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.
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
GiantSnowman 15:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge/Delete Category for a single list article doesn't aid navigation. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge/Delete. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:29, 19 March 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.
People of Min descent
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 (the "delete" votes mostly favour merging). –
FayenaticLondon 10:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge,
Min Chinese and
Southern Min are language groups and you can't really descend from a language.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose linguistic groups are generally essentially ethnic. There are about 120M Min people. Would we do the same for people of Cherokee descent?
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It is more complicated than that, there are e.g.
Hoklo people (ethnicity) who speak a Southern Min language. Southern Min is not an ethnicity in itself.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It's also more complicated than that further. "Southern Min" or "Min Nan" is often synonymous with Hokkien, perhaps erroneously so. Linguistically Southern Min is a family which contains Hokkien (aka Quan-Zhang dialects) as well as
Teochew; however many Teochew would reject an identification as "Hokkien" as Chaozhou lies within Guangdong province. (which is perhaps technically true nonetheless, given that the ancestors of many Chaozhou people came from Fujian, the language certainly did anyways). "minnan" can analogously be referred to as an ethnicity, variously called Hokkien or Hoklo.
[1][2]--
Prisencolin (
talk) 22:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per my comments on yesterday's categories.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Procedural note@
Marcocapelle: Both of these categories are containers.. if you mean to include all of the children categories please do so.--
Prisencolin (
talk) 05:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I do not mean that, this is just about Min and Southern Min.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
In that case keep because it's routine in anthropology to classify ethnic groups under the lines of language families, and the categories above those. This classification scheme presented in [Asian Cultural Traditions, Second Edition, By Carolyn Brown Heinz, Jeremy A. Murray · 2018].--
Prisencolin (
talk) 06:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ethnicity may be defined by different criteria, language is one possibility but it does not coincide. Take e.g. Jews or African Americans. Calling people of Fuzhou descent a subset of people of Min descent is a case of
WP:SYNTH.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I object to the whole nutty tree that subdivides the Han Chinese in ways that are just not justified.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete we should upmerge all subcategories by Chinese descent, unless they are among the recognized 55 ethnicities of China, which nothing here is.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete A category for what language a person's ancestors spoke is not remotely defining. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete we should upmerge all subcategories by Chinese descent, unless they are among the recognized 55 ethnicities of China, which nothing here is. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Categories for people by ethnicity should not be grouped on the base of language family alone when this has no connection to ethnicity, as show the regrettable examples of Romance, Celtic, Iranic etc. categories.
Place Clichy (
talk) 14:56, 5 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:Communes of Guyane
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.
✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Guyane is the French name for the territory and French Guiana is the English term. There is a high likely confusion with Guyana anyhow, but Guyane is even more confusing.
KittenKlub (
talk) 16:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:33, 19 March 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:Executive branch of Israel
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:Executive branch of the Moldovan government
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.
✗plicit 07:16, 5 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:Executive branch of the Government of Pakistan
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.
✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Titles are typically used by people, not by institutes. What makes it a title in this particular case?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ok, a proper name then. But why would this government be a proper name and others not? Usage of capitals for governments comes across as merely a matter of style.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It's quite straightforward. Some countries have a body named 'Government of Foo' (proper name) and others don't. Eg the UK certainly does (
example) and I expect the US does not.
Oculi (
talk) 12:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
All countries have a government (smallcaps) and their exact name isn't that relevant. We do not categorize by name.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Capitalization of government is not needed. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:38, 19 March 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:Executive branch of the Government of Venezuela
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.
✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Capitalization of government is not needed. --
Just N. (
talk) 14:39, 19 March 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge.
✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Language issues have little to do with instrumental music.
Dimadick (
talk) 19:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't know enough about India cinemas to make a judgement call (and I advise other users to do the same). However my understanding is that each language's cinema industry is independent and rather distinct from one another. Thus it can be useful to differentiate and cross-classify between composers and film language.--
Prisencolin (
talk) 22:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The fact that every composer currently has multiple language categories is sufficient evidence that the cinema industries are overlapping in terms of composers working on scores.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose Though these categories are named "films scored," they do feature soundtrack as well with lyrics written in the respective languages. As Prisencolin rightly noted, the film industry of each Indian language is distinct and independent from the other. Language is the
defining characteristic of a film's soundtrack. --
Ab207 (
talk) 14:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment But the "Films scored" categories do not categorize the film score, but the film itself.
