Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 29 May 1 >

April 30[edit]

Category:People who were deported to Ravensbrück concentration camp[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 21:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the parent category and a majority of its sister categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. For consistency reasons. The article Ravensbrück concentration camp has a list of prominent prisoners, which can help populate the category. Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't seem to be any real rationale for the proposed change. Category is for citizens and/or residents of Nazi occupied territories that were sent to Ravensbrück. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2018 (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:Theresienstadt concentration camp inmates[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 21:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the parent category and the majority of its sister categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took the liberty to merge the 7 separate discussions to one discussion about 7 categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. For consistency reasons. Though I am somewhat less certain whether Bełżec extermination camp should have its own category. It was operational for about a year (March, 1942-March, 1943) and managed to kill almost every prisoner there. Due to the lack of survivors, relatively little is known about the prisoners and their identities. "The physical evidence of the camp's existence was almost entirely erased before the war's end as a result of the German prolonged cleanup efforts. There were no survivors to alert the Stalinist officials to the true significance of the site in the post-war years, even though the levelled-out mass graves of the victims remained. The scene was not legally protected until the late 1940s, and for many years gave the impression of being forgotten." [1] Dimadick (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2018 (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:Future entities[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. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, one subcategory and one redirect is too little content for a category. Besides 'entities' is rather vague, although admittedly it does a fair job in Category:Former entities. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be, though I would rather avoid the rather vague 'entities' layer if not really needed given the size of the category. (No need to be sorry.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The only content (except a redirect) is a subcategory for hypothesised future continents. We do not have enough contents for the present category to survive. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2018 (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:Civil services & other bureaucracies in fiction[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 11:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More succinct and searchable name, as bureaucracy also includes civil services. Brandmeistertalk 15:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Overly long title. Dimadick (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as it is. Describes the category perfectly. Also the definition of a Civil Service is more than 'just' a bureaucracy. (Disclaimer: I created this category). Ceannlann gorm (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to determine a specific scope of the category. It should be either about bureaucracy in fiction as a topic, or fictional civil service organizations as a set category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2018 (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:Dancing with the Stars winners[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 consensus. – Fayenatic London 11:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT. Should be upmerged per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 21#Category:Category:Celebrity Big Brother winners (among others). --woodensuperman 08:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if deleted, the contents should go into Category:Reality dancing competition winners, not Category:Reality show winners, though personally, I think it should be all or nothing. If this is going to be covered by WP:PERFCAT, then the entirety of the Category:Reality show winners should go. I would, however, prefer to see it kept, since the "performances" in this case are not of the standard type for the individuals concerned and as such, they fall into a hole in the "by performance" guidelines. This isn't like categorising actors by their acting role or opera singers by their opera - these people are participating as themselves rather than as actors, musicians, etc (if that wasn't the case, then the mix of individuals wouldn't be so diverse as to include a mix of politicians, sportspeople, actors, and other celebrities). Grutness...wha? 14:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - winners of these program are notable, being celebrity-themed shows, and I don't see how it is any different to distinguishing, for example, politicians by political party (Category:Christian Democratic Party (Australia) politicians as opposed to simply Category:Politicians) or award winners by type of award (Category:Best Supporting Actor Golden Globe (film) winners instead of Category:Award winners) -- Whats new?(talk) 08:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The winning of these competitions is usually a defining characteristic for the competitors. PERFCAT is less relevant as that relates to people simply doing something, rather than winning a competition as a result of the thing they are doing. Lots of these show winners are more publicly recognised as a result than are winners of more august prizes. Not my thing, but it clearly is for others. SFB 21:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, Delete -- Merging them would not solve the PERFCAT issue, it would just make a new bloated PERFCAT. The problem with some of these reality shows is that the performers and winners are notable for nothing else, so that their articles would be orphaned. To my mind that raises the question of whether they are in fact notable at all. However if a series has had five series (and thus 5 winners), it may be better to keep a PERFCAT, rather than orphan articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PERFCAT, as apparently these are actors etc who are notable regardless their participation in this show. In the past we have been merging participants and winners of shows in which 'common people' (not celebrities) participated, so for whom having been in a show was the only defining characteristic. If merged for this reason, then merge to the target that Grutness indicated, namely Category:Reality dancing competition winners and also to a reality show participants by country category, e.g. to Category:Participants in American reality television series. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:Reality dancing competition winners. Per PERFCAT, there doesn't need to be separate categories for each series. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 09:56, 18 May 2018 (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:Dance India Dance contestants[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: listify and delete, along with those in the nomination below. – Fayenatic London 11:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 08:32, 30 April 2018 (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:Dancing with the Stars participants[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: listify and delete. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As all participants in the series are already "celebrities", these categories fails WP:PERFCAT. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 21#Category:Celebrity Big Brother (UK) contestants for precedent (among other discussions). --woodensuperman 08:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or listify - see my comments above. Listifying would be a reasonable alternative.Grutness...wha? 14:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC) (amended 01:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose - participants of these program are notable, being celebrity-themed shows, and I don't see how it is any different to distinguishing, for example, politicians by political party (Category:Christian Democratic Party (Australia) politicians as opposed to simply Category:Politicians) or award winners by type of award (Category:Best Supporting Actor Golden Globe (film) winners instead of Category:Award winners) -- Whats new?(talk) 08:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify, not a defining characteristic for a person. The party one represents is a defining characteristic. Geschichte (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify A perfect topic for a list, which will allow us to note the corresponding season, finishing position etc. As a navigational aid, participation is not defining enough in itself. SFB 21:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a performance category. We do not categorize people by what particular TV shows they appeared in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps after listifying. This is a typical PERFCAT, which is not allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or listify - My vote goes either way. I feel we can argue why we should list or keeping vs deleting. I do agree with the fact listing highlights the shows helps navigating to each show easier. Listing seems to be more of a reasonable outcome from what all the other users are suggesting. My thoughts for deleting is why subtract each category when we can expand the categories to benefit? My reason to keep is because yes we can expand and add more participants. I will go back and re-read WP:PERFCAT and once again I will respect whatever decision the outcome may be.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and listify where appropriate) per PERFCAT, as these are all celebrity participants, not people who found fame through these programme. Lists would be good if they don't already exist. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 09:54, 18 May 2018 (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:Grand Croix of the Ordre national du Mérite[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. Timrollpickering 18:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Consistency with default article realm article name National Order of Merit (France). I equally educated the same update to the other related categories inside Category:Recipients of the National Order of Merit (France), although I am not sure how to go about that technically here on this page. If you know, please help me. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Tagged. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that would be just as fine. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Pourquoi the étrange hybrid de Anglais & French?
The current title is all French: "Grand Croix of the Ordre national du Mérite"
The English translation would be: "Grand Cross of the National Order of Merit (France)"
But the nominator's proposal is: "<French>Grand Croix</French><English>of the National Order of Merit (France)</English>"
Use one language or the other. Mais ce melange of deux vocabularies hurts ma tête. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Good observation. I agree: "Grand cross" would be more suitable. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per above discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Great Cross of the National Order of Meryt would be even more inventive. Pldx1 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding sibling categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 08:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on relisting: It does not seem helpful to rename in English only one of the five categories for this Order. I have therefore relisted the discussion, with the siblings. This outcome would be consistent with the naming of sub-cats of Category:Recipients of the Ordre du Mérite Maritime and Category:Recipients of the Order of Agricultural Merit. However, some other Orders within Category:Civil awards and decorations of France use the French names. If anyone wants to add them to this expanded nomination, please go ahead. – Fayenatic London 08:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this discussion (about using the French original name or the English translation) is just the result of the lack of consistency in the names of the articles. Either we follow the article names and make the category names inconsistent with each other, or we align the categories with each other and partially deviate from the article names. I don't think any of these two solutions for the categories is worse than the other - it should be a temporary solution anyway, while the final solution should come from the renaming of some of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in French, but choose a consistent format. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron: please clarify what you think should be consistent with what, as "keep in French" would currently be inconsistent with the article name. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could call my vote "keep". While translating chevalier as knight is technically correct, the English word is very different, so that I think we should keep the French word Chevalier. However, I could live with Grand Cross, commander, officer, where the English is a cognate word. If the article name is inconsistent, then the article should be renamed to match the category (leaving a redirect). