Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 19 March 21 >

March 20[edit]

Category:Brexiteers[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. Just in case anything useful can be made of the current members of the category, they are Tariq Ali, David Bailey, Gerry Carroll, John Cleese, Joan Collins, Roger Daltrey, Michelle Dewberry, James Dyson, Frank Field (British politician), Julia Hartley-Brewer, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Elizabeth Hurley, Norman Lamont, John Mann (British politician), Tim Martin (businessman), Dreda Say Mitchell, Isabel Oakeshott, Roger Scruton, Elaine Smith (Scottish politician), Merryn Somerset Webb, Ringo Starr, Gisela Stuart, John Timpson (businessman), Sarah Vine. These seem to be notable people who publicly stated their position, but not campaigners. Oh, and Brexitovka, which I will move up. – Fayenatic London 11:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I found this category (without any supporting reference) at the bottom of the Michael Caine article. This category is problematic because it's about how people voted, rather than any political memberships they have. Not in a million years would we consider it acceptable to have a category of people who voted for Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin: people who worked on the campaign, maybe, but not just voters. There are 17 million prospective articles in this category, and 16 million in a category on people who voted remain. In many of these cases, the fact that a person voted Brexit isn't a defining feature. All of the entries in the category would fit within Category:British eurosceptics by the very definition, and all entries in that category would fit in this one unless the subject died before June 2016. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OPINIONCAT. I suppose it's theoretically possible that UK politics could become so hyperpolarized in the future that a person's opinion on the Brexit question becomes the litmus test for whether they actually get to keep their UK citizenship at all or not, but as of right now it's not a properly defining characteristic — if and when John Cleese or Michael Caine or Elizabeth Hurley dies, their obituaries are going to mention their work as actors in the lede, not whether they supported or opposed Brexit. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clarify purpose The problem is that the term is applied both to people who merely believe that the UK should leave the UK and to those who campaign to secure the UK's withdrawal from the EU. If the category was confined to those activists (politicians, journalists, maybe some other opinion formers) who have campaigned for Brexit, that would be a defining characteristic, and it would be a useful category.--Mhockey (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete because this is not a political party. It might however be possible to have a narrow category for those who actively campaigned for Brexit. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but refine purpose Refine to those who campaigned actively to leave the European Union, and for whom it is a defining issue. AusLondonder (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or possibly merge to Category:British eurosceptics), it seems to be a very defining characteristic at this point of time, but that's just because this is very recent. In 2020 nobody will care whether certain people campaigned to leave Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2017 (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:Joe Montana[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content to justify an eponymous category. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 20 March 2017 (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:Business Interstate Highway Articles[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Business Interstate Highways Dough4872 21:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The intention was to have a category for Business routes with articles to be specifically addressed over the ones with just a redirect to lists. Cards84664 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—as redundant. We don't need to separate redirects from articles in this situation. Imzadi 1979 → 22:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. There is no need for a specific, redirect-exclusive category when they are already noted with italicized entries. SounderBruce 00:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. -- LJ ↗ 22:52, 24 March 2017 (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:Armenian people of Czech descent[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category Hovhannes Karapetyan 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now So far as I can see from the nominator's contributions. this category has been emptied by the nominator Hovhannesk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
    Rather than simply saying "delete as empty", the nominator should explain why they have chosen to empty it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and repopulate category. If nominator can provide a substantive reason why the category is unnecessary or unwanted, then they're within their right to do that — but the way to get a category deleted is not to arbitrarily empty it yourself and then list it for deletion as an "empty" category without giving reasons why the emptying was warranted. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now that it's been explained I understand the nominator's reasoning a little better — and he was actually right to be concerned about the categories, as by and large they seem to have been used exactly backward: Sergei Movsesian, for instance, is a person of Armenian descent and Slovak nationality and Aghvan Papikyan is a person of Armenian descent and Polish nationality, but the categories imply the opposite. So, based on what I now know, I'm down with the delete, because the categories were simply wrong. I may still revise this again to a keep if people can be found who do belong in them, but Hovannes was right that the people who were in them at the time don't belong there.
That said, Hovannes, in future you should still either leave the category in place so that we can properly evaluate what was in it and whether it belongs there or not, or explain your reasoning for emptying it in more detail the first time. I have a couple of times in my Wikipedia career come across categories that were so explosively problematic that they had to be handled "backward", with immediate depopulation first on WP:BLP grounds and then the deletion discussion — an example that comes to mind would be "suspected homosexuals", which absolutely no way in hell would it be remotely appropriate to leave people in it for seven days while the discussion wended its way through the WP:SNOW — but if I do that I explain why I did it in the deletion statement. And that's a special case that's applicable only to categories that could get us hit with a libel suit if we weren't careful; for anything short of that standard, you should leave the category on the articles during the discussion even if it's wrong. Bearcat (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2017 (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:Armenian people of Polish descent[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Hovhannes Karapetyan 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now So far as I can see from the nominator's contributions. this category has been emptied by the nominator Hovhannesk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
    Rather than simply saying "delete as empty", the nominator should explain why they have chosen to empty it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and repopulate category. If nominator can provide a substantive reason why the category is unnecessary or unwanted, then they're within their right to do that — but the way to get a category deleted is not to arbitrarily empty it yourself and then list it for deletion as an "empty" category without giving reasons why the emptying was warranted. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now that it's been explained I understand the nominator's reasoning a little better — and he was actually right to be concerned about the categories, as by and large they seem to have been used exactly backward: Sergei Movsesian, for instance, is a person of Armenian descent and Slovak nationality and Aghvan Papikyan is a person of Armenian descent and Polish nationality, but the categories imply the opposite. So, based on what I now know, I'm down with the delete, because the categories were simply wrong. I may still revise this again to a keep if people can be found who do belong in them, but Hovannes was right that the people who were in them at the time don't belong there.
That said, Hovannes, in future you should still either leave the category in place so that we can properly evaluate what was in it and whether it belongs there or not, or explain your reasoning for emptying it in more detail the first time. I have a couple of times in my Wikipedia career come across categories that were so explosively problematic that they had to be handled "backward", with immediate depopulation first on WP:BLP grounds and then the deletion discussion — an example that comes to mind would be "suspected homosexuals", which absolutely no way in hell would it be remotely appropriate to leave people in it for seven days while the discussion wended its way through the WP:SNOW — but if I do that I explain why I did it in the deletion statement. And that's a special case that's applicable only to categories that could get us hit with a libel suit if we weren't careful; for anything short of that standard, you should leave the category on the articles during the discussion even if it's wrong. Bearcat (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for not stating the reason earlier. The person is categorized as Polish Armenians as (he is from Poland and of Armenian ethnicity. You cannot have both Polish Armenian (Polish of Armenian descent) and an Armenian of Polish descent together as that does not make sense. It can only be one of the two. This is why I nominated this for deletion and emptied it. The same applies to Slovak and Czech categories.
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.

