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: Do we really need to make the distinction for what kind of intellectual property law they practice? (With the exception for patent attorneys).
Mason (
talk) 20:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, the articles say they are specializing in intellectual property, broadly.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:06, 15 April 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.
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 nominator's rationale
jengod (
talk) 23:29, 19 April 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:Fictional characters by political orientation
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.
Merge per nom, and "students" categories are used for people who are only notable as a student.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom and marco.
Mason (
talk) 03:34, 18 April 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:Ziaur Rahman Azmi
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 Bengal editor's (duplicate) !vote has been disregarded because they are a sock.
* Pppery *it has begun... 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, standard case of
WP:OCEPON considering that the students category will not be kept either (see nomination above).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:49, 15 April 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:American Jewish billionaires
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 haven't done much editing in categorization recently, so maybe the rules have changed, but this one sure reeks of a
WP:OCEGRS problem to me. At the very least, there ought to be community consensus (rather than the actions of a single editor) that this intersection is sufficiently noteworthy and unbiased to merit inclusion; I do not believe it is, certainly not without context.
Chubbles (
talk) 07:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and EGRS. (For the record, I think that African American billionaires probably hold-ups to
EGRS, but that's because of the very recent history of us economics,
https://www.ncrc.org/the-racial-wealth-divide-and-black-billionaires-across-the-globe/) But for Jewish billionaires that seems to me playing much more into negative stereotypes rather than economic gains/academic interest)
Mason (
talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
C'on! Really?! On what basis? This is simply a category, what would you do if I created an article? How is that anti-Semitic stereotyping? If so, why don't you just delete all reference to people's religions in their respective articles?! Being successful is not a crime. To address the nominator's points, as they mentioned above, there exists an
Category:African-American billionaires, I have also created
Category:Asian American billionaires,
Category:Arab American billionaires. I emptied
Category:American Asian billionaires since I thought
Category:Asian American billionaires is more correct linguistically and more in line with the reference to that group. I will also create a category for American Hispanic billionaires. Furthermore, what prevents anyone here from creating a category for all other groups (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) if that's your argument for not allowing this category?
Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (
talk) 19:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
All these should be merged too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OCEGRS. Congrats to all the billionaires of any nationality or ethnicity on your money, please pay your tax bills in full.
jengod (
talk) 21:53, 21 April 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.
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 only one century in here, which is unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 04:18, 15 April 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:Politicians arrested in Yemen
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 of occupation and location of arrest.
Mason (
talk) 04:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, we shouldn't have "arrested" categories anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom and Marco.
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:42, 15 April 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.
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: (Or maybe "Aphex Twin compositions".) Strictly speaking, songs contain singing. Aphex Twin tracks have no singing, or no singing in the traditional sense. For example, it is not really accurate to describe
Avril 14, a piano instrumental, as a "song".
Popcornfud (
talk) 17:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean oppose. Don't other categories have non-singing songs in them? I don't think it's helpful for navigation to make the distinction between songs that contain vocal tracks and those that do not.
Mason (
talk) 20:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Just for clarity, I'm not proposing we create separate tracks for vocal and instrumental Aphex Twin tracks, just keeping a single category and renaming it. (There are very few, if any, Aphex Twins that could really be called "songs" in my view, and I also suspect the habit of calling non-vocal tracks "songs" tends to be an Americanism, but that's probably by the by.)
Popcornfud (
talk) 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars seems to be right, this should be a merge or reverse merge.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I don't have very strong opinions on this.
Mason (
talk) 19:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Comments on NL's proposal would be very much appreciated! Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 22:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Should I ping the other participants to ask their opinion? They might not have read this, but I don't want to unnecessarily alert people.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This final solution is surely in line with my earlier comments.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle Don't you mean 'certainly'? I often see you use the word 'surely' where I expect the word 'certainly'. As far as I know, in English, 'surely' is usually used in a question sentence to someone else, asking them to confirm something you would expect / like them to believe, or to say, or to do / to have done. 'Surely you locked the door, didn't you?' It's like the English equivalent of '...toch zeker wel...?' See the usage notes at
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surelybecause [surely] connotes strong affirmation, it is used when the speaker or writer expects to be agreed with. Unlike sure it may be used neutrally—the reader or hearer may or may not agree, and it is often used when the writer is trying to persuade.
Surely you must admit that it was a good decision.
In this case, it's like you're asking yourself whether you agree with your own earlier comments. 'Deze oplossing is toch zeker wel in lijn met mijn eerdere opmerkingen?' There is nobody who can answer that question except for you.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Then my "surely" should be read as "certainly". Happy to improve my English vocabulary.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You're welcome!
NLeeuw (
talk) 00:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: ....and I forgot to tag
Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin last week. Oops. If there are no further comments by next week, we should be all set for implementing NL's proposal. Apologies for the delay/third relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 00:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah no worries HouseBlaster. :)
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:47, 15 April 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.