Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 13

< March 12 March 14 >

March 13

Category:Ajax Orlando Prospects-related lists

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: upmerge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Ajax Orlando Prospects-related lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Alternatively, rename to Category:Ajax Orlando Prospects–related lists per MOS:SUFFIXDASH similarly to my recent WP:CFDS nominations. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge/delete - doesn't need to exist, the sole article can simply be re-ctageorised to parent category Category:Ajax Orlando Prospects. GiantSnowman 15:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge/Delete Category for a single list article doesn't aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge/Delete. --Just N. (talk) 14:29, 19 March 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.

People of Min descent

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 (the "delete" votes mostly favour merging). – Fayenatic London 10:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:American people of Min descent to Category:American people by Chinese ethnic descent
  • Propose merging Category:American people of Southern Min descent to Category:American people by Chinese ethnic descent
Nominator's rationale: merge, Min Chinese and Southern Min are language groups and you can't really descend from a language. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose linguistic groups are generally essentially ethnic. There are about 120M Min people. Would we do the same for people of Cherokee descent? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more complicated than that, there are e.g. Hoklo people (ethnicity) who speak a Southern Min language. Southern Min is not an ethnicity in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also more complicated than that further. "Southern Min" or "Min Nan" is often synonymous with Hokkien, perhaps erroneously so. Linguistically Southern Min is a family which contains Hokkien (aka Quan-Zhang dialects) as well as Teochew; however many Teochew would reject an identification as "Hokkien" as Chaozhou lies within Guangdong province. (which is perhaps technically true nonetheless, given that the ancestors of many Chaozhou people came from Fujian, the language certainly did anyways). "minnan" can analogously be referred to as an ethnicity, variously called Hokkien or Hoklo.[1][2]--Prisencolin (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on yesterday's categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note @Marcocapelle: Both of these categories are containers.. if you mean to include all of the children categories please do so.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not mean that, this is just about Min and Southern Min. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case keep because it's routine in anthropology to classify ethnic groups under the lines of language families, and the categories above those. This classification scheme presented in [Asian Cultural Traditions, Second Edition, By Carolyn Brown Heinz, Jeremy A. Murray · 2018].--Prisencolin (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ethnicity may be defined by different criteria, language is one possibility but it does not coincide. Take e.g. Jews or African Americans. Calling people of Fuzhou descent a subset of people of Min descent is a case of WP:SYNTH. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a better solution may be to rename the category. It's it's Category:People of Fujianese descent, I doubt there's any objection to classifying to Fuzhou people and Minnan people under this parent.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I object to the whole nutty tree that subdivides the Han Chinese in ways that are just not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we should upmerge all subcategories by Chinese descent, unless they are among the recognized 55 ethnicities of China, which nothing here is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category for what language a person's ancestors spoke is not remotely defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we should upmerge all subcategories by Chinese descent, unless they are among the recognized 55 ethnicities of China, which nothing here is. --Just N. (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories for people by ethnicity should not be grouped on the base of language family alone when this has no connection to ethnicity, as show the regrettable examples of Romance, Celtic, Iranic etc. categories. Place Clichy (talk) 14:56, 5 April 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:Communes of Guyane

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. ✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Guyane is the French name for the territory and French Guiana is the English term. There is a high likely confusion with Guyana anyhow, but Guyane is even more confusing. KittenKlub (talk) 16:19, 13 March 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:Executive branch of Israel

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 to Category:Executive branch of the government of Israel. ✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Executive branch of Israel to Category:Executive branch of the government of the State of Israel
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent of the Republic of Artsakh. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:03, 13 March 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:Executive branch of the Moldovan government

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. ✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent of the Republic of Artsakh. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 13 March 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:Executive branch of the Government of Pakistan

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. ✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent of the Republic of Artsakh. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, capitalization of government is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Government of Pakistan, it is a title and should be uppercase. Oculi (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Titles are typically used by people, not by institutes. What makes it a title in this particular case? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • A bizarre claim. All sorts of non-persons have a title; the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge for instance. As stated, I am going by Government of Pakistan (GoP). (A proper name, if you prefer.) Oculi (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, a proper name then. But why would this government be a proper name and others not? Usage of capitals for governments comes across as merely a matter of style. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's quite straightforward. Some countries have a body named 'Government of Foo' (proper name) and others don't. Eg the UK certainly does (example) and I expect the US does not. Oculi (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • All countries have a government (smallcaps) and their exact name isn't that relevant. We do not categorize by name. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Capitalization of government is not needed. --Just N. (talk) 14:38, 19 March 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:Executive branch of the Government of Venezuela

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. ✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent of the Republic of Artsakh Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, capitalization of government is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Government of Venezuela, does not appear to be a title. Oculi (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Capitalization of government is not needed. --Just N. (talk) 14:39, 19 March 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:Arab Zionists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 6#Category:Arab Zionists

Category:Springfield College (Massachusetts)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 25#Category:Springfield College (Massachusetts)

