Category:Airline accidents and incidents designated as Flight 191
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:speedy deleteWP:G7. –
FayenaticLondon 21:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Random collection of unrelated accidents that just happen to a similar Flight Number, zero use as a navigation aid. The possible creation of a series of categories from 1 to 9999 could be generated but with little encyclopedic value.
Flight 191 exists as a disambiguation page it does not need a category.
MilborneOne (
talk) 17:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NONDEF and
WP:TRIVIALCAT; the flight number is purely coincidental and non-defining. The creation of this category contributes nothing to the understanding of the topic of air disasters and threatens to spawn dozens of similarly useless copycat categories.
Carguychris (
talk) 18:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 19:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Being numbered 191 is not a defining characteristic of flights. In fact, this seems completely arbitrary. What's so special about 191?
JIP |
Talk 22:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SHAREDNAME. This is textbook numerology, a type of pseudoscience. Listing these coincidental events in a dab page is good enough.
Place Clichy (
talk) 10:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete Honest mistake of mine.
WP:SHAREDNAME is correct. I am sorry for the creation, it was an honest mistake. I know better now the uses of categories. Could qualify for G7 now.
AmericanAir88(
talk) 23:42, 9 October 2019 (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:Princes of Asturias
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.
MER-C 10:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete per
WP:NONDEF, these are merely subsidiary titles of the crown princes of Castile and Spain respectively. This nomination about Castile is very comparable with
this earlier one about Aragon.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as above. Significant title denoting the heir to the Spanish throne. The Prince of Asturias is the crown prince of Spain. It's not a "subsidiary title". Of course it's defining. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:01, 9 October 2019 (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:delete.
MER-C 18:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of a minor fictional aspect. The characters are present elsewhere in the category structure so no need to merge.
TTN (
talk) 15:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, this one has no specific parent categories to merge to. –
FayenaticLondon 21:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, this one I can actually agree to. A trivial characteristic used in only one episode in the entire series.
JIP |
Talk 22:17, 11 October 2019 (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:delete.
MER-C 18:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: After scratching my head, I supposed that the intention behind these categories is to single out ethnic groups percevied as mixed, e.g.
Mulatto. However they bring a lot of issues:
"African/European/Asian ancestry" seems to be used as a clear proxy for black/white/yellow "race", which is not an acceptable basis for categorization. Anyway, the lines between these 3 categories seem to be quite arbitrary.
I do not consider at first glance that the fact for an ethnic group to be mixed (or of partial African/Asian/European ancestry) is a
WP:DEFINING feature. Indeed, almost all ethnic groups can be considered to be somehow mixed, or at least the product of some other group(s) at the time they are formed. Arguing that mixed groups are an exception enough to be a defining feature is making assumptions on racial purity for the groups that would not be defined as such, assumptions which are extremely hazardous.
Therefore, I consider that this content should better be treated at the level of the ethnic group itself rather than by this partial ancestry feature. While merging could be an option (but to which target?), all articles and categories I checked were already categorized somewhere under
Category:Ethnic groups. Mere deletion is therefore appropriate and will not leave orphans.
Place Clichy (
talk) 13:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete—non defining.
Zerach (
talk) 04:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, presumably the aim of these categories was to collect
half-castes, but that is an outdated type of classification.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:27, 8 October 2019 (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:Image hosting
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.
MER-C 10:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. The two nominations should be closed in conjunction.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:30, 8 October 2019 (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.
OKC Energy U23 players/Oklahoma City Energy U23 players