Category:General Superintendents of the Chicago Police Department (1975–1927)
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: typo in title
SecretName101 (
talk) 23:50, 31 May 2020 (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 target now also has been deleted, apparently per
WP:G7.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Category:Members of the Fugger 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:merge. bibliomaniac15 04:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: In line with other family categories.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - people should not generally be in topic categories so this seems a good idea (rather like musician categories such as
Category:the Rolling Stones members).
Oculi (
talk) 23:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge Family categories are generally people categories and that's true of the target here which only contains the main article,
Fugger family, so this nomination complies with
WP:SEPARATE.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 23:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Except it contains a whole subcat of buildings, which are not people and don't belong in a people category. The problem with topic categories such as
Category:Fugger family is that anyone or anything vaguely connected with the family can be added, whereas
Category:Members of the Fugger family has clearer inclusion criteria.
Oculi (
talk) 00:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Oculi: Are you thinking we have a minimum of 2 categories for each family or would you favor starting to rename them in general if they contain people? (Your concerns seem hypothetical for this family given the subcat for buildings maintains
WP:SEPARATE for now although the potential you described is there.)
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
There are thousands of family categories, almost all named Somename Family. If we follow
Oculi's logic they all need renaming. Usually they contain biographies, but a sizeable minority have articles or subcategories for associated subjects.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge Family categories are the ones whiuch include biographical articles on members.
Dimadick (
talk) 16:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge -- No need for the members to be separate.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:52, 7 June 2020 (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:Parliament Private Secretary to the Cabinet Office
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 04:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge/delete. Appears to have been emptied. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 18:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete -- An unnecessary duplicate. "Parliamentary" is the correct one. However, I am dubious whether we should have categories for PPS. This is an unpaid post with no power, given to an MP so that he (she) can get a foot on the ministerial ladder.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:56, 7 June 2020 (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 --
JHunterJ (
talk) 19:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Anyone want to populate this?
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 18:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Such categories should be applied through the disambiguation template, and are limited to only a few very common cases. I would expect book titles common enough to need disambiguation to be few and far between. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 02:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Though I shall support creating a hidden category for tracking such pages.
Orientls (
talk) 02:13, 4 June 2020 (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:rename. bibliomaniac15 04:47, 9 June 2020 (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:Indian direct to OTT releases
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 04:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
At present, both members are in the target category, so this could just be deleted, but merge in case any more members are added before closure. (This also results in a clearer record in the deletion log). –
FayenaticLondon 21:08, 3 June 2020 (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:Negro World contributors
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 21:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per nominator.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 14:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, journalists should not be categorized by newspaper, per
WP:NONDEF and
WP:PERFCAT. Note that
Amy Ashwood Garvey as one of the founders does belong in this category, but that leaves the category too small to keep.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:54, 1 June 2020 (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:Grackles
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:WP:SHAREDNAME. Note: the
Grackle page is a SIA (functionally a dab page). An indication that this is sharedname is that there's no corresponding categories in non-English wikipedias. Example somewhat similar discussion:
BuntingsDexDor(talk) 13:21, 31 May 2020 (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:Businesspeople in shipbuilding
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 02:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Not a useful distinction. Only 3 articles.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
OPPOSE
SHIPBUILDING == The physical process of CONSTRUCTING ships and other floating vessels.
SHIPPING == The physical process of TRANSPORTING commodities and merchandise goods and cargo.
Owning a ship, is nothing whatsoever to do with shipbuilding.
The fact that some individual business people's pages, (in all 3 categories)
have been totally inappropriately categorised, (probably by non-english speakers)
is NOT a justifiable reason to merge TOTALLY UNRELATED CATEGORIES. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.225.2.65 (
talk •
contribs) 16:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support WP:SMALLCAT is hard to ignore here.
Orientls (
talk) 03:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Support – N.B. don't merge; I have added categories for all three, two to national categories for shipbuilders, and JP Reason to American tech execs. IMHO the category can now simply be deleted. –
FayenaticLondon 21:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks, after these revisions I also agree with deletion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose The three people appear to be executives of shipbuilding companies. Instead just merge to
Category:Shipbuilders, which may need its headnote changing to reflect the inclusion of such executives.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:44, 7 June 2020 (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:International Gymnastics Hall of Fame inductees
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 04:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The
International Gymnastics Hall of Fame isn't officially an Olympic hall of fame but it sure looks like one in practice: 75 of the 80 articles in this category are already somewhere under
Category:Olympic gymnasts. The remaining 5 articles (
1,
2,
3,
4,
5) are already well categorized and even most of those have other Olympic connections. Being in the Olympics for gymnastics is definitely defining but getting this award later for the same earlier effort is not remotely defining for
Natalia Yurchenko,
Mary Lou Retton, or
Nadia Comăneci. We already have the winners listified
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Background We've consistently deleted Halls of Fame that celebrate the earlier success of athlets at the Olympic Games
here,
here,
here,
here,
here and
here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Another UNNECESSARY NN OCAWARD cat.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:31, 7 June 2020 (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:Impact Hall of Fame
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 04:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The
Impact Wrestling promotion has a segment on
Impact! (TV series) and
Slammiversary pay-per-view where they induct wrestlers into the
Impact Hall of Fame. The challenge with league specific HOFs is that they are usually more promotional than a bona fide award. In the articles, the induction is typically mentioned along with other halls of fame so it doesn't seem defining. (A lot of these articles have overly long intros which include that block of awards like
here and
here.) The contents of the category are already listified
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to
WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome
here. -RD
Delete Another UNNECESSARY NN OCAWARD cat.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:31, 7 June 2020 (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.