Y of X vs XY[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: no action required. See below. – Fayenatic London 12:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked beyond the six categories involved here, but this may be a larger issue worthy of discussion. Is there a Wiki policy indicating a preferred format? Gjs238 (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The present format was the outcome of a long series of mergers some years ago. The two demonym option leads to an ambiguity as it can mean a Pole in Armenia or an Armenian in Poland. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2017 (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:Armenian people of Slovak descent[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty Hovhannes Karapetyan 17:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now So far as I can see from the nominator's contributions. this category has been emptied by the nominator Hovhannesk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
    Rather than simply saying "delete as empty", the nominator should explain why they have chosen to empty it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and repopulate category. If nominator can provide a substantive reason why the category is unnecessary or unwanted, then they're within their right to do that — but the way to get a category deleted is not to arbitrarily empty it yourself and then list it for deletion as an "empty" category without giving reasons why the emptying was warranted. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now that it's been explained I understand the nominator's reasoning a little better — and he was actually right to be concerned about the categories, as by and large they seem to have been used exactly backward: Sergei Movsesian, for instance, is a person of Armenian descent and Slovak nationality and Aghvan Papikyan is a person of Armenian descent and Polish nationality, but the categories imply the opposite. So, based on what I now know, I'm down with the delete, because the categories were simply wrong. I may still revise this again to a keep if people can be found who do belong in them, but Hovannes was right that the people who were in them at the time don't belong there.
That said, Hovannes, in future you should still either leave the category in place so that we can properly evaluate what was in it and whether it belongs there or not, or explain your reasoning for emptying it in more detail the first time. I have a couple of times in my Wikipedia career come across categories that were so explosively problematic that they had to be handled "backward", with immediate depopulation first on WP:BLP grounds and then the deletion discussion — an example that comes to mind would be "suspected homosexuals", which absolutely no way in hell would it be remotely appropriate to leave people in it for seven days while the discussion wended its way through the WP:SNOW — but if I do that I explain why I did it in the deletion statement. And that's a special case that's applicable only to categories that could get us hit with a libel suit if we weren't careful; for anything short of that standard, you should leave the category on the articles during the discussion even if it's wrong. Bearcat (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2017 (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:LGBT sportspeople from Arizona[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Triple intersection of occupation, state of residence and sexual orientation, created as a WP:SMALLCAT for just one person who's already duplicate-filed in both of the parent categories anyway (so there's no upmerging necessary.) With just 182 articles total, Category:LGBT sportspeople from the United States does not need to be subdivided by individual state that a person might come from — it's neither defining in its own right nor controlling the size of an overly large parent category, so the combination of the country-wide LGBT sportspeople category and the statewide LGBT residents category is sufficient, with "LGBT sportspeople from individual state" intersections simply not needed or wanted. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2017 (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:Epiprocta genera[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: rename. – Fayenatic London 12:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Anisoptera is the generally accepted subdivision of the Odonata family that is used when referring to the bulk of dragonflies that are not damselflies.

