers who write about completely different topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge to Category:Soviet emigrants to the United States, but make sure that any who emigrated after the fall of the Soviet Union are categorized by whatever country they emigrated from. Also watch out for double migrations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Emigrating after the fall of the Soviet Union does not change the most salient factor that this category is trying to capture: having been born and lived in the highly specific Soviet cultural context. Someone born in the 1970s or 1980s would have lived through, and been formed by, a substantial portion of the Cold War, the Brezhnev era, Perestroika, etc., even if when she finally emigrated (in, say, 1995) it happened from one of what are still called Post-Soviet states. The whole point is that Soviet cultural and political realities were hugely formative for an entire well-defined category of writer. Glen Worthey (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The affirmation of Non-defining is subjective and not convincing especially for writers, as Marina Kolody and Glen Worthey pointed out. --Just N. (talk) 13:01, 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:Leonard Bloomfield Book Award authors[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.
Nominator's rationale: Non defining. Award doesn't have independent article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per strong consensus. Hyacinth (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly WP:OCAWARD. Would also favor deleting the parent and sister cats. - RevelationDirect (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Such a category design might be a PR smart move? --Just N. (talk) 13:04, 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.
Nominator's rationale:delete, there is no article Chan family and the articles link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Family articles are not required for family categories. In any event, three more articles have been added to the category. Edwardx (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, since Chan is a very common surname, a main article about this specific family should be the prerequisite for creating such a category. --Sprachraum (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:06, 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.
Nominator's rationale: The category "Legendary Christian saints" violates the category-naming convention that says "As with lists, avoid descriptive adjectives such as famous, important, or notable in category titles." Beyond that, one of the primary meanings of "legendary" is "popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable". Knowing that a particular person regarded by Catholics as a saint is popularly regarded as a real person but this isn't really historically verifiable would put a big onus on anyone adding this category to a given page. And 70 articles have been put into this category, for people for whom I am not aware of any doubt of their historical reality and accomplishments. Novellasyes (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I guess that these articles have been collected on the basis that legends exist about these saints, but that is too common for saints and not useful to categorize on. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of these articles specify that nothing reliable is known on the historicity of these persons, and that the legends about them date to many centuries after their supposed eras. That you are not aware about them does not contradict the main texts of the article. See for example Saint Barbara: "There is no reference to her in the authentic early Christian writings nor in the original recension of Saint Jerome's martyrology. Despite the legends detailing her story, the earliest references to her supposed 3rd century life do not appear until the 7th century" ... "Because of doubts about the historicity of her legend, (Medieval historian Norman F. Cantor referred to Barbara in passing as "entirely mythical', in In the Wake of the Plague: The Black Death and the World It Made 2002:84.) she was removed from the General Roman Calendar in the 1969 revision". Dimadick (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara was one of very few who was removed from the General Roman Calendar for that reason. Most articles do not provide explicit doubts whether that saint has existed or not, it sounds like a case of WP:SYNTH. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* dimadick: My main objection to the category is that it violates the category-naming convention that says ""As with lists, avoid descriptive adjectives such as famous, important, or notable in category titles." You address my other objection which is secondary to that. That's the objection that having this category would put a big onus on anyone adding the category to make sure that it is true, and that the article substantiates, that the person in fact is "legendary". You mention that most of the articles that have been placed in this category specify that nothing reliable is known about the person. If you had said all of them, I'd be more comfortable. If this category persists -- and I hope it doesn't because it violates one of the primary category-naming conventions -- I hope that great care would go into establishing just exactly what needs to be known and said in reliable sources before slapping this category on an article. Novellasyes (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somehow or merge somewhere: perhaps to Category:Christian saints-- It is far from clear from the headnote what the criteria are for declaring "legendary". Is this Category:Saints removed from General Roman Calendar in 1969? Or Category:Saints whose existence is only recorded much later? Or Category:Saints whose existence is doubted? Founders of early monasteries such as Cadoc are likely only to be recorded in the traditions of their community. There were a lot of martyrs in the early church, whose very existence may be poorly recorded. However, having born witness to their faith by faithfulness until execution, they are surely whatever a modern Roman Curia may question it. A significant period between death and a surviving source does not rule out accurate oral transmission of the story or lost written sources. The whole category has the feel of Original research. If there are multiple criteria being used, it would be better for the separate reasons for doubt being precisely expressed in the headnotes to multiple categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we place many articles in categories where there is little by way of evidence of the existence of the subject outside of the scriptures in which they appear and stories derived therefrom. The Catholic Encyclopedia often refers to these particular saints as "pious legend" or such, not taking a position on the historical existence or not of the saint. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After poking around some more, there are many subcategories in the Category:Saints tree that are purely subjective or unverifiable such as Category:Wonderworkers, and others; and what is the distinction between the cat above and Category:Fictional Christian saints? Is it our not knowing whether the venerated figure ever lived vs. knowing for sure that he/she didn't? Again, WP:RSes will be difficult to ascertain. As with many things in the realm of faith, opinions can differ and reliability of sources are subject to dispute. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:08, 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.