Film scores by language

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. ✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
more language categories
Nominator's rationale: merge, language is trivial for film scores. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Language issues have little to do with instrumental music. Dimadick (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know enough about India cinemas to make a judgement call (and I advise other users to do the same). However my understanding is that each language's cinema industry is independent and rather distinct from one another. Thus it can be useful to differentiate and cross-classify between composers and film language.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that every composer currently has multiple language categories is sufficient evidence that the cinema industries are overlapping in terms of composers working on scores. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though these categories are named "films scored," they do feature soundtrack as well with lyrics written in the respective languages. As Prisencolin rightly noted, the film industry of each Indian language is distinct and independent from the other. Language is the defining characteristic of a film's soundtrack. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Ab207 (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But the "Films scored" categories do not categorize the film score, but the film itself. Dimadick (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All The intersection is not especially defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All The intersection is not especially defining. --Just N. (talk) 15:00, 19 March 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:Vaccination myths

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. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT that overlaps substantially in scope, if not content, with the other category. Misuse of the word myth, per MOS:LABEL. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Myth is by definition "[a] traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." Do supernatural stories about vaccination exist? Dimadick (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have committed the common fallacy of taking one of several possible definitions of a word and claiming that it is the definition. This fallacy is often easily identified by the use of the phrase "by definition" for a word that has multiple definitions. Take, for example. Mythbusters. The "myths" they investigated were largely urban myths, and had nothing to do with supernatural beings or events. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vaccination myths" is a reflection of real-world usage, irrespective of the common meaning of "myths". As it is, this is a very small category, but a better solution may be expanding coverage of widespread falsehoods about vaccines. BD2412 T 07:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. If kept, rename to Category:Misinformation related to vaccination per article title Misinformation related to vaccination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No Category:Misinformation related to vaccination please! --Just N. (talk) 15:03, 19 March 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:Cancelled celebrities

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: cancel delete. ✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Cancelled celebrities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:CATPOV – the idea of "cancelling" a person (as opposed to an event, a TV show, etc.) originated as a joke on social media; deciding whom to include is inherently POV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC) edited 05:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate, "cancelling" here is metaphorical rather than literal (at least until dictionaries start defining "cancel" differently). Categories on the other hand should reflect verifiable facts about a subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cancel culture is too contentious and subjective for a category of "cancelled" people, to the point of possibly breaching WP:BLP. The "celebrity" label is also inherently vague. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the category may be accurate, cancel culture is a neologism. I am far from certain that it has a lasting impact or is reflected in more than a hand-full of sources. Dimadick (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Declaring an article subject to be a "cancelled celebrity" is subjective to the point of being unverifiable, and as such is likely to be a BLP violation most of the time when this category is applied. Wham2001 (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now inspected all the articles which had been added to the category. In my view none of the additions satisfied WP:CATV and hence all of them were arguably BLP violations. As a result I have reverted all of the edits adding articles to this category, which is consequentially empty. The list of articles that I removed is evident in my contributions from 08.53, 13 March (UTC) onwards. Wham2001 (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, inherantly WP:POV, a lot of content supporting the inclusion of the category are also WP:POV Rankersbo (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since this mythical "cancel culture" thingamabob does not actually cause the "cancelled" people to go away, having once been subjected to a temporary Twitter pile-on is not permanently defining of anybody. Anybody can say that anybody is "cancelled", but that doesn't necessarily cause anything to happen as a consequence. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This whole thing shows an attempt to hide the illiberal attempts of leftist to smash the rights of other people to voice their opinions. Those who say this does not exist are lieing. I will not stand by and let Wikipedia be taken over by haters of freedom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category might contain people with either left or right wing political preferences, at least in theory, so there is no reason to suspect a conspiracy. If in practice it would contain people of one wing only (regardless which wing) WP:POV would certainly apply. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In other words, anyone who disagrees with you is a liar and a "hater of freedom"? Dimadick (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's always amusing to me that "leftists" are accused of "canceling" people but the black-balling of Colin Kapernick and Martin Luther King, Jr. (prior to his assassination) never seems to get mentioned. JPL, keep your conspiracy theories to yourself.--User:Namiba 14:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective and pointy. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subjective, presentist, and ideologically motivated.--User:Namiba 14:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subjective, presentist, and ideologically motivated. --Just N. (talk) 15:05, 19 March 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:Politicians who died in office

