< July 2 July 4 >

July 3

[edit]

Category:List of supermarkets

[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/merge (deletion and merging coincide in this case because the content is already in the target) (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See Category:Lists of supermarkets. What could be the difference in scope? DB1729 (talk) 22:35, 3 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:Honey Bunny Film 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: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. According to Honey_Bunny_Ka_Jholmaal#Movies there is an extensive series of these cartoon movies, but only the first one Honey Bunny in Bank Robbery has an article, and that article makes no claims of notability, so there is little prospect of other articles being added to this category. – Fayenatic London 20:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If in the future more film articles are created, in the category can be recreated. But as it stands, even the single article Honey Bunny in Bank Robbery is borderline. Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 4 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:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. While there are strong policy grounds for deletion, these have only persuaded a bare majority. I would encourage editors to attempt a definition, and discuss it on the talk page; and to purge category members who do not justifiably belong here. In prominent cases, it would be useful to leave a note about removals on the category talk page, as well as on the article talk pages. For the record, the category currently contains 59 pages, three of which are organisations. – Fayenatic London 07:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think having a category like this raises severe BLP issues, many of the people included in this list are not supported by the article text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases the category is WP:NONDEF, with their views about COVID being a minor aspect that is not lended significant weight in reliable sources. There is also not a clear categorisation of what a "COVID-19 conspiracy theorist" is. Does opposing lockdowns make one? "COVID-19 conspiracy" is an umbrella for many unrelated ideas to do with different aspects of the pandemic, many of which don't warrant the label "conspiracy theorist". Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Conspiracy theorists is another controversial category. But let's keep the focus of our discussion on this specific category and not get into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I admitted to removing many entries where "covid-19 conspiracy theorizing" is but a trivial flash-in-the-pan mention, not a WP:DEFINING trait that sources commonly and consistently ascribe to the subject (see also WP:COPDEF). Previously this category lumped Van Morrison, Pitbull, Jake Paul, Kirk Cameron and others along with noted conspiracists Alex Jones and Mark Steele. Even if this category is kept, it is trivial, non-defining for most people and should be monitored closely. Not everyone who has ridden a bike belongs in Category:Cyclists. --Animalparty! (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kirk Cameron is also a noted conspiracy nut, as you would have noticed if you'd read the article and Kirk_Cameron#COVID-19_views. This is becoming a problem that may need to be escalated, if you continue you just blindly remove categories without knowledge of the subjects of those articles. ValarianB (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians tend to write in undue proportion about whatever trivial churnalism pops up in the day's news, and synthesize sources to infer what's not explicitly stated, both of which are BLP and other policy violations. Note that the word "conspiracy" is not in Cameron's article at all, and none of the sources in Cameron's Covid-19 section, except Cameron himself (rhetorically), use the word conspiracy theory/theorist. Having maskless parties during a pandemic is irresponsible, but not a conspiracy theory. Making hyperbolic statements invoking communism and socialism and other boogeymen is not in and of itself a conspiracy theory, otherwise the majority of Republican politicians would be in a conspiracy category. "Definingness", not verifiability, is the key. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all of what you mention are the hallmarks of conspiracy theorists. ValarianB (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then I severely question your judgement and your ability to separate your opinions from what sources actually state. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The deliberate spreading of misinformation is a cornerstone of being a conspiracy theorist. You really do not grasp the subject matter here, and it'd be best for all if you find another topic area to be in. Zaathras (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think they grasp it fine, you've offered no real counterargument, and this comment borders on a personal attack. jp×g 21:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've recently deleted the inclusion of Nicholas Wade from this category, which was justified because a reliable source called him a conspiracy theorist. However, this attribution was the personal opinion of the source, which we could only use with attribution, not in wikivoice. This distinction is lost in category inclusions and is very much a BLP concern. It is precisely the existence of this penumbra that makes opinion categories problematic. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This owns the right-wingers, so it's good" Where have any of the "keep" !votes said anything remotely similar to that? –dlthewave ☎ 01:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)User:Dlthewave[reply]
See Jaydogmarco and Calton's keep votes, and how they have been aggressively edit warring to the point of page protections to see how this tag has been misapplied and weaponized to "own the right". Also see his entry on this page [[3]] (note I can't link it because the exact version was deleted for some reason).TJD2 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be the same edit war that you had a hand in, with 5 reverts over 2 days? Zaathras (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean the one in which I was restoring the addition you're trying to ramrod through without a consensus? The one in which I was reverting to the original version of the article? The one who's editors are showing an extreme amount of bias in their dialogue and edit summaries? Yeah I suppose it is the same one then - and you're on the wrong side of it. I saw you had a 6 month topic ban on this very subject back in the day, by the way. This kind of behavior is exactly where that leads if not a direct block - best to actually engage in discussion versus trying to one up.TJD2 (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, most of the 12 on that list (PDF) seem to be primarily run of the mill anti-vaccination activists (and I have no problem categorizing them as such), which was the main focus of the report ("Executive summary: The Disinformation Dozen are twelve anti-vaxxers who play leading roles in spreading digital misinformation about Covid vaccine"). Kudos to Ty & Charlene Bollinger though for thinking outside the box and going full 'Bill Gates will inject you with microchips' too. But since "COVID-19 conspiracy theories" run a nebulous gamut from "maybe it did escape from a lab and China covered it up" to "I'm just saying Chinese military could have been conducting gain-of-function research..." to "the virus was natural but elites/liberals/opposition candidates are using it to bring about The Great Reset" to "Tony Fauci and Bill Gates deliberately created the pandemic to control people and inject them with 5G chips and ensure Joe Biden a win" , etc., having a category this specific may be as fraught or more so than a category for "Climate change deniers/denialists" as rejected here, here, here, and reaffirmed here. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:02, 18 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:Prefecture of the Papal Household