Delete per nom. We don't make this distinction for any career category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not categorize by the intersection of being alive and occupation. Down this road lies madness. Even as Category:Living people approaches 1 million entries, splitting it is just not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall that "living people" was a Wikimedia imposition to track or control WP:BLP matters, and specifically wasn't to be split because that would defeat its purpose. I tried to find a citation to confirm (or not) my recollection, but couldn't. So take my memory with a grain of salt. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia currently has a list of jazz pianists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_pianists This list contains a majority of deceased pianists. So a new category for living jazz pianists is a useful addition to wikipedia.
So why is it being disputed that there should not be a category for living jazz pianists, when this is a useful distinction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphscheider42 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless intersection, causes problems with the editnotice for BLPs. If there is an entry that isn't included in Category:Living people, they should be added there instead. On the flipside, we've deleted similar categories for dead people, such as Category:Deceased basketball players, for similar reasons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:03, 13 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/delete, we do not categorize people by the region or province where their ancestors have been living, like in this case the province Jiangsu, per WP:COPHERITAGE. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / merge per nominator. These sub-national categories are not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to some other category. It's just small. However note that WP:COPHERITAGE does not actually contain the guideline that Marcocapelle claims it does. --Prisencolin (talk) 23:11, 15 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 Xanthi (56,000 people). This is the last nomination in a series that started with this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all for now The hollow layer and small cat do not aid navigation. No objection to recreating any town that get up to 5+ articles though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all for now. --Just N. (talk) 13:10, 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.
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 Elefsina (25,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all for now These hollow layers and small cats do not aid navigation. No objection to recreating any towns that get up to 5+ articles though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all for now. --Just N. (talk) 13:11, 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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 11:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT; only 2 articles other than main Periodinane. I don't see another article about a λ5-iodane anywhere, discounting inorganic iodine(V) compounds like IF5. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to keep, as Category:Periodinanes is a useful place to find λ5-iodanes that would otherwise be impossible to quickly distinguish from the λ3-iodanes in Category:Iodanes (it is not obvious from the article names). The category may grow in future if new articles are created. WP:SMALLCAT covers this situation: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme...". Ben (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was sure this was another Greek city nomination when I clicked on the categories. I'll defer on this one. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben. --Just N. (talk) 13:13, 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.
Nominator's rationale: I think this is a made-up genre of movies. It doesn't appear with other forms of horror movies at Horror film#Subgenres. LizRead!Talk! 03:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. No cycle of films represent this and their maybe hybrids of this genre out there, but it's so far and inbetween there is no serious study of it and it is certainly not referred to commonly and has no real use to any readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:15, 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.
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing parties by position of left-right axis is a very bad idea, since 'left' and 'right' are very fluid labels. 'left-wing populism' seems to be a particularly diffuse criteria for categorizations. What is really the factor that bonds the Communist Party of Ukraine, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Mizo National Front (!), Ploughmen's Front together?? Soman (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Left-wing populism is a mess, is poorly sourced, and particularly in assigning parties to labels. You could probably find a reliable source calling each of these parties as something other than Left-wing populist and most of the sources used for assignment have biases that the article ignores. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:25, 8 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 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:Recipients of the José Reis Award of Scientific Divulgation[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.
Nominator's rationale: As is apparently the norm when it comes to children's shows, this is yet another category that is unnecessary and only serves to add to already over-categorized articles. ...discospinstertalk 00:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 17:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:17, 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.