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2018 (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:Norman religious leaders[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 to Category:Norman clerics given benefices in England, without prejudice to re-creating this or a similar parent category if it appears useful to do so. – Fayenatic London 14:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, no need to merge since the only article two articles of this category is are already in Category:Norman Benedictines and in the abbots tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC) - number of articles updated Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about nationality but about ethnicity. Normans is not about inhabitants of Normandy per se but about Viking descent. I doubt whether we need a category of religious leaders for every ethnic group (while of course we do need them for ethno-religious groups). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I question whether Norman is a truly ethnic marker. I am not sure if we can say much more about a person in the 11th-century said to be a Norman than that they were from Normandy, more especially those who had migrated from Normandy to either England or southern Italy. What the actual ancestry of these individuals a few generations back was is often unknown. By the late 11th-century it seems to have come to refer to those living in Normandy, and not be a true ethnic marker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair comment. But by that reasoning they would simply have French nationality, as Normandy was a county/duchy of France. We do not distinguish Angevin or Nevers nationality either. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Norman clerics given benefices in England which captures an interesting phenomenon. Cat head-note maybe: "This category is for clerics born in Normandy and appointed to benefices in England, before or after the Norman Conquest". All the people now in the category would still be caught by this, plus several others, though I suppose not Lanfranc, who was born in Italy before he went to Normandy. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - they fail "given benefices in England" don't they? Norman clerics in Normandy is not worth categorizing imo. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Norman culture is far more extensive than just Normandy and England, and particularly influential in southern Italy, Sicily and Malta. It makes perfect sense to categorise someone like Étienne de Fer [it] of Rouen, first bishop of Mazara del Vallo, with other Norman clerics in other parts of Europe, at a time when in many areas national boundaries had little or no significance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above, "Norman clerics in Normandy is not worth categorizing imo", and the best way to do the Italians is Category:Norman clerics given benefices in Italy. Do we actually have any articles on these? There are none in the category at present (ok, Stephen du Perche, A-bish of Palermo). I don't see much advantage in grouping these & the English ones in a single category. "Norman culture" was not unitary. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've said that. As I've said, I disagree. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2018 (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:Commonwealth Coast Conference football[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Commonwealth Coast Football is a rebranding of the former New England Football Conference, which was taken over by the Commonwealth Coast Conference in 2017. However, the football conference remains a separate entity from the all-sports CCC. The CCC has a unique football logo, though based on the main CCC logo; see the CCC Football home page. More to the point, when the CCC announced in 2015 that it would take over the NEFC, it explicitly stated it would "assume operation of a renamed New England Football Conference." Dale Arnett (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The potential issue with moving the main article as suggested is that Commonwealth Coast Football is a separate legal entity from the Commonwealth Coast Conference, despite the football conference being administered by the multi-sport conference. In fact, the NEFC has a considerably longer history than the all-sports CCC—the NEFC was founded in 1965, while the CCC didn't exist until 1984. I have zero inside knowledge on why this arrangement was made, but I suspect that it was done this way to preserve the NEFC's automatic bid in the NCAA Division III playoffs. — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2018 (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:24 Hours of Nürburgring drivers[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 (noting that lists exist for 2009 onwards, currently held in Category:24 Hours Nürburgring). – Fayenatic London 12:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation, specifically WP:NON-DEFINING. Considering most drivers have considerable experience outside of this race it can rarely applied as being defining towards this drivers career. Falcadore (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We can't delete the category of the competitors of the notable stand-alone racing event, basing just on bias that "most drivers" allegedly "have considerable experience outside of this race". Corvus tristis (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes we can. That is pretty much exactly how WP:NON-DEFINING. If this race is not a defining characteristic of this drivers career it is non-defining. It's very simple. --Falcadore (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some examples - the three five times winners of the N24, the races most celebrated drivers. Timo Bernhard is a two time Le Mans winner, two time World Endurance Champion, two time ALMS champion and a class winner as well. His career is is clustered with results for which he is much more well known for. Not defining. Pedro Lamy spent four years in Formula One, won Le Mans and the FIA GT Championship. Non-defining. Marcel Tiemann, no here you can make a cased that his N24 results are defining. Go to the four time winners, Marc Duez has extensive experience racing Le Mans and Rallying Romain Dumas World Endurance Champion and three-time Le Mans winner, Fritz Muller doesn't even have a wikipedia article, Marc Lieb World GT Champion, 4 time ELMS champion, Peter Zakowski is best known for running Zakspeed for many years and like Muller does not have his own wikipedia page. --Falcadore (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some drivers don't have their own Wikipedia article yet doesn't mean that they aren't notable as N24 drivers. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, don't forget about it. And your opinion on what defining and what is not is purely subjective. It's oversimplification to define driver just by their two-three major career achievements. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It underlines the relative lack of importance that the most successful drivers in the races history aren't considered noteworthy.