[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: UpMerge - jc37 15:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer, only contains the main article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 3 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:15th-century Netherlandish 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: split. – Fayenatic London 22:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose splitting Category:15th-century Netherlandish women to Category:15th-century women of the Holy Roman Empire, Category:Medieval Dutch women, Category:Women of medieval Belgium and Category:People of the Burgundian Netherlands
Nominator's rationale: merge, first, we do not categorize 15th-century Netherlandish people anyway because there was no Netherlandish entity - but there was a Burgundian Netherlands in the 15th century that has its own category tree - and second, even if there would have been a Netherlandish entity the category would violate WP:FINAL RUNG. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 3 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:Raëlians by nationality

[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) 06:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge as a redundant category layer, it is the only subcategory of Category:Raëlians. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 3 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:Male social workers

[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. Or, to be more specific, an upmerge into Category:Social workers. bibliomaniac15 17:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEGRS as a trivial intersection by gender, male social workers is not a notable topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With most occupations I would object against an equal treatment of male and female categories, but I can see that this is an exception, so I have nominated the female categories too. @Laurel Lodged: updating other contributor to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 20 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:Burials in Bydgoszcz

[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. bibliomaniac15 17:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete and move subCategory:Burials in Nowofarny cemetery in Bydgoszcz‎ to Category:Bydgoszcz, we categorize burials by burial places, burials by city categories are container categories only. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:22, 3 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:Honorary citizens of Bydgoszcz

[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. bibliomaniac15 17:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not categorize honorary citizens per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 3 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:Albums produced by Carl Saff

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#Category:Albums produced by Carl Saff

Category:Arab States Broadcasting Union

[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. Note that the contents of the category are listed in Arab States Broadcasting Union#Members. bibliomaniac15 17:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Arab States Broadcasting Union
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT)
The Arab States Broadcasting Union is affiliated with the Arab League and was originally a development program that became a trade association for Middle Eastern broadcasters. This category consists of those member broadcasters but that association is so non-defining those articles rarely even mention this affiliation. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 3 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:International Musicological Society

[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 to Category:International Musicological Society presidents. bibliomaniac15 17:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME
This category consists entirely of biography articles of people who were president of the International Musicological Society so this rename just better describes the current contents. The name change will require removing the subcat.) Alternatively, being the president of this group gets only a passing reference in the articles so we could just delete this category and rely on this list in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 3 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.
More