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: Non-defining intersection between occupation and cause of death. No other occupation has an intersection between drug-related deaths.
Mason (
talk) 23:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Just delete, articles should already be in more specific categories if appropriate.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:09, 30 December 2023 (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:Addiction physicians by nationality
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: Upmerge for now. There is no other content in the parent category, making this category unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 23:26, 29 December 2023 (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:Korean poets by era
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.
No other category using this naming convention of "era".
Mason (
talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)reply
That's not particularly relevant. Eras have a particular meaning for Korea (and probably Japan) like dynasties do for China.
Jahaza (
talk) 02:58, 29 December 2023 (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.
Support per nom.
Mason (
talk) 00:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 01:28, 30 December 2023 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose though the name is different County councillors are presumably fulfilling much the same role as County Commissioners and can appear in the same tree. It often happens that precise category names for subcategories differ from a parent that uses a more widespread name for much the same thing.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:28, 29 December 2023 (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:Autosomal monosomies and deletions
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: Full
autosomalmonosomy (losing an entire chromosome other than X or Y) is
not survivable and, therefore, we don't have any articles on it. All the articles in this category are partial chromosome deletions, sometimes termed partial monosomies, but since the words are synonymous in how they are used it would be less confusing just to refer to them as deletions, and consistent with the other category,
Category:Autosomal duplications for duplications of genetic material. (
t ·
c) buidhe 08:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:27, 29 December 2023 (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:Fictional disabled characters in soap operas
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: Dual merge as this intersection between disability, fictional character, and medium of fiction is not defining
Mason (
talk) 02:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
You know this reminds me of how
Category:Video game characters has a very large amount of subcategories, many of which are like "Fictional X in video games". And I think many of them are not even necessary at all.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 18:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
You want to merge the category to itself? –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 06:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks, no, I corrected to the first target.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support Overcategorization, we do not need 3 way intersections for everything.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 08:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose/keep - I understand the rational, however, disabled characters in soap operas (both as a group and individually) are regularly discussed and reported about in reliable independent sources, which is why I made an individual category for disabled characters in soap operas. I am happy to provide sources, but it basically boils down to the fact that soap operas are meant to be representative of real life due to being contemporary and having a large range of characters, and sometimes the portrayal is received positively but also sometimes negatively. Additionally, it says "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where possible" in the Fictional Disabled characters category, and this is an appropriate subcategory.
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk) 04:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 16:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Can you clarify what you mean by "disabled characters in soap operas (both as a group and individually) are regularly discussed and reported about in reliable independent sources"? Do you mean that the characters themselves are discussed? Or do you mean that there's literature on the phenomenon of disability representation in soap operas?
Mason (
talk) 20:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Both - both the individual characters AND representation of disabilities in soap operas in general, both about characters and the portrayers. That is why I am also currently working on an article about it too.
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk) 08:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Can you please point to some literature that supports this statement? I would find that extremely compelling that the intersection isn't trivial.
Mason (
talk) 15:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)reply
keep per DaniloDaysOfOurLives's explanation.
Dimadick (
talk) 22:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the sources. Most of these seem to be top-tens lists, which don't really say much more than look this character is disabled and are in a soap opera. However, it does look like there is some academic literature on this
[8], Mantilla, S. (2021). Interrogating (In) visibilities: Invisible Disabilities and Their Economies in the Australian Soap Opera Home and Away. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 15(4), 419-435.
[9]. I'm on the fence as to whether this is a defining intersection yet, but it does look like there's enough here for a brief wikipedia article, so *shrug* 🤷🏻♀️
Mason (
talk) 21:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:26, 29 December 2023 (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:Fictional eyepatch wearers
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.
How is it defining? Because I don't think that most people are defined by wearing a eyepatch. They might be defined by what causes them to wear an eyepatch (that they have some sore of visual impairment. I don't think that this works the same way that an assistive device like a wheelchair user would be.)
Mason (
talk) 02:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I would argue that it's a quite noticeable feature. I can tell at least that in the case of
Walter Martínez, the person who I created the category for, it is quite iconic and it's arguably the only person in the country known for wearing one. You make a good point, regardless. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 03:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - Eyepatches are not a fashion statement, they are a defining characteristic of fictional characters and real people. It is often due to a disability, whether temporary or permanent, and becomes a part of them.
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk) 03:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree that disability is defining, but an eyepatch is not a disability. If it is disability related, then they can be categorized as having a disability.
Mason (
talk) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I wanted to note
this suggestion by the OP, where the categories could be merged into that of blind people or other disabilities. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 03:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I am inclined to support the nomination after I read a few articles and I have not come across any references to reliable sources regarding this characteristic. After all, a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Manner of dress is not defining. Having one eye might be, but you don't need an eyepatch for that.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 08:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I would oppose that, e.g. the article
Maxie Anderson does not mention anything about it.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: Regardless of that, I would think that someone's lack of an eye or any other organ is a defining trait, while an article of clothing is not.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 08:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The article about
Mother Angelicaalso doesn't mention anything about it, the claim that this is a defining characteristic is just plain wrong.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: I'm sure both categories could use some trimming to make sure they only contain articles which make it clear that the eyepatch is defining of that person/character, but I see enough examples which do include that clarity that should make both categories still valid.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 21:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per DaniloDaysOfOurLives's explanation.