The core of the arguement here is overcategorisation and specifically that the category is not defining. I've not seen anything you've written that refutes that. All you've said is what I say is subjective. Where is the proof that the category IS defining for these drivers? --Falcadore (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen anything you've written that refutes your nomination based on your bias. It is your obligation of nominator to prove that the category is not defining. The only thing that you have said, that you don't like itN24 is less important than Le Mans and some other races, which is true, but doesn't make the category non-defining on drivers' career. I.e. Timo Bernhard. Are categories Rolex Sports Car Series drivers, FIA GT Championship drivers, Formula Ford drivers, European Le Mans Series drivers, Porsche Supercup drivers, Blancpain Endurance Series drivers, United SportsCar Championship drivers, 24 Hours of Spa drivers more career-defining for him than N24 drivers?Corvus tristis (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. A lot of those categories should be deleted as well for the same reason. Why don't you have a read of WP:OVERCAT, WP:DNWAUC, WP:NON-DEFINING. Go on. You say it's an oversimplification that racing drivers are defined by only two or three categories, but Wikipedias articles on the subject diagree with you. --Falcadore (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to that interpretation of the WP:DNWAUC, Category:Bathurst 1000 winners should be removed as well? Falcadore, are you really wanting this? P.S. Pierre Kaffer is a clear example of a stub. So, of course, it may haven't a mention of something. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Each category must stand or fall on its own merits, not those of others. That being said I have no objection to removing Bathurst 1000 winners. But that isn't the subject. And you shouldn't view it as any form of personal issue. --Falcadore (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Each driver has own-career defining competitions (especially if we reducing whole their career to two-three achievements) and it is a very opinionated. For André Lotterer, F1 isn't career-defining, but does it mean that we should the whole Category:German Formula One drivers category? No, it doesn't. The same is true for N24 drivers category. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OVERCAT. 24 Hours of Nürburgring is not a racing category. It's merely a specific race within a category. These drivers should not be subdivided beyond a category the likes of Category:Endurance racing drivers.Tvx1 17:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another species of WP:PERFCAT where it's sportsperson by specific sporting event. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify This information is perfectly valid as a list, and we can note number of appearances, years etc. which is much more useful to readers. Participation in itself is not defining enough to warrant uncommented navigation between the drivers. @Corvus tristis: while this stuff is here you may want to create Category:24 Hours of Nürburgring winners instead. I think most people commenting here would consider that a valid category. SFB 21:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for advice but I wouldn't do a list which will be deleted like the category because of the inverted and inconsistent interpretation of guidelines by some users. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is your opinion that a list would be deleted based on any evidence? I.e. has an AfD deleted a list of winners of a significant race? DexDor (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The category includes all drivers which have a wikipedia article, not just winners. My opinion based on some things said in the discussion and my experience on Wikipedia. So, of course, I haven't any desire to waste my time for anything which can be reverted or deleted. But if you want to listify by yourself, I wouldn't mind. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We already have lists per year, for example in 2017 24 Hours of Nürburgring. A separate list article would only duplicate that information. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume initial propose was list like List of Formula One drivers. 2017 24 Hours of Nürburgring now is a stub with just result table, but definitely will be improved and will have more information in prose. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2018 (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 people from Rivers State[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by location, which does not meet either of the conditions required to qualify for an exemption: the intersection of LGBTness with individual Nigerian state is not a defining characteristic in its own right (e.g. there is no state in Nigeria which treats LGBT people differently than other Nigerian states do), and with just one entry in this category and just five in the target category, Category:LGBT people from Nigeria is nowhere near large enough to require diffusion by individual state. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2018 (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:All articles requiring attention[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: procedural close, both template and category appear to have been deleted already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think this name is more specific and accurate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what criteria are used when tagging an article with this category? I looked at an example, sugar, and looked at the talk page - nothing struck me as different than our normal ways of writing articles by consensus much less any immediacy. If it cannot be determined what the tag means, it may be best to delete the category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the reasoning is valid based on the template, the use of the template shows this is not working. We have things needing "immediate attention" since 2016 and people rarely say why that attention is required. If immediate attention is needed, then that's what admin noticeboard are for. Tags (which you can add without reason) will never serve that purpose effectively. I've nominated Template:Requires attention for deletion. SFB 21:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SFB - I couldn't figure out what this is for, and now I'll concede it's unlikely that a consensus here will focus on a common use for it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as soon as the template is deleted (which is probably soon). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing yet. The template's at TFD; it would be absurd to delete the category while retaining the template, and if the template's deleted, this will be eligible for G8 speedy deletion. I don't believe that renaming would be particularly helpful. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2018 (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.
  1. ^ "Szkoła Podstawowa w Bełżcu (historic School Class Photo, 1950–57)". Archived from the original on 2015-05-28. Retrieved 2015-05-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_30&oldid=1138411661"