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. bibliomaniac15 05:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Category implies that the articles in it are confirmed war crimes. There is only article in this category. There are other categories that are more appropriate for articles of this nature (Category:War crimes in Ukraine and Category:War crimes committed by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army). Until there are confirmed and convicted war crimes this category could be abused. Dr vulpes(
💬 •
📝) 23:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Rename and limit scope --
Category:War crimes committed by the Ukrainian Forces might be appropriate, but I note that several of the items are contested: how can we be sure which side is publicising false flag issues or exaggerating; or portraying accidental mis-targeting as intentional? Some Russian war crimes in Ukraine (e.g. at Bucha) seem well evidenced, but we have not heard the Russian side of the story. A parallel
Category:War crimes committed by the Russian Forces in Ukraine would also be needed.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming just the Ukrainian (and Russian) category. If this is the way to go there should be a nomination of the whole tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I've added the rest of the tree per Marcocapelle. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 13:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
By co-nominating the whole tree it becomes obvious that an immediate rename to army categories may well lead to a lot of errors. The article in the Albanian category is
1901 massacres of Serbs deals with a massacre that happened even before Albania became an independent country. If we need categories by army rather than by country the steps should be: 1. create categories by army as subcategories of the existing country categories, 2. (optional) nominate the country categories for deletion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Armies are not responsible for war crimes, their governments are the ones orchestrating them.
Dimadick (
talk) 06:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Further comment -- In many cases, no one has proved that the event is a war crime. In many cases, the perpetrator may argue that their actions were justified. IN other cases, "massacres by fooland" would be a NPOV title.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose it's perfectly named category, it contains crimes comitted by Ukrainian state and Ukrainian organisations such as OUN-UPA
Marcelus (
talk) 17:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep all the listed categories. I think it should be kept, if it's not confirmed then it can be mentioned in the article. -
Artanisen (
talk) 19:38, 26 August 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:Kentucky women artists
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:merge, trivial triple intersection between state, occupation and gender. No other American states have a women artists subcategory. See also
WP:EGRS for the limited application of intersections with gender.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 13:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Rename toCategory:Women artists from Kentucky, for consistency. Category:American women artists is large enough to diffuse by state; that category has 574 outside of its subcategories, and this one has 30. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 07:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:39, 19 August 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:Populated places in Uttara
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,
Uttara (town) is a suburb of
Dhaka and a populated place itself. The category contains areas within Uttara. We use the term "populated places" for cities, towns and villages.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Support Being in Dhaka explains it better.
GenuineArt (
talk) 15:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge per Marcocapelle. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Rename or merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 13:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:39, 19 August 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:NHS hospitals in South East England
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: Arbitrary geographical category. The English NHS has been divided into regions quite a few times, but South East England has never been one of them.
Rathfelder (
talk) 09:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose: I see your reasoning but
South East England is a defined region and it is useful to break up the very large category of NHS hospitals in England. Also, London is not an NHS region (i.e. there is no such thing as NHS London) but such a category still exists.
Elshad (
talk) 17:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge, this is a very unusual geographical classification. Hospitals are already geographically categorized as subcategories of
Category:Hospitals in England.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)reply
South East England is not a defined region in the NHS, and I dont think it ever has been.
Rathfelder (
talk) 07:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep -- A better solution would be to split the target according to the Standard English regions, which still exist though they are less used by government than they used to be.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I Think all these are categorised by county, and that is sufficient. Given that these are almost all NHS organisations it doesnt make sense to use a geography not used by the NHS.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 13:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Withdrawing objection -- Categorisation by county (which would include London (defined as Greater London) seems appropriate.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:23, 20 August 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.
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. Note that the information is already mentioned in
Jeopardy!#Hosts, so listification is already there. bibliomaniac15 05:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: per the same discussion and reasoning
here, specifically Animalparty's points re:
WP:PERFCATPRAXIDICAE🌈 19:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, for a guest host this is not a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:20, 20 August 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:Companies operating former Boston and Maine Corporation lines
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.
OpposeSupport there is no substantial difference between those two, but the shorter name is preferable
Marcelus (
talk) 17:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Marcelus: if you say the shorter name is preferable you are supporting the nomination rather than opposing it.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Yeah, my bad, I was confused
Marcelus (
talk) 07:12, 25 August 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:Characters adapted in the Marvel Cinematic Universe
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 05:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per G4 and prior discussions. I'm not sure if G4 applies to categories, but it should.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 20:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
-- Zoo (
talk) 04:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)reply
That wouldn't help, the premise of this category has been used under different names.
Cambalachero (
talk) 19:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Only the 4th time? I'm thinking more like 10th. But yes, it is always recreated under a different name.
BOZ (
talk) 21:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I
thought of salting too but that wouldn't work in this case. That's why I brought up G4, but I don't know if categories are eligible for that.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 02:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
All pages, including categories, are eligible for G4 (and for G1 and for G5 etc.). Categories only differ in the sense that there additional criteria specifically for category deletion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Good to know. Next time, just skip CfD altogether and go the G4 route.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 04:12, 27 August 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:Political prisonership controversies
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: A poorly defined category (i.e. not defined at all except for the name), with a single article, and a single parent category. Upmerge and move on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 10:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
It is a controversial topic by nature, so a controversies subcategory does not make much sense. Merge to
Category:Political imprisonment since there is only a topic article in this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:51, 19 August 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:Hoàng Vĩnh Lộc
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:speedy delete per
WP:CSD#G5.
✗plicit 05:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: This is a Asian filmmaker who was well-known in whole world. Besides, his some film was preserve in
US archive office. He is only "un-known" by GenZ who like "cancel" and negative the past. They alway think, cosmos' history only began from 2010, before that time only dark and night. (
Betabum (
talk) 14:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC))reply
Delete per
WP:OCEPON. The eponymous article and the film article already link to each other directly, so the category is entirely redundant.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Request - Betabum who created this category keeps removing the cfd tag. Could a passing admin stress that this is not permitted?
Oculi (
talk) 22:22, 19 August 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:Songs about ducks
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 05:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: A collection of song titles with the word 'duck' in it doesn't make a category.
WP:CATDEF,
WP:SHAREDNAME and possibly
WP:V applies.
Richhoncho (
talk) 09:21, 19 August 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.
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:split. bibliomaniac15 05:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The category contains mostly people, but also includes a variety of important non-person articles (including legal contracts and places affiliated to the tribe). The new category (Ngāi Tahu people) would more accurately categorise people affiliated to the iwi. — HTGS (
talk) 00:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Makes perfect sense. Technically this would not require a CfD discussion, but this split is quite a big job so I can imagine that consensus is sought upfront.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The existing category is a sub-category of
Category:New Zealand Māori people by waka, iwi, hapū or whanau, one of about 84 such sub-categories, all similarly named, without the additional word people. If the change is to be made, then the whole category tree should be reorganised, for all iwi, not just Ngāi Tahu, along the lines of:
To maintain consistency, I don't think that Ngāi Tahu should be changed in isolation.
Paora (
talk) 08:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
My advice would be to start with splitting biographies to "people" subcategories and after that is finished evaluate if further splitting is needed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Agree with Paora. It needs a comprehensive approach. Schwede66 07:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I fully agree about changes for every iwi—as Marcocapelle surmised I only posted Ngāi Tahu to test for disagreement. My intention was to make the move and then repeat for each iwi in turn. I hadn’t considered further subcategories (marae, history, etc.), and planned to assess those as necessary once people were done. — HTGS (
talk) 06:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
HTGS: No problem with that approach. There doesn't seem to be any objection, so I'd say go for it!
Paora (
talk) 04:35, 27 August 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.