Dimadick (
talk) 21:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge All The intersection is not especially defining.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge All The intersection is not especially defining. --
Just N. (
talk) 15:00, 19 March 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:Vaccination myths
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. –
FayenaticLondon 10:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT that overlaps substantially in scope, if not content, with the other category. Misuse of the word myth, per
MOS:LABEL. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 04:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
CommentMyth is by definition "[a] traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." Do supernatural stories about
vaccination exist?
Dimadick (
talk) 06:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
You have committed the common fallacy of taking one of several possible definitions of a word and claiming that it is the definition. This fallacy is often easily identified by the use of the phrase "by definition" for a word that has multiple definitions. Take, for example.
Mythbusters. The "myths" they investigated were largely
urban myths, and had nothing to do with supernatural beings or events. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 07:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"
Vaccination myths" is a reflection of real-world usage, irrespective of the common meaning of "myths". As it is, this is a very small category, but a better solution may be expanding coverage of widespread falsehoods about vaccines.
BD2412T 07:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. No Category:Misinformation related to vaccination please! --
Just N. (
talk) 15:03, 19 March 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:Cancelled celebrities
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:canceldelete.
✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Violates
WP:CATPOV – the idea of "cancelling" a person (as opposed to an event, a TV show, etc.) originated as a joke on social media; deciding whom to include is inherently POV. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 04:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC) edited 05:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
To elaborate, "cancelling" here is metaphorical rather than literal (at least until dictionaries start defining "cancel" differently). Categories on the other hand should reflect
verifiable facts about a subject. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 04:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
DeleteCancel culture is too contentious and subjective for a category of "cancelled" people, to the point of possibly breaching
WP:BLP. The "
celebrity" label is also inherently vague. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 04:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete While the category may be accurate,
cancel culture is a neologism. I am far from certain that it has a lasting impact or is reflected in more than a hand-full of sources.
Dimadick (
talk) 05:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Declaring an article subject to be a "cancelled celebrity" is subjective to the point of being unverifiable, and as such is likely to be a BLP violation most of the time when this category is applied.
Wham2001 (
talk) 08:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I have now inspected all the articles which had been added to the category. In my view none of the additions satisfied
WP:CATV and hence all of them were arguably BLP violations. As a result I have reverted all of the edits adding articles to this category, which is consequentially empty. The list of articles that I removed is evident in my contributions from 08.53, 13 March (UTC) onwards.
Wham2001 (
talk) 09:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Yes, inherantly
WP:POV, a lot of content supporting the inclusion of the category are also
WP:POVRankersbo (
talk) 12:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 03:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Since this mythical "cancel culture" thingamabob does not actually cause the "cancelled" people to go away, having once been subjected to a temporary Twitter pile-on is not permanently
defining of anybody. Anybody can say that anybody is "cancelled", but that doesn't necessarily cause anything to happen as a consequence.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep This whole thing shows an attempt to hide the illiberal attempts of leftist to smash the rights of other people to voice their opinions. Those who say this does not exist are lieing. I will not stand by and let Wikipedia be taken over by haters of freedom.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The category might contain people with either left or right wing political preferences, at least in theory, so there is no reason to suspect a conspiracy. If in practice it would contain people of one wing only (regardless which wing)
WP:POV would certainly apply.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment In other words, anyone who disagrees with you is a liar and a "hater of freedom"?
Dimadick (
talk) 21:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment It's always amusing to me that "leftists" are accused of "canceling" people but the black-balling of
Colin Kapernick and Martin Luther King, Jr. (prior to his assassination) never seems to get mentioned. JPL, keep your conspiracy theories to yourself.--
User:Namiba 14:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete as subjective, presentist, and ideologically motivated.--
User:Namiba 14:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete as subjective, presentist, and ideologically motivated. --
Just N. (
talk) 15:05, 19 March 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:Politicians who died in 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.