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: I have created Category:Lists of politicians who died in office to hold lists but not biographies. – Fayenatic London 08:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Politicians who died in office to Category:Elected officials who died in office
Nominator's rationale: The complaint has been raised that officials with lifetime appointments who die in office are unremarkable because their term is for life. "Politicians" is nebulous in this regard because it may include people in a variety of circumstances who are not holding offices with set terms. Conversely, some people hold elected offices who might not be considered politicians. BD2412 T 04:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have a category tree for politicians under Category:Politicians, but not one for "elected officials" (whatever that means). The fact that they were elected does not mean that there was a fixed term of office. Dimadick (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dimadick. In addition, I am open to the possibility of deleting containerizing the category, per WP:NONDEF except if assassinated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Containerize as non-defining.--User:Namiba 13:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer Category:Politicians who died in elected office. This will exclude monarchs; also those judges who in practice hold office until death. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining. Many elected officials have lifetime tenures (Holy Roman Emperors, many dictators who entered office electorally, we even have a list at President for life, and more examples at Senator for life. Even those who don't aren't generally defined whether they die a bit before leaving office or a bit after. And this category has been cluttered with many lower-level politicians so that it's nearly impossible to be useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: No objection to containerizing, since there are subcategories that have survived recent deletion discussions or are not candidates for deletion, but if containerized some effort should be made to move existing contents into relevant subcategories. BD2412 T 20:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. The category system is not a tool for creating lists on just any characteristic that happens to describe a number of people — it is for defining characteristics which are central to the person's notability, but the timing of a person's death is not that. This is not a central notability claim that unites Jack Layton with Mel Carnahan, or Errol Barrow with Paul Wellstone, or Milan Bandić with Sveinn Björnsson, in any important way — it's just death trivia, not a critically significant matter that requires all of these people to be categorized together for it. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bearcat: If "the timing of a person's death" is not a defining characteristic, why do we have, e.g., Category:1975 deaths? Isn't the grouping of people who happened to die in that year, some young, some old, some naturally, and some by accident or murder, just as random? BD2412 T 18:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument in this case.67.173.23.66 (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (2) Those exist for technical maintenance reasons (e.g. generating internal maintenance reports), and don't really have anything to do with whether end users have reasons to care about the grouping. They could be made hidden categories without changing their actual purpose; this can't. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is not at all defining, there are too many cases where it is trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not uncommon for people in any profession to die prior to retirement. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RevelationDirect. --Just N. (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not all politicians are elected officials. What category do we put them in if they die? Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous arguments.2601:241:300:B610:89E5:946F:252D:68FD (talk) 12:14, 24 March 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:Hungarian musicians from Cluj-Napoca

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 the first one to Category:Musicians from Cluj-Napoca, as there is no consensus to remove them from that parent. Delete the other as empty. – Fayenatic London 13:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Hungarian musicians from Cluj-Napoca
  • Propose deleting Category:Hungarian musicians from Timișoara

The categories are an unfortunate outgrowth of this discussion. In short: a) it’s not a defining characteristic and b) it’s endlessly ambiguous — what if someone was an ethnic Romanian musician from Cluj-Napoca while under Hungarian rule, or (more likely) an ethnic Hungarian musician from Cluj-Napoca while under Romanian rule, etc. — Biruitorul Talk 02:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to parent categories Category:Musicians from Cluj-Napoca and Category:Musicians from Timișoara. Eliminating the Hungarian articles from the categories is a poor idea, and a straight deletion will have this effect. Dimadick (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, their birth in Cluj-Napoca or Timișoara is entirely unrelated to their musical career. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Hungarian musicians from Timișoara category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dimadick. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Marcocapelle. Birth location is entirely unrelated to their musical career. It's a politically motivated background, Orban gov. wants a bigger Hungary, relocate the frontiers. --Just N. (talk) 15:12, 19 March 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:Goldfinger (band) songs

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, note that Category:Songs by artist by default keeps subcategories with even only one article. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only two entries under this category: one is a redirect to an album, and one is a cover of a song whose article the band is no longer mentioned in. No original songs by this band have articles. Songwaters (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We can't categorize songs by every musician or band which has covered them. Songs like (Get Your Kicks on) Route 66 have had multiple cover versions over the course of 70 years, but we only list a hand full of the better known renditions. Dimadick (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here in Your Bedroom seems a perfectly valid entry. Oculi (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As long as Here in Your Bedroomis an article. 99 Luftballons should be removed from the cat as soon as possible. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Dimadick. It's surely not a question of having a personal taste for 'Here in Your Bedroom'. --Just N. (talk) 15:15, 19 March 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:Recipients of the House and Merit Order of Peter Frederick Louis

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. ✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the House and Merit Order of Peter Frederick Louis
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Crosses of the House and Merit Order of Peter Frederick Louis‎
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Commanders of the House and Merit Order of Peter Frederick Louis
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Knights 1st class of the House and Merit Order of Peter Frederick Louis‎
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Knights 2nd class of the House and Merit Order of Peter Frederick Louis
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign officials visited the German Grand Duchy of Oldenburg, the House and Merit Order of Peter Frederick Louis was given out as souvenir. Edward VII, Ludwig I of Bavaria, Abbas II of Egypt, and Alexander II of Russia are not remotely defined by the award and just mention it in passing. (About a 10th of this category consists of royals and other people from Oldenburg, who don't seem defined by the award either.) There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 13 March 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:Recipients of Tamgha-i-Jurat

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. ✗plicit 07:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of Tamgha-i-Jurat
Nominator's rationale: WP:C1, an unpopulated category, and likely WP:OCAWARD
The Tamgha-i-Jurat is a military award from Pakistan and the recipients are already listified right here in the main article. The problem is that none of those people have a Wikipedia article. None. (Not sure if it is eligible for speedy though since the award article is in the cat so it's not technically empty.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 13 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_13&oldid=1016284743"