< April 14 April 16 >

April 15

Category:Tunisian expatriate basketball people in the United States

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) 01:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge to Category:Expatriate basketball people in the United States. This is a WP:SMALLCAT with only 1 article that is unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 20:01, 15 April 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:Warsaw Pact people

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) 07:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: State the employing organisation. This was suggested on the Speedy page by User:Good Olfactory when nominating a similar category. – Fayenatic London 18:33, 15 April 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:East Asian philosophy

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 censensus to merge - jc37 02:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, this category draws arbitrary borders, within Eastern philosophy there is not a sharper distinction between East Asian philosophy and Indian philosophy than there is between e.g. Chinese philosophy and Japanese philosophy. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastern philosophy and Western philosophy are very distinct concepts and neither are related to the Islamic religion. Western philosophy does include the spread of ancient Greek philosophy in the Middle East in the Hellenistic era. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 19 April 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:Palestinian refugees

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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All contents are bios.Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is now a Category:1948 Palestinian exodus, making the category that I originally created redundant. There is also Category:Nakba, seemingly similar to Category:History of the Palestinian refugees. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see now (maybe). Well, we might need to repeat that exercise because if we have Category:Nakba and we have Category:Palestinian refugees(with History of... being added there as a subcat per above suggestion) then there is no longer any need for Category:1948 Palestinian exodus because any article that might go in there would go better in one of the others. eg the article 1948 Palestinian exodus is about refugees and also part of the Nakba. So should it be Nakba with all the others as subcats? (To take the UNWRA example I mentioned above, I would put that in both of refugees and history of.. but I would not put it in Nakba because it is a consequence of Nakba rather than about it).Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Nakba category currently covers all events, documents, places and other topics related to "the destruction of Palestinian society and homeland in 1948". On the other hand, the 1948 exodus category concerns only the movement of people arising from these events. "History of Palestinian refugees" concerns refugees from all time periods. So it's appropriate, for example, that the 1948 exodus category be a subcategory both of "Nakba" and of "History of refugees" (the inclusion in the former is the result of the discussion of April 4 in which you participated. But if there were consesnsus to take Nakba in its broader sense, referring to "the ongoing persecution, displacement, and occupation of the Palestinians", then perhaps Nakba could be expanded to be a parent category for all of them. Ibadibam (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think I will just leave things as they are for now. Thank you for trying to explain things.Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 16 April 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.

Filipino composer subcategories

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also proposing the same merge target for:
  • Category:Filipino experimental music composers
  • Category:Filipino kundiman composers
  • Category:Filipino nationalist composers
  • Category:Filipino theme music composers
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT and lack of scheme for these subcategories (e.g., there is no Category:Experimental music composers or Category:Theme music composers. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, it's up to you. Delete it, merge it, I'll go with the flow. I thought I helped by further classifying these Filipino composers, but I suppose to someone who isn't Filipino it isn't relevant. There are many more articles I intend to write for wiki, such as one for Lirio Salvador (deceased), a Filipino bassist and sculptor, who would categorize in experimental music. His band, Elemento, had something really unique ... none of their instruments were traditional. Lirio's "bass" for example, was a metal sculptor made of bicycle parts.
But I digress as I let my passion get away from me. In the category of Filipino church music composers, which could also be Filipino chorale music composers, there are actually quite a few, one of whom is Maestro Ryan Cayabyab, a National Artist, although I still have to check if any of them already have articles on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I suppose I, or someone else, will do so. Thank you for your time, and I do appreciate the heads up. Slvrdlphn (talk) 10:53, 16 April 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:Filipino rock composers

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) 02:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. These articles in this category describe the individuals as songwriters more than composers and is more appropriate to the scheme under Category:Rock songwriters, which only has a subcat for American rock songwriters due to the large number of articles there. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not completely agree because not everyone who I intended to categorize as Filipino rock composers are songwriters also but I understand what you are trying to say. I feel there should be a distinction between lyricists (songwriters) and composers (those who write/compose the music). Slvrdlphn (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Slvrdlphn. Composer is not the same as songwriter. --Just N. (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then upmerge to Category:Filipino composers. There is no category for Category:Rock composers. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Slvrdlphn: That is incorrect. A songwriter is one who writes both the lyrics and the music to songs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:42, 1 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.

Category:Fictional characters who detransitioned

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) 01:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection. Slvrdlphn (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems like a pointless category. Only three characters in it, of which one (Holly) is a stretch to call detransitioned. No updates in 20 months DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in roller coasters

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. The category has remained empty, so I am C1 deleting it as an empty category, but this is without prejudice to creation and re-population. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created user category populated by User:UBX/coaster, which says This user's favorite roller coaster is (coaster name), which this user has ridden (number) times. Having a favorite roller coaster does not imply being interested in editing articles related to roller coasters, which is what the term "interested in" in user categories means per Wikipedia:User categories#by interest * Pppery * it has begun... 14:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a legitimate user interest category with 119 members. This category creates a community of users interested in the topic. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 15:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does a listing of users who claim to have a favorite roller coaster form a meaningful community of interest? * Pppery * it has begun... 16:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This category is supported by the Roller Coast Task Force of WikiProject Amusement Parks. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 17:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please give the members of the Roller Coast Task Force of WikiProject Amusement Parks time to repopulate this category. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The roller coaster task force of WikiProject Amusement Parks appears to be inactive. The last post on its talk page was in 2019, not including the post from Buaidh advertising the new category. I see no consensus anywhere that the category is desirable. In other words, the contributors to the project do not appear to support, or indeed have any opinion whatsoever on, this category. Furthermore, all of the people in the category were there solely because a template they added, not intending to indicate anything more than a personal interest in one specific roller coaster, was changed without warning to them. Given these facts, I see no reason to believe that this category reflects a community of interest on this project. Tamwin (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in English grammar