Nominator's rationale: The complaint has been raised that officials with lifetime appointments who die in office are unremarkable because their term is for life. "Politicians" is nebulous in this regard because it may include people in a variety of circumstances who are not holding offices with set terms. Conversely, some people hold elected offices who might not be considered politicians.
BD2412T 04:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose We have a category tree for politicians under
Category:Politicians, but not one for "elected officials" (whatever that means). The fact that they were elected does not mean that there was a fixed
term of office.
Dimadick (
talk) 05:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Dimadick. In addition, I am open to the possibility of deletingcontainerizing the category, per
WP:NONDEFexcept if assassinated.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete or Containerize as non-defining.--
User:Namiba 13:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete not defining. Many elected officials have lifetime tenures (Holy Roman Emperors, many dictators who entered office electorally, we even have a list at
President for life, and more examples at
Senator for life. Even those who don't aren't generally defined whether they die a bit before leaving office or a bit after. And this category has been cluttered with many lower-level politicians so that it's nearly impossible to be useful.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Note: No objection to containerizing, since there are subcategories that have survived recent deletion discussions or are not candidates for deletion, but if containerized some effort should be made to move existing contents into relevant subcategories.
BD2412T 20:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-defining. The category system is not a tool for creating lists on just any characteristic that happens to describe a number of people — it is for
defining characteristics which are central to the person's notability, but the timing of a person's death is not that. This is not a central notability claim that unites
Jack Layton with
Mel Carnahan, or
Errol Barrow with
Paul Wellstone, or
Milan Bandić with
Sveinn Björnsson, in any important way — it's just
death trivia, not a critically significant matter that requires all of these people to be categorized together for it.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Bearcat: If "the timing of a person's death" is not a defining characteristic, why do we have, e.g.,
Category:1975 deaths? Isn't the grouping of people who happened to die in that year, some young, some old, some naturally, and some by accident or murder, just as random?
BD2412T 18:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)reply
(1)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (2) Those exist for technical maintenance reasons (e.g. generating internal maintenance reports), and don't really have anything to do with whether end users have reasons to care about the grouping. They could be made hidden categories without changing their actual purpose; this can't.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete This category is not at all defining, there are too many cases where it is trivial.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete It's not uncommon for people in any profession to die prior to retirement.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per RevelationDirect. --
Just N. (
talk) 15:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not all politicians are elected officials. What category do we put them in if they die?
Alsoriano97 (
talk) 15:37, 20 March 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:Hungarian musicians from Cluj-Napoca
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 the first one to
Category:Musicians from Cluj-Napoca, as there is no consensus to remove them from that parent. Delete the other as empty. –
FayenaticLondon 13:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The categories are an unfortunate outgrowth of
this discussion. In short: a) it’s not a defining characteristic and b) it’s endlessly ambiguous — what if someone was an ethnic Romanian musician from
Cluj-Napoca while under Hungarian rule, or (more likely) an ethnic Hungarian musician from Cluj-Napoca while under Romanian rule, etc. —
BiruitorulTalk 02:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Marcocapelle. Birth location is entirely unrelated to their musical career. It's a politically motivated background, Orban gov. wants a bigger Hungary, relocate the frontiers. --
Just N. (
talk) 15:12, 19 March 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:Goldfinger (band) songs
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: There are only two entries under this category: one is a redirect to an album, and one is a cover of a song whose article the band is no longer mentioned in. No original songs by this band have articles.
Songwaters (
talk) 01:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete We can't categorize songs by every musician or band which has covered them. Songs like
(Get Your Kicks on) Route 66 have had multiple cover versions over the course of 70 years, but we only list a hand full of the better known renditions.
Dimadick (
talk) 05:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Dimadick. It's surely not a question of having a personal taste for 'Here in Your Bedroom'. --
Just N. (
talk) 15:15, 19 March 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:Recipients of the House and Merit Order of Peter Frederick Louis
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.
✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are
listed right here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:21, 13 March 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:Recipients of Tamgha-i-Jurat
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.
✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:C1, an unpopulated category, and likely
WP:OCAWARD
The
Tamgha-i-Jurat is a military award from Pakistan and the recipients are already listified right
here in the main article. The problem is that none of those people have a Wikipedia article. None. (Not sure if it is eligible for speedy though since the award article is in the cat so it's not technically empty.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:21, 13 March 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.