This category title uses the word Epiprocta which is also a subdivision of the Odonata family, but not commonly used. The taxonomic difference between Epiprocta and Anisoptera appears slight (Epiprocta includes a small number of historically interesting species). To use subdivisions of Odonata for helping us to understand dragonflies better - and I think it is a very good way to discriminate between the damselflies and non-damselflies - then using the words Zygoptera and Anisoptera are the best terms to use. John Tann (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in principle. @John Tann:, what would you do with Epiophlebia? Leave it by itself in Category:Odonata genera? If we're talking about recategorizing dragonfly genera, it might be time to consider creating categories for the larger families (e.g. Category:Gomphidae genera) rather than recategorizing the Gomphidae genera to Anisoptera now and putting them in the family category a few months or years down the line. Plantdrew (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to @Plantdrew:. What would you do with Epiophlebia? Leave it by itself in Category:Odonata genera? Yes, I think so. This would allow room for further systematics changes (such as yet-to-be-discovered dinosaur dragonfly ancestors that need to fit somewhere), while making the tag at the bottom of hundreds? of dragonfly genera pages a useful and understandable flag as to whether this genus is a damselfly or not. John Tann (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to @Plantdrew:. It might be time to consider creating categories for the larger families... Maybe not. Some larger families have their own category already (eg Category:Gomphidae) which includes species and genera. Seems good enough for me.
*Response to @Plantdrew: ... and then again maybe yes: It might be time to consider creating categories for the larger families... Upon reflection of your suggestion Plantdrew, I think it a good idea. Some larger odonata families have substantial numbers of genera, and it could be useful for a separate category to be made for them. John Tann (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for an administrator, perhaps @Plantdrew: might know: What are the next steps here? Do I just wait for a message to say YES or NO? Or will the Category automatically change by itself? Or am I supposed to do something? John Tann (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John Tann: an administrator should close the discussion. They probably will execute the move when closing (if they don't execute the move, it's probably up to you or me to do so). It seems there's a backlog on closing certain categories for discussion, so it may be several more weeks before anything happens. I'm not sure why this wasn't closed quickly; there's no disagreement here. Perhaps the bolded "Responses" are making this look more complicated than it actually is at a quick glance. I'm going to unbold them. Plantdrew (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2017 (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:Singaporean people[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 13:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge duplicate categories. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep − Category:Singaporean people is the standard subcat of category:People by nationality. Category:People from Singapore are not necessarily Singaporean (so the category inclusion at present is the wrong way round). I don't follow the earlier discussion which seemed to get waylaid by Irish bishops. Oculi (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge - Per Wikipedia:Category_names#Biographies Category:Singaporean people is the standard name. Having different categories for citizens vs. non-citizens living there vs. citizens now living elsewhere seems like pedantic overkill. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. There's no value in having two separate categories for this — no other country on the entire planet has two separate categories for this — so I can agree that they should be merged at one title or the other. However, the standard naming convention in the Category:People by nationality tree is "Demonym people", not "People from Country" (the only variant being Georgia, for which we have a special Georgia-specific rule because of the potential ambiguity with the USian state), and there's no reason for this one not to follow the standard. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator, most important is that the categories are merged. The merge direction is of secondary importance. Note that the previous discussion ended in no consensus (which was the worst possible outcome) because User:Lemongirl942 suggested a then reverse merge (i.e. merge as nominated now) per WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about "Singaporean" vs "People from Singapore" There is a lot of difference between "Singaporean" and "People from Singapore". This is not pedantic overkill. The encyclopaedia needs to be correct.
  1. The term Singaporean is specifically used for citizens after 1965 (when Singapore became an independent country).
  2. Prior to that, Singapore existed as a sub-national entity for a much longer time along side places like Penang and Johor. As it was not a nation, there was no concept of Nationality. Thus, "People from..." which has been long used for sub-national entities, is actually quite well suited. (As an example, Toh Ah Boon who was born in Singapore and lived in Johor Bahru, is categorised as "People from Singapore" and "People from Johor Bahru")
  3. I am not sure whether "demonym" or "adjectival" is meant here. But the adjectival for Singapore is "Singapore". Which is why we have "Singapore citizens", Singapore English, Singapore Idol and Singapore Airlines.
  4. Ideally, "Singaporeans" are a subset of "People from Singapore" and one way is to put it inside the "People from Singapore" category.
I will go and look for how it is used in practice and come back again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "from Singapore" you may be of any nationality; "Singaporean" you are of that nationality but may be "from" elsewhere. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Remember that before it became a nation state, Singapore was a city of the British Empire and part of Malaya. People can therefore be "from Singapore" the city, but not "Singaporean" the nationality. It's an unusual case, now essentially being a city state (and a sovereign nation) but previously being part of a wider entity (and not a sovereign nation). It's still both a city and a country. Both categories are therefore entirely viable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both be good. Down with the tyranny of demonyms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2017 (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.

Syracuse Orangemen baseball[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: rename. – Fayenatic London 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Syracuse University athletic teams were known as "Orangemen" at the time of the baseball program's discontinuation, in 1972. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. There never was a "Syracuse Orange baseball team." Lizard (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2017 (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.

Western Football Conference[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty categories with redundant names. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, they are empty as a result of me properly categorizing the 11 templates found at Category:Western Football Conference standings templates. They had just been created by User:Ocfootballknut, who I've been working closely with on this subject matter. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2017 (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.

Template:Zimbabwe-cricket-season-stub[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 template. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, originally posted at TFD. Rationale was: Unused stub template and I don't see a possible use. I guess this can be safely deleted. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2017 (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:Non-fiction works about Baruch Spinoza[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Books about Baruch Spinoza. The new category "Non-fiction works about Baruch Spinoza" lacks any rationale. All the articles placed in this category were already in "Category:Books about Baruch Spinoza". The total overlap shows the lack of need for a new category. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because several books about Spinoza are novels or non-philosophical works. Zingvin (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. No need for two categories covering the exact same set of articles. If anyone starts articles about novels dealing with Spinoza, then we'll deal with the matter as it arises. Note that there's no "Category:Non-fiction works about Friedrich Nietzsche", just "Category:Books about Friedrich Nietzsche", and it is the same with other philosophers. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelevant distinction. Why should non-fiction works be singled out? Dimadick (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- assuming there is nothing to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2017 (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/2017_March_20&oldid=1138411132"