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: Category with just one entry and one subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:32, 11 May 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: In theory redundant to Category:Wikipedians who use VoA script, in practice the sole content is an indefinitely blocked vandalism-only account (hence I'm proposing a deletion rather than a merge). * Pppery *it has begun... 15:45, 11 May 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.
Several solutions are possible including purge or mere deletion. Merging with parent Category:Mass media theorists may be my preference at first glance, with the exception of Category:Voting theorists which is less related to mass media than the other child categories. Place Clichy (talk) 13:30, 11 May 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.
Comment, the term Pino Jazz does not prominently occur in the articles of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 12 May 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:manually merge, this is a hodgepodge and not surprisingly we do not have a similar category for other religions. Many articles in the category are about monarchs (who should not be included in the merge), some are about people involved in a war between a Hindu state and a Muslim state (but in very different wars), while for others it is entirely unclear why they are in a religious (Hindu) category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If you're willing to take this one, I'll support a manual merge. (I would have just nominated it as a straight delete.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The intersection of religion and being a warrior is not defining. Beyond this, applying "Hindu" as a religious descriptor in the pre-modern era is more complex and problematic in some cases than categorization like this suggests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:31, 2 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 United Confederate Veterans[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.
I certainly can't claim WP:SMALLCAT here because, at its peak, the United Confederate Veterans had 1,555 different "camps" (aka lodges/chapters). The organization represented ex-solders who had fought for the Confederacy during the American Civil War so all of these biographies should already be somewhere under Category:Confederate States of America military personnel. Simply joining a membership organization is not defining and would create category clutter.
Background We recently deleted another membership category for another veteran group right here. - RevelationDirect (talk)
Delete per nom. Just membership of an organization is hardly ever defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 11 May 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.
That's a fair point: it wouldn't be a total overlap. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not have objections against the category as such but the two articles currently in the category do not belong. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: It's now populated with over 20 articles about explorers of the Atlantic. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, these all suffer from the same problem, they are all explorers of the Atlantic coasts (mostly the Americas) rather than of the ocean itself. If any, geologists and biologists (studying Atlantic sea life) might fit. But not sure about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- now adequately populated, though I am not sure why Sebastian Cabot is not included. The category might be better for a headnote defining its scope more precisely to the Age of Exploration. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that sufficient? And doesn't this also illustrate that he explored the Americas rather than the Atlantic? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Atlantic Ocean is so vast that exploration of the Atlantic Ocean can refer to too many totally unrelated things to make a defining topic. What is there in common between Pytheas, Hanno the Navigator (other potentially legitimate candidates) and later explorers of the Caribbean, Southern Atlantic or the Northwest passage, besides simply being navigators and explorers? I doubt that there would be publications dedicated to the exploration of the Atlantic, all of it, and not the rest of the world. Explorers are better defined by more precise (i.e. smaller) geographies and/or by their origin. Place Clichy (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was not really a distinct group of explorers. I have to admit that I think in the long run we need to trim exploere categories. The fact that Sebastian Cabot is in 5 such categories is clearly excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 2 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.
