Category:Modern history of the United States[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.
Support The content is better suited for century or decade categories rather than an umbrella category on modern history. On another topic, the Late modern period started in the 18th century, and one of the events used in definitions of its start is the American Revolution (1765-1783). By some definitions, the entire history of the United States since the Revolution is "modern". Dimadick (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the intro to Category:Modern history by country specifies " i.e history made during the 19th century and the 20th century to the end of World War II". This has not been followed for the US for some reason as the US omits the 1800s but goes up to 2020. Why should the US be removed from Category:Modern history by country? Oculi (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, the other country categories do not stop at World War II and they include the 21st century as well. It seems like the intro is simply incorrect. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the intro. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support disperse — the modern era formally ended long ago. The US has passed late modern and post-modern. Better to use years, as we do for most other categories. Less confusing to editors. Most editors don't understand these terms. William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. The !votes here were evenly split between "rename" and "delete", and there was no consensus on which of these was preferable. So this close is defaulting to "keep" (meaning "do not delete"), but "rename" since there were editors in favour of this and no one had an opinion that the proposed name was worse than the current name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Better, more standard title Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The current title implies that the category is about fictional characters who are employed as nannies, while the category includes only films. Dimadick (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a "films about" category with the usual problems of objectively defining how much about nannies must the film be and finding the reliable sources that the film is at least that much about nannies. Is this really a genre? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, the new title clarifies better that it should be a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both — entirely subjective. Just because the film has a character called nanny doesn't make it a film about a nanny. Many/most of them are actually about witches, dryads, and other magical creatures. William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you name a film in this category that depicts dryads? 21:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
Delete This is the type of thing that can be covered by an article but is not easy enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: This should be kept because categorizing films by topics can be useful for researchers and readers. However, just because the film happens to have a nanny doesn't mean it belongs here, only if the nanny is central to the plot. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. The discussion was a bit muddled, with at least three different proposals being made. A more focused discussion on one of the proposals may result in a consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The categories cover exactly the same thing, and the target category has the more standard title.Clarityfiend (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAdultery is defined as extramarital sex, "when a married person engages in sexual activity with someone other than his or her spouse." Infidelity is defined as "a violation of a couple's assumed or stated contract regarding emotional and/or sexual exclusivity", and is not limited to married couples. The scope is different. Dimadick (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is another "films about" category masquerading under another name. Any hint of adultery or infidelity is sufficient to be put in the category? Or is it a film where the (or a) primary plot device is that. In any event, it suffers the usual problems of objectively defining how much about adultery or infidelity must the film be and finding the reliable sources that the film is at least that much about adultery or infidelity. I assume that this is such a common plot device that it isn't even defining however one ultimately decides to define it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, the new title clarifies better that it should be a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. Who's to say what % of the plot is sufficiently about adultery to justify it being categorised as such? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three (Category:Adultery in films, Category:Films about adultery, Category:Films about infidelity) — entirely subjective, and a perjorative category for "entertainment which aims at arousing the libido or primarily sexual sensation." In Michigan, at least 40% of couples are "living in sin" (Lewd and lascivious cohabitation). Even divorced people who are living together unmarried are subject to penalties for adultery (MCL 750.32 Adultery; cohabitation of divorced parties). Yet whenever we have a Republican Party governor, they increase the penalty. Currently adultery is a felony, $5,000 and 4 years in prison for females, and life in prison for males. William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the type of thing that can be covered by an article but is not easy enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Films about infidelity or Category:Films about adultery. There is a benefit to categorizing films by subject matter, for readers, editors, and researchers. This doesn't mean that any film where infidelity/adultery is mentioned should go in the category, but only cases in which it is an important plot motive. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge all to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Florina (18,000 people). Note that the nomination also contains Category:People from Meliti (municipal unit) with 6 articles and Category:People from Perasma with 5 articles. These are neither 2nd level administrative divisions nor populated places. Instead they are 4th level administrative divisions each consisting of several tiny villages. People in these two categories were born in different villages. Merge for consistency, in this case. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It can be checked quite easily. For example you can click on Drosopigi, Florina and you can see that it's in the Perasma municipal unit. I generally consider municipal units equivalent to populated areas as, despite them technically consisting of a multitude of towns and villages, they are generally interconnected, the same way you could say suburbs are interconnected in a city. --Antondimak (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The information for placing an article in a category must be present (preferably sourced) in the article without clicking anywhere, otherwise it cannot be WP:Defining. (Spiro Bellkameni was born in Bellkamen, which redirects to Drosopigi, Florina, which after further research leads to Perasma - but being born somewhere is not defining anyway ... this is all extremely tenuous.) Oculi (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most for Now/Keep Perasma & Meliti These nearly empty categories--or mostly redundant layers--do not aid navigation but no objection to recreating any of them later if they exceed expectations and get up to 5+ articles. I have no conceptual objection to this level of categorization though and Category:People from Perasma and Category:People from Meliti (municipal unit) are already there. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perasma & Meliti per RevelationDirect. This will also depend on whether we consider communities of municipal units to be populated places. --08:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)~
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining. This is a comedy title held by many non-wrestlers, for whom it is 100% non-defining. User:Namiba 15:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't know what the nominator meant by "comedy title". It is a notable title, has a proper article (WWE 24/7 Championship) that was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 July 2019; It gets covered in notable biography articles here, here and here for example; and the category as of now contains a lot of entries. No reason to delete it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Fylindfotberserk,many a time users are confused about reason for nominating something for delition. That's wat happening in my case.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is non-defining per our policy. It does not contribute in any way to the notability of Rob Gronkowski. It is trivial to the vast-majority of the careers of those who have won it. Please read Wikipedia's policies on categories. Not everything that happens in someone's career is deserving of a category.--User:Namiba 17:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One cannot judge triviality of the cat based on articles of non-wrestlers → Rob Gronkowski. It is definitely important for pro-wrestlers like R-Truth, Titus O'Neil, Akira Tozawa, Mojo Rawley, Drake Maverick, many of whom got a boost in their career because of it. WWE 24/7 is well covered in these articles and in the leads thus contradicting this point in WP:NONDEFINING → "..if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say keep, but remove no-wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There is only one (Rome Italy Temple) and there probably will be only one for the foreseeable future because the LDS Church is not notably large in Italy. I suggest upmerging to all of the parents. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, and the German and English siblings should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I also have to say using the full name of the Church in this categories would be better. On the other hand since there are only 168 temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and only around 230 if you include future announced temples, I am not sure we need to subdivide the category for temples at all. There is only