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: With an already appropriate category for the the artist's albums and another for the covers of those albums (linked via the albums cat), this is an unnecessary eponymous category per
WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:30, 12 November 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:Voivodes and Kings of the Gypsies
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.
Support -- Voivode is not an English word. I do not know if it is Romani, but I see no mention of it in main article.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename' per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 19:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename to match parent article --
Lenticel(
talk) 02:09, 15 November 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.
Rename per nom. Oppose DePiep's suggested rename as having multiple namespace prefixes in a row feels clunky.* Pppery *it has begun... 03:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Clunky indeed, I already noted. But the proposed name is not self-clarifying, and singular. IOW, only to understand when opening the page.
Just discovered: all subcategories use name "Template Convert ...". Eponymous. So I propose
Category:Template Convert (above). -
DePiep (
talk) 09:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment What a mess! --
Just N. (
talk) 19:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
No. This is what we call a discussion. The "D" in "XfD". -
DePiep (
talk) 19:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge the two entries are already in the parent
Category:Conversion templates, and the subcategories (possibly with slight title adjustments) can be upmerged as well. If it must be kept, the rename to
Category:Template Convert is correct.
User:力 (powera,
π,
ν) 21:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I understand the "two entries" are Ps {{Convert}} and {{Cvt}}. Indeed they are in parent
Category:Conversion templates too, but that is no problem. Parent mentioning = templates that do actually convert; subcategory = templates directly related to{{Convert}} (not necessarily converting by themselves). IOW, this category is to give an overview of {{Convert}}-related templates, MOL like a help-page does. No reason to change that. The current subcategories present,
Category:Convert by module documentation,
Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert serve that same purpose (though the "Subtemplates of" could be upmerged without loss of info indeed). So apart from possibly Cat:Subtemplates of .., no upmerging to be done. (btw, to consider: check uc/lc in the subcat names). All this is more clear when
WP:EPONYMOUS is considered applicable & applied. -
DePiep (
talk) 08:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Upmerge, or else rename to
Category:Template Convert per above discussion. Considering the limited amount of content in the category, upmerging would have my preference.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:45, 20 November 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:1989 Tiananmen Square protests
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, falls under the speedy criterion
Ymblanter (
talk) 07:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename as C2D. --
Just N. (
talk) 19:33, 13 November 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.
Deaths from cardiovascular disease
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. –
FayenaticLondon 13:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, cardiovascular disease deaths are too common to be a defining characteristic. Comparable to deaths by heart failure, earlier deleted in
this previous discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete all No, hell no, causes of death are not defining characteristics (unless it is a particularly uncommon one, in which case it might be the death itself which is notable). A defining characteristic, to take the example of
Caravaggio, is something like "Italian", "Baroque", or "artist"; or "[Subject] was an [adjective] [noun]...". I don't think I've ever seen anybody being described as "X was a [Foolandian] [occupations] who died of [cardiovascular disease]. So no, this is just not defining.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 16:35, 30 November 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.
Unexplained deaths
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 05:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:NONDEF and
WP:OCMISC, the articles have merely in common that the cause of death has not been specified.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 19:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Note: for the record, some are more interesting than that, being deaths where an
open verdict was recorded, so it is unclear whether suicide or foul play was involved. E.g.
Buster Edwards: the cause of death was hanging, but by whose hand? Others can be found at
Special:WhatLinksHere/Open_verdict. –
FayenaticLondon 21:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)reply
That is not the case with the current articles in the category. Perhaps some day a
Category:Open verdict deaths may be created, but with completely new content.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. The category tree does not exist apart from the one category for London with articles in it, and it shouldn't be created.
User:力 (powera,
π,
ν) 04:10, 29 December 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:Articles needing POV-check
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 22:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Procedural question, shouldn't the subcategories be nominated simultaneously? With the proposal as nominated now, there will be one container category containing two different sets of subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge following the template merge. I do not see why being also populated by
Template:Undue weight and others might be a barrier for merging.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge all per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 19:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom, helps with redundancy. -BRAINULATOR9 (
TALK) 23:19, 6 December 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:American women journalists
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. bibliomaniac15 04:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: We have a category of
Category:American male journalists, and it would seem more appropriate to use "female" as an adjective that modifies journalists if we're using "male" as an adjective to modify journalists in the parallel category. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk) 04:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I would support changing them all to female but that would be a big job.
Rathfelder (
talk) 22:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I maybe would support changing them all to female but what a Himalaya of mannual work would that be. --
Just N. (
talk) 19:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Oculi. This is an all too common confusion/conflation of sex and gender. "Female" is a sex and should properly only be used in biological/medical contexts. Intersection categories such as these "nationality/gender/occupation" should use "women" rather than "female".
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 17:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I agree with
Dodger67.
Webster's says either is acceptable, but that from the advent of the 20th century, (note
International Woman Suffrage Alliance, not International [Female] Suffrage Alliance) female was deemed to be a disparaging term and one that indicated weakness or inferiority.
[1] But further, limiting a category to biological sex, rather than identity, just seems wrong. More reading on the topic
[2],
[3]SusunW (
talk) 22:24, 25 November 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.