Dimadick (
talk) 22:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:22, 29 December 2023 (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:United States Army National Guard
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:rename, "United States" is not part of the organization's name, it is merely a disambiguator.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename to Category:Army National Guard (United States). Dear Marcocapelle, thank you for taking this the next step forward. If/when this renaming is approved, all the subcategories should have their names changed in the same way: Installations, Units and formations (can drop the "military" because "Army" is right there in the same category name), by insular area, and by state.
Buckshot06(talk) 00:29, 30 December 2023 (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:African-American players of American football
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: I don't think that this intersection is defining. There is a page on
Louisiana literature, but after looking through the people in the category only
Barry Jean Ancelet was described in the lead as "Cajun" writing professional.
Mason (
talk) 20:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:00, 29 December 2023 (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:French Canada
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: Speedy was opposed. The category is about the French diaspora in Canada and, per previous Cfd, was being renamed as such.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 18:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose "French Canada" is about the French-speaking peoples and regions of Canada, not diaspora of people from France in Canada. Look at the subcategories.
Jahaza (
talk) 03:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
note that it is "French Canada" contra "German Canadian", "Greek Canadian" etc.
Jahaza (
talk) 03:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. It feels a bit different than other diaspora categories because the majority of the population in Quebec is of French descent, but the same applies to
Category:British diaspora in the United States.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom
Mason (
talk) 22:03, 29 December 2023 (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:Parsees cricketers
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.
That's not how cricket categories are done, so would need a much broader discussion to change the standard from X cricketers.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 08:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support Per nom. Player categories for cricketers are xx cricketers as a whole, and not players of xx.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk) 10:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's right, because Parsis was the name of the team. If the category was for cricketers who are Parsi but did not necessarily play for the team, the title would be
Category:Parsi cricketers.
Batagur baska (
talk) 10:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support as Parsis seems to be correct name, and matches
Parsis cricket team (which has been at that name without objection for over a year).
Joseph2302 (
talk) 09:25, 2 January 2024 (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.
Serbia and Montenegro sport by year
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 numerous precedents.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:25, 29 December 2023 (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.
Nominator's rationale: There's no real life category equivalent and this seems like something the (now-banned) creator made up. I think we can agree that the characters are technically melee weapon users, but this is an arbitrary categorization.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 22:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 17:34, 31 December 2023 (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:Recurring sporting events established in 1862
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:procedural keep. This needs a larger nomination.
(non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in this category.
Let'srun (
talk) 22:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose, there is no point in randomly picking one year in the middle of the tree of
Category:Recurring sporting events by year of establishment. I would be open to a batch nomination of all years until 1900, or, if only, until 1800. Also it should be merging to a century or decade instead of deletion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support merger provided this is intended to be a sample nom to be followed by noms for all cases where there are less than 5 items, with the decade as target; also some wider annual category. Oppose if this is merely a single nom for a random year.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)reply
That is correct, seeing if there is interest to make this happen.
Let'srun (
talk) 14:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
oppose That is not a reason to delete a category.
Dimadick (
talk) 01:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose – The years can be useful for navigation, but what's even more is that it doesn't make sense to delete only one year.
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk) 22:07, 29 December 2023 (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:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom
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 Option A. Seems to be a good answer to let arguments about article names happen on the article and let the categories follow. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 17:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support Option A. As the nominator of the previous CfD, I support this one as well. Didn't realize I missed some similarly named ones.
ayakanaa (
t ·
c ) 17:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose option B, "singer" is an insufficient disambiguator since there have been several singing Anne-Maries.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Option A to match main article
Anne-Marie. We don't use disambiguation here unless the article about the subject does. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 19:00, 29 December 2023 (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:Jewish American male comedians
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.
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:1780s in Germany
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: Again with the anachronistic "[Specific Time Period] in [Country That Didn't Exist in That Time Period]" categories
Bearcat (
talk) 04:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge The
Kingdom of Germany article ends with "there are relatively few references to a German kingdom distinct from the Holy Roman Empire". So the terminology was evolving but was still anacrhonistic for this period. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 04:55, 1 January 2024 (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:Dutch sports national champions
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.
No, it is different. The nominated category is for national champions, the target is for world champions by nationality. Better withdraw this discussion and nominate
Category:Sports champions of the Netherlands with all of its siblings together, as a redundant category layer.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose as distinct categories. Arguably the national champion categories can form a subcategory of the sports champions ones. I don't think either layer is redundant. I think the "of X" wording isn't the best though. If champions for representing the country is intended, the "for X" would be better. If these are simply champions of a given nationality, then the demonym can be used, same as
Category:German Nobel laureates. Any thoughts @
Smasongarrison:?
SFB 12:35, 29 December 2023 (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:Mythological vertebrates
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: Truth be told, I'm dubious about the "vertebrate" parent categories too, but this one is particularly problematic, given that it conflates scientific terminology with mythological/legendary creatures. It simply doesn't matter for Wikipedians' purposes whether a mythological being is a vertebrate or not, this is a distinction that is used in biology.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 01:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom.
Mason (
talk) 01:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
That matters for biology, but why does it matter for mythology?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Dimadick
AHI-3000 (
talk) 00:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Could you explain why this distinction matters for mythology? Because I am really skeptical that this distinction is meaningful in that context.
Mason (
talk) 02:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom, I am far from convinced that this distinction is relevant in any way when it comes to mythology.
VegaDark (
talk) 20:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
'Merge I don't think the tree of life categories are helpful for navigation when you get into non-biology topics. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 04:57, 1 January 2024 (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.