From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 18 October 20 >

October 19

Category:NWT Sport 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I originally thought the redlink in the category was a typo. Then, I found that NWT Sport Hall of Fame was deleted last year. Since the main article is deleted, I don't think the category is needed. Was going to speedy request this under G8 but this isnt a category populated by a deleted template, hence this nomination. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 22:16, 19 October 2022 (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:People of United Empire Loyalist descent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Category:People of United Empire Loyalist descent

Category:Murree District

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in the category and will likely only ever have 1 page (would've CSD'd but didn't see any valid criteria) ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Murree is most famous tourist attraction of Pakistan. Many page from Category:Murree will add to Category:Murree District. Take a little breath Bro User:Blaze Wolf. -- AAonlyA ( talk) 19:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this is part of a full tree by district. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    If what the creator said is true, then wouldn't this basically be a duplication of Category:Murree? ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Dear @ Blaze Wolf I have checked all existing districts and cities categories format about Pakistan. Murree District is used for administrative related pages only while Murree is being used for all Murree related page. Murree District is newly created district. I have to create more category as per format of other districts. I will not create any category, which is not used for districts. AAonlyA ( talk) 14:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    I still don't quite understand. What do you mean by "I have checked all existing districts and cities categories format about Pakistan"? ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:45, 20 October 2022 (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:The Great British Bake Off winners

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:The Great British Bake Off contestants. No consensus on whether the redirects in the category should be kept or removed. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I appreciate the distinction between "winners" and "contestants", or rather sub-categorizing "winners" as a child category of "contestants". However, most of the pages are rather redirects mainly as result of merging the winner articles into List of The Great British Bake Off finalists, which I created a year ago. Also, there are very few notable runners-up and eliminated contestants having their own articles in the "contestants" category. As I figured, filling the "contestants" category with winners would help minimize the distinction between Bake Off "contestants" and "winners". George Ho ( talk) 21:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Support and remove the redirects (also from the parent category), having redirects in a category to an article that is also in that same category is not helpful at all for finding more information about a topic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- Both these are ultimately Performance by performer categories, which are not normally allowed. The issue is that in this case the performers are generally notable for nothing else. Do we need either? Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and keep the redirects, for those redirects which are useful. Eg David Atherton (baker) is a useful redirect to an informative section. (In contrast Beca Lyne-Pirkis is not a useful redirect as the article merely mentions her a few times: this redirect cannot be made useful and should be deleted.) Oculi ( talk) 09:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Remove the Redirects they are circular and not informative. Defer to other editors on the category itself. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • The redirects might be suitable per WP:LISTRCAT. Support merge per nom. @ Oculi, you don't seem to have given a reason to keep the category. —  Qwerfjkl talk 20:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment These should be shown to meet the criteria of WP:OC#AWARD, else they should be deleted. - jc37 19:28, 29 October 2022 (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.

Wikipedians interested in redlinked sports teams

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale Unclear how these categories can possibly help collaboration when there isn't even an article on the topic to which they refer. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Even if the articles would exist it would be a too narrow interest category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:38, 20 October 2022 (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.

Wikipedians interested in Esports teams

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/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one leaf category in this entire tree. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:43, 19 October 2022 (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:People from Ulyanovsk Oblast

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 all. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each. Rathfelder ( talk) 15:10, 19 October 2022 (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:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLIST. There are many organizations which make lists and there is no reason to single out Amnesty International's as defining. User:Namiba 13:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Do you want to nominate the 72 subcategories? You cant delete this on its own. Rathfelder ( talk) 15:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
They have all been nominated.-- User:Namiba 17:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, the authority of Amnesty International in the field of prisoners of conscience is comparable to the authority of Nobel prizes in the field of awards. For Nobel prizes we allow award categories by exception, so should we allow AI categories in this other field by exception. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The Nobel Prize is an award. Being on an organization's list is not. That's a major difference.-- User:Namiba 15:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply
My argument is not about awards, it is about making very rare exceptions. Sort of a WP:IAR reasoning. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I believe this came up during the failed suggestion to delete the Political Prisoners category sometime ago, that only "designated" ones like these categories should be allowed to exist. I disagreed then. But here I think being identified by Amnesty and being made part of a campaign is actually defining for some historical political prisoners who might otherwise not have become widely known. Dan Carkner ( talk) 22:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose because it's a very useful category. Fad Ariff ( talk) 11:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. Usefulness is entirely subjective.-- User:Namiba 13:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- If we had a robust category for "Prisoners of conscience held by foo-land", I would have supported a proposal to merge them to a more general category, but we do not. There are certainly other bodies that seek to identify those imprisoned for their views (for example on religion). Keston Institute did this for Christian victims of communism. Until someone can come up with a robust alternative, we need to keep this series. At present the only parent is a general one relating to prisoners of foo-land, which does not distinguish between criminals and political or religious dissidents. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Being listed by Amnesty International is politically significant internationally and widely quoted. Bigwig7 ( talk) 18:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per previous explanations, I didn’t even know about Amnesty International until now, but even I recognise the significance of these categories since reading up about this organisation. — Mugtheboss ( talk) 15:41, 27 October 2022 (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.

Wildfire seasons

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Wildfire seasons

Category:Medieval Ottoman military personnel

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) Qwerfjkl talk 20:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer holding only C14 and C15 Ottoman sub-cats. These can be held directly in the "medieval Islamic world" parent, as I have just done in e.g. Category:Viziers of the medieval Islamic world. – Fayenatic London 11:16, 19 October 2022 (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:NATO member countries and the Russo-Ukrainian war

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Category:NATO member countries and the Russo-Ukrainian war

Category:Thai national heritage films

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: no consensus. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination from deletion review which I closed as relist. Prior Cfd is here. Original nominator Bearcat ( talk · contribs)'s rationale: WP:TOPTEN violation. Although there's no head article to explain exactly what a "Thai national heritage film" is, and most of the articles filed here provide absolutely no context for their inclusion either, I've been able to sort out from one of the articles (Bad Genius) that the Thai Film Archive releases an annual list of films from the past year that it has deemed culturally or artistically significant -- basically Canada's Top Ten, but for Thailand instead of Canada. Accordingly, a properly sourced article that listed the inducted films would be fine, but we don't categorize for inclusion in other organizations' proprietary and copyrighted ranking lists. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Bearcat, Marcocapelle, Orientls, Qwerfjkl, Paul 012, Frank Anchor, SmokeyJoe, Robert McClenon, and Liz: Courtesy pinging all participants of prior Cfd or DRV. My apologies if the notification is not desired. I will have no further role in the discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Prior members here. Content of the category page itself was just [[Category:Thai films|National Heritage Films]]. — Cryptic 02:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • In the previous CfD discussion I said "delete per nom". In the DRV discussion, Paul_012 correctly pointed out that it should have been possibly listify and delete per nom. The closer of this discussion might list the category members here on the talk page so that anyone can pick it up to convert it to a proper list article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral- and do not listify. Create an article Thai national heritage films first, otherwise there is no basis for a category or a list. Oculi ( talk) 13:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Tentative keep. The nominator's claim is incorrect. The registry in question is not an editorial list subjectively compiled by a single publication (which is what WP:TOPTEN covers), but a designation made by Thailand's main government body responsible for film conservation, listing the most historically and culturally significant Thai films of all time (not just those from the previous year), with annual additions to the list. It hardly bears resemblance to Canada's Top Ten, but is more directly comparable to the United States' National Film Registry, for which we have a category at Category:United States National Film Registry films. That said, WP:other stuff exists is not a reason for keeping, and that's not what I'm arguing. But as the single most authoritative designation of films regarded as the most important in Thai cinematic history, it serves as a helpful proxy for readers wishing to browse through such important films, even if the designation itself may not yet have become a strictly defining aspect mentioned by the large majority of sources covering the individual films themselves. This is a bit of an WP:IAR argument on my part. Failing that, I would favour listifying into the National Film Heritage Registry article, which I have since started (and would have done so earlier during the original CfD had I received a notification as the category creator). -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have restored the category for this CFD discussion. I have no idea though what pages were in this category when it was deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    • The diffs were linked at the DRV page. I have reverted them; there are now 47 member pages. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 20 October 2022 (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/2022_October_19&oldid=1125649120"