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) 02:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category originally contained only Category:Wikipedians interested in number words, which was deleted per an earlier CfD, and thus became empty when that category was deleted. The creator responded to the C1 notification on their talk page by populating it with over 50 userboxes, including all of the userboxes that previously populated that category. While I didn't check every single one, none of the ones I looked at express an interest in editing articles related to the subject, which is what the term "interested in" in user categories means per Wikipedia:User categories#by interest * Pppery * it has begun... 14:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are currently 7,112 users who have expressed an interest in this category. This is an important user community. I hope that all users who edit the English language Wikipedia have a substantial understanding of, and interest in, English grammar. If not, they can get help in this community. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 15:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the userboxes that populate category are Template:User serial comma:Yes and Template:User serial comma:No. I completely fail to see how expressing a preference on the use of a serial comma makes one part of a meaningful community of interest, or why that would make someone more suited than average to help others with their English skills. (And I, for what it's worth, am a native speaker of English and do understand grammar) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that a userbox does not support this category, please remove the category link from that userbox template. Do not delete this category. (I am also a native speaker of the English language and I have a great interest English grammar as do thousands of Wikipedians.) Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 17:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
big list
* Pppery * it has begun... 22:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Then it's entirely obvious that the category should be deleted as a sort of WP:OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how English grammar constitutes original research. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interpreting these userboxes as interest in English grammer is original research. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found this category when it popped up on my user page without me putting it there. I wouldn't oppose the existence of such a category on general principle, but it should be limited to users who specifically add a template solely dedicated to interest in English grammar. I would also suggest that the creator of this instance of the category might not be the best one to recreate it or add it to any userboxes in future. Tamwin (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously some of userbox template links to this category should be removed. However, this category serves a useful collaboration purpose and should not be removed. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the userbox links should be removed? I don't see any to be kept, to be honest. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about Template:User English grammar? Is that specific enough? Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 15:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed miss that userbox when populating my collapsed list above, but removing code to populate this category from all other userboxes would leave you as the only member, and you have not actually shown any interest in editing articles related to English grammar (or, for that matter, any of the other subjects you claim to be "interested in" on your userpage except for Colorado). Even if that were not the case, single-user categories are do not generally facilitate collaboration, and the category would also be redundant to Category:Wikipedians interested in the English language, which is also populated by the same userbox. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:58, 1 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.

Category:Hunchback royalties

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 to Category:Royalty and nobility with disabilities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Hunchback royalties to Category:?
Nominator's rationale: This name seems unkind at best. Scoliosis isn't really a 'hunchback' anyway. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:24, 15 April 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:Lubbock Crickets

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) 01:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for a defunct sports team with just 2 entries and one subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:12, 15 April 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:Lubbock Hubbers

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) 01:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for a defunct sports team with just 2 entries and one subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 15 April 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:Lists of roads named after fictional characters

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 both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category contained no lists; furthermore, there would be no reason to create more than one list of roads named after fictional characters. I just moved all the entries (two of them) to Category:Streets named after fictional characters. Misiek1997 (talk) 08:09, 15 April 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:Brand name biscuits (British style)

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) 01:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following upmerge of Category:Biscuits (British style), disambiguator is not needed. Ibadibam (talk) 04:29, 15 April 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:Knight family

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) 13:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In the absence of a primary topic article Knight family, we have an ambiguity problem with this category name. We also have Category:Knight family (newspapermen) and Category:Knight family (show business) so I suggest we rename the nominated category and turn Category:Knight family into a disambiguation category. (The family as a whole is most notable for their membership/involvement with the LDS Church.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 15 April 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:Early American industrial centers

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) 01:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Early American industrial centers
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)
All of these are mill towns that may fit this description but there's no accepted cutoff for what "early" would mean and picking a date would just switch the problem to WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Other categories under the Industrial Revolution are less subjective including Category:Industrial buildings by heritage register and Category:Cotton mills in the United States. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 15 April 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:Cities with Free Land in the United States

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) 01:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Cities with Free Land in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING in general
The Homestead Acts gave public lands in the United States that had been cleared of Native Americans in exchange for starting farms on them beginning in 1850. This category lists towns mostly in Kansas that were part of this program in the 1800s like Ellsworth, Kansas and Osborne, Kansas. (The offer is no longer open!) It's normal for city articles to mention their history and they can cover homesteading but this category is not defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel able to create a list article that would pass WP:LISTN. I just copied all the category contents right here so no work is lost if another editor feels able to take that on. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 16 April 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.
More