From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 26 March 28 >

March 27

Category:People of Abkhazian 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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories has been used an unofficial guideline for deletion of numerous categories. They should all go as the inclusion criteria is subjective. WP:TNT Prisencolin ( talk) 22:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • That is inconsistent with your rationale. "They should all go.". You do not offer a reason to single out Abkhazian descent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • No one seems to offer those in the other discussions... in any case I have limited the discussion to Abkhazian... which from what I can tell is just a Russian client state and not really an ethno-state. (nationalists beware)-- Prisencolin ( talk) 22:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The lc formatting has been fixed. You tagged the Category:People by ethnic or national descent, but not any of the categories here. Note that Abkhazians are also an ethnic group. I counted a total of 8 categories in this nomination, so the collapsible isn't needed either. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural comment oppose, as LaundryPizza03 already mentioned none of the nominated categories have been tagged. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Absolutely nothing wrong with those categories. Abkhazians are a distinct ethnic group like any other. I fail to see the logic of this nomination.-- Darwinek ( talk) 00:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Nothing wrong with those categories. -- Just N. ( talk) 16:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose There are people for whom Abkhazian ancestry is significant and defining. This is not in any way an endorsement of all categorizations, and ones where it is not justified by sourcing can be removed on a case by case basis, but there is no reason to mass delete it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:12, 6 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:Law & Order (season 1) episodes

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) 12:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with only two articles. There are no sibling categories for other seasons. – Fayenatic London 19:27, 27 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:Brown priests

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: there was not a clear consensus to do anything, but in the meantime I will rename it to Category:Brown priests (Nazism) for clarity. This is not to be interpreted as meaning there was a consensus to keep the category under that name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unexplained, and, as far as I can see, undocumented. It seems to be Roman Catholic priests who supported Hitler, but the phrase does not appear in Catholic bishops in Nazi Germany. If I am wrong and it is kept it needs some explanation. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
For the record, the current members are Karl Eschweiler, Alois Hudal, Joseph Lortz, Franz Justus Rarkowski (all cited, although Lortz had a mixed record). For the initial members see [3]. – Fayenatic London 20:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It is open to misinterpretation. I think its better merged to the parents. It's not as though there are many articles. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Suggest renaming to Category:Brown priests (Nazism) to avoid misinterpretation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per Marcocapelle. By the way, pope Pius made a reciprocal agreement with Nazi Germany to stay calm with each other. He was also sort of a 'brown' catholic' for hate/fear against socialists/communists. -- Just N. ( talk) 16:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete until someone can create a reliably sourced article Brown priests (Nazism), and then if recreated we need to use that term. The fact that one of the people here is is disputable if the label applies also causes me to question if this is a label that can actually be categorized by. I think a list in the parent article where we can discuss if the term does or does not apply is much better than a category ever could be. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • As they are not all bishops, I have listed the current contents in a different article, Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany#Accommodation_to_Nazism. – Fayenatic London 07:59, 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:Christianity and atheism

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) 03:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article each. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. I concur in the proposed action given the small category sizes. -- Bsherr ( talk) 01:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 16:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge this two category tree has two articles that cover completely different things. We do not need categories for every overlap of ideas that exists somewhere in some form. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:20, 13 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:Ceremonial Voodoo languages

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) 03:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles. Merging is not needed, both articles are already in Category:Ritual languages, the first article is already in Category:Haitian Vodou and the second article does not belong there. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:14, 27 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:Squatting in Kazakhstan

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:Squatting by country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:C2F, this nomination was at WP:CFDS but there was no consensus yet about the merge target. The alternative merge target is Category:Squatting. But there is logic in allowing "by foo" articles in "by foo" categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Copy of speedy discussion
@ LaundryPizza03, Mujinga, Oculi, and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:16, 27 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 Order of the Red Eagle

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) 03:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of the Red Eagle served as a general purpose award from Prussia. The recipients generally fall into three categories:
I created a collapsible list with all the category contents right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 16:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Unlike some others, this order does seem to be used to honour those who have actually achieved something. This seems to be part of a campaign (mostly by the same editors) to get rid of all categorisation by awards, which is clearly ridiculous. Who says they're "non-defining"? Some are; many aren't. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:15, 12 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:Recipients of the Order of Roraima of Guyana

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) 03:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of Roraima of Guyana is a general purpose award from Guyana that, in practice, is given to people who are already very prominent government officials. Of the 10 articles in this category, 4 are in Category:Guyanese politicians while 3 are in Category:Guyanese judges. ( Edward Luckhoo is in both.) There are also 3 foreign government officials not remotely defined by the award: Mia Mottley and Freundel Stuart, both of Barbados, and Kim Jong-il of North Korea. The only person who is not a government official is poet Martin Carter, whose article mentions the award only in passing. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 16:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Unlike some others, this order does seem to be used to honour those who have actually achieved something. This seems to be part of a campaign (mostly by the same editors) to get rid of all categorisation by awards, which is clearly ridiculous. Who says they're "non-defining"? Some are; many aren't. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:16, 12 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_27&oldid=1021497734"