Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3[edit]

Category:Housing Finance Agencies[edit]

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 into Category:Housing finance companies and Category:Housing finance agencies of the United States. delldot ∇. 02:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. This category seems to have been started using a US term, but other companies around the world have been added. – Fayenatic London 23:57, 3 January 2016 (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:Buildings and structures in the Southern Levant[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization (SMALLCAT / NARROWCAT). There are no articles that would logically fit into this category before fitting into the respective country categories. This category appears to be the result of a CFD discussion from 5 years ago. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Relevant category for WP:Commonname Drsmoo (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it merely groups together 4 country subcats, within Category:Southern Levant. What is being overcategorised? (It is a container category, not a small category.) Oculi (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom and per Oculi. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If anything, the problem is with the parent, Southern Levant, whose map appears to show a greater region than this category, possibly the whole Levant. However, while that exists, there is no reason why this one should not be kept as a container category. It is unlikely ever to get any articles on specific buildings, but does that matter? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This category is wholly unnecessary and muddles navigation. The term "Southern Levant" is used primarily in an archaeological and historical context, and it is counterproductive to subsume categories based on present-day geographic boundaries into a scheme based on an imperfectly defined, historical region. The logical extension of this category would be to place every category of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories into a parent "Foo in/of the Southern Levant"—e.g. Category:Economy of the Southern Levant, Category:Sport in the Southern Levant, etc.—which would merely serve to introduce a needless, intermediary level of categorization. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of course one could create endless numbers of container categories by region by just parenting the respective categories of the involved countries to these regions, as happened in this case, but I really don't think that it adds any value to do that. Especially not since there are too many different ways to define regions. I think there should at least be a reasonable amount of articles about this topic (buildings and structures of this region), whereas each of these articles would discuss the region rather than the countries, to provide some evidence to the fact that the region is more than just the sum of its countries. And that's not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This imposes an unneeded additional layer of categorization and in a way that it is virtually never done when referring to things in the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It originally included just the buildings subcats for Israel and the Palestinian territories (West Bank, Gaza Strip), under the title "Holy Land", see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_27 and diffs. Now it also contains Jordan and Lebanon. Either way, it is of no value for navigation. – Fayenatic London 01:14, 17 January 2016 (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:Thomas Penson[edit]

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, except the biographical article, which should be linked from the "buildings and structures" category but not placed in it. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is named after a Welsh architect/bridge designer Thomas Penson. There seems plenty of scope to create additional articles about his many buildings and bridges, but surely the normal category tree for this should be in Category:Buildings and structures by British architects. I'm suggesting a more suitable name to include articles about his buildings and bridges. Sionk (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created the proposed new category and moved one article into it (other buildings that he just designed part of might also belong in the new category). Delete per WP:OCEPON. DexDor (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downmerge to the category DexDor just created. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The bio will make a good main article for the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2016 (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:Mayors of Northfield, Minnesota[edit]

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:55, 3 January 2016 (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:Years in Carniola[edit]

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 as nominated, and delete the resulting empty categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete categories that will become empty after the above merging
Nominator's rationale: merge and delete since Carniola does not have sufficient content to decently fill year or decade categories. Which is not a surprise, as it was a small part of the Habsburg lands for a substantial part of its history. For Slovene ethnic territory (the parent of Carniola) the same applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- WE seem to get a lot of thin thread trees from this kind of categorisation, and they do not aid navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2016 (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:Historical subdivisions of the Slovene ethnic territory‎[edit]

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 11. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. E.g. Carniola, Styria and Carinthia have been independent duchies before they were absorbed by Austria. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2016 (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:History of the Slovene ethnic territory‎[edit]

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 11. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge since the Slovene ethnic territory nearly coincides with the current Republic of Slovenia, see map in Slovene Lands. Besides "geographic history" is a broad enough topic to allow some territories not currently in Slovenia to be categorized here anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2016 (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:History of the Drava Banovina[edit]

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 per Marcocapelle. The suggestion by JPL would need a further nomination. – Fayenatic London 01:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT and because it is an unneccessary category layer, since Drava Banovina is only about history, it was the name of Slovenia between the two world wars. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2016 (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:Geographical regions of Slovenia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Geography of Styria (Slovenia). – Fayenatic London 23:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT (only one article) and not very clear what the difference is between "region" and "geographical region". Please note that this nomination is not about administrative subdivisions, since these are in Category:Statistical regions of Slovenia. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2016 (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 tobacco users[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 23:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT. We're grouping Sherlock Holmes, The Penguin from Batman and Archie Bunker together here which seems like an unlikely aid to navigation. WP:SMALLCAT is certainly not a problem here since this category could contain most movie characters before the 1970s. This is a sub-category of Category:Fictional drug addicts but the other drugs in this tree seem more defining to the characters, like Jesse Pinkman with meth. Note that the sister alcohol category is Category:Fictional alcohol abusers not Category:Fictional alcohol users to avoid including everyone who has a drink on screen. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Inyouchuu shoku as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Fictional characters. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and limit to fictional characters whose tobacco use is a defining characteristic of their character. Sherlock Holmes, The Penguin, Boss Hogg, and a few others would qualify, but your average pre-1960s movie character who happened to smoke just as much as every other male in that film or in that genre or just as much as the "archtype" of that character did would not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the article actually addresses their smoking habits, then it is notable. Trivial uses are generally not part of the articles to begin with. Dimadick (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An article might mention that the character drives, wears a suit, is married, can swim, drinks alcohol, gambles ... (WP:DNWAUC). DexDor (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of, for example, M (James Bond) (afaics it's not even mentioned in the article and wasn't when the category tag was added[1]). DexDor (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining? Absolutely. And claims about "fictional characters" are generally not especially necessary for any reasonable article-navigation. Collect (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely trivial; we don't even categorize real people on this basis. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- In the past (and even today) smoking is too common a habit to warrant a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a trivial characteristic, and do not listify. Tobacco use is about as common among fictional characters as it is in the real world. Furthermore, although smoking is a part of the "image" of several characters—ones whom we automatically picture with a cigar(ette) or pipe, such as Columbo and Sherlock Holmes—even in those cases the characters are hardly defined by smoking. Columbo and Holmes, for example, are fictional detectives who happen to be smokers, not fictional smokers who happen to be detectives.
    I also oppose a stand-alone list. While a short list may be appropriate in an article about Smoking in fiction, what would be the purpose of a stand-alone list of characters who smoke? The cigar and pipe are readily associated with the Columbo and Holmes characters, respectively, but so are the raincoat and deerstalker; should we also have a List of fictional raincoat wearers and List of fictional cap wearers? -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is this a trivial trait, but it is a changeable one. Some fictional characters have existed in many different media on a continuous basis for decades, some of which in some cases clearly use tobacco and in others clearly do not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2016 (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 entire "Political bosses" category tree[edit]

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 Category:Italian political bosses‎, Category:Japanese political bosses, Category:Political bosses by country and upmerge Category:American political bosses to Category:Political bosses. No consensus on the deletion of the American political bosses line and no consensus at all on Category:Fictional political bosses. I think that resolves the concerns here and the American political bosses line can be done at another discussion as numerous options have been expressed here. Ricky81682 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:BLPCAT
A political boss is someone "who wields disproportionate power and influence over a political region" and they "are often associated with corruption and organized crime and are generally regarded as subversive", per the introduction to the main article. There are certainly plenty of political opponents being quoted in reliable sources saying their rivals are "political bosses" but that claim is inherently subjective. How exactly does a country's Prime Minister have "disproportionate" political influence for their position, for example? The term is also distinctly negative, raising Biography of Living People concerns: we group one of Al Capone's mobster rivals right along with a living New Jersey hospital executive who has never been charged with a crime.
Certainly some politicians have more influence than their title would suggest--be that positive or negative--as well as some stuffed shirts having less power than their titles would imply; that's the human condition and the extent of a person's influence should be included in the article. As a point of categorization though, this is subjective and derogatory. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
23 Sub-Categories
Note: Notified Plindenbaum as the primary category creator, tagged the BLP Noticeboard and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Politics. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main category and at least some sub-categories but consider consolidating smaller categories. While I appreciate the BLP issues, having categories for fictional and deceased people who were well known as "political bosses" is very useful. Having separate by-state categories for the less-than-100 bosses in the United States, not so much. If this category tree is deleted it should be converted into a list first. The BLP issues can be handled the same as you would an edit adding Mr. X was the political boss of East Elbonia in the mid-1960s - if it's not cited in a reliable source and BLP applies, revert it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidwr: Fictional: I have no conceptual problem with Category:Fictional political bosses subcategory but it currently only has 2 articles so it doesn't aid navigation. If you can find 3 or so more articles, I'll gladly strike that one from the nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – amazing that this has survived since 2006. Ditto the article Political boss. Oculi (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this term is in common use by hundreds of scholars in history & political science who have used it for 100+ years. It's standard usage in the RS: Google scholar gives 171 separate citations in the scholarly literature published in 2015. It is not true that the term is "distinctly negative"--what reformers oppose is the party-in-control not the specific person in control. Rjensen (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep American, delete others. Based on the biographies in these categories I understand this to be a typically American term. Therefore I would suggest to upmerge Category:American political bosses by state to Category:Political bosses and to delete Category:Political bosses by country, Category:Italian political bosses‎, Category:Japanese political bosses and Category:American political bosses‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, decent sources. Though I would not oppose a merge of some of the smaller categories to a parent one. Dimadick (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all As creator of some of the subcategories. Stefanomione (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The term is not a claim of fact as a rule, thus using "opinions" about living persons where such positions are not self-identified is, in my opinion, substantially contrary to the intent of WP:BLP. I am stating that calling anyone a "political boss" is, in fact, a contentious claim of personal opinion. Categories well ought to be restricted to actual facts. Collect (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all We have categories for presidents, prime ministers, governors etc, which are more appropriate that this terminology. Number 57 15:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all because I don't really see much difference between political bosses and politicians. "Disproportionate power" doesn't seem to be convincingly sourced as a general definition and, in any case, would be difficult to measure objectively. Sionk (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of usual political usage: a "boss" Is the top party person in a political unit: the ward boss is in charge of party operations in that ward (But not the city as a whole), the county boss is in charge of the party in the county (But not the state). That makes the term much more narrow than "politician" which carries no connotation of being the sole person in power in the party apparatus. A party with multiple leaders does not haver a boss. Rjensen (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the top person in a ward is a "ward leader", the top person of a county is an "county executive", the top person of a state is a "governor"--at least in Pennsylvania. If there is any state that has "political boss" as a formal title, let us know. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing heads of governmental structures with heads of political party structures. Political bosses may or may not choose to hold government office; often, they just chose who is allowed to run for their parties in formal, government elections. Reading the articles involved here would be helpful, particularly, Tammany Hall. Hmains (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And that informal power is hard to quantify, verify, and categorize. If they are the formal leader, "Party Chairman" or the like can be used. The assumption here is that every organization has a figurehead and the "real" boss is behind the scenes. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: The article Political boss should explain things but unfortunately it's lacking in that department. Basically, to "earn" the title "political boss" you need to have a lot of political power in a particular sphere of influence (typically a geographic area or geographically-bounded political entity like a city) AND you need to abuse that power, typically by doing illegal things or allowing your cronies/henchmen to do illegal things without any consequences for them. The fictional Boss Hogg is a good example. Unlike a few generations ago, there are very few people in America today who you could rightfully call a "political boss." Even back then, people who occupied powerful/nearly-dictatorial position-of-power weren't necessarily called "political bosses" if they didn't abuse their position. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, historians And political scientists use the term "boss" with no assumption of any illegal activities of any sort. Political reformers opposed to the local organization may make that allegation, but they rarely are Reliable sources. Historians often quote George Washington Plunkett on how machines and buses operate, with no effort to condemn them. Morally The reformers and the machines seem to be on about the same plane, as typified by the Nash-Jeffrey textbook: "Protestants, demanded competitive examinations to create an honest and professional civil service-but also one that would bar immigrants and their urban machine bosses from the spoils of office." Jon Teaford in The Unheralded Triumph (1984), praised bosses for building the complex infrastructure of rapidly growing cities. John Buenker (1973) observed that bosses provided essential services for needy immigrants. Rjensen (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly some defenders (although they are usually along the lines of "not everything they did was bad") but "political leader" sounds more neutral, and not just in a Wikipedia context. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The term is contentious and usually derogatory. Arguably an inherent violation of WP:NPOV. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 23:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These people are almost all dead. I checked the 4 biggest sub-cats and of the 24 entries only 3 or 4 were alive. One wasn't a political boss so I removed the article from the category. The other 2 or 3 were obviously mis-using their power as backed by reliable sources. Throwing out these categories to protect living people from mis-categorization at the expense of removing a valuable tool to unite the 19th and 20th-century political bosses is throwing the baby out with the bath water. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep American tree. Political boss is a term known in the history and politics of the United States. To remove the tree is just 'too correct' without providing anything useful to the WP reader. Readers should expect to be able to use categories for the navigation purposes; in this case to find all the bosses. As noted, bosses need not be criminal; they just hold a great deal of political power, as shown by their articles. Hmains (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is exactly the problem here. If they just needed to "hold a great deal of political power" you would include every American president and statewide politician, at the very least. It makes no sense for a category tree of 'very powerful American politicians'. Sionk (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, bosses have a very specific power: they control party operations (not government operations which office holders control). Rjensen (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Compromise Rename? Then let's create a local or city subcategories to match Category:State political party chairs of the United States. How about Category:Municipal political party chairs in the United States? That would not be subjective or (arguably) derogatory and would provide the categorization you're looking for. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before more such wild proposals, how about reading the articles. Hmains (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on reading the articles. Without reading them I would have voted to delete all, but then I changed my mind, see above. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did too, especially since the categories have changed a lot since I nominated them (e.g. none of my 3 examples are still there). And there are a several backroom dealers that held no or only minor political office, but the majority were elected Governors, members of Congress, big city mayors and other high offices. That's not to say they didn't have the party control Rjensen describes, but most also had formal government authority. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There really is very little point in reading all the articles, when we don't have a convincing, verifiable, measurable definition of political boss. 'Boss' is simply an English language word that means chief/leader/manager etc. Sionk (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all US sub-categories and US parent (plus the fictional one, as a sub-cat to it). The parent needs deleting and should be parented to something like "political party leaders by country". With the US separation of powers, between the executive and legislative branches, one does not get a single party leader, so that the category tree is appropriate in USA, but differing arrangements elsewhere probably means that we will not get any non-US articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all This is a term that is used in a disparaging way, and never used as a self description. There is also no objective way to define it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2016 (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/2016_January_3&oldid=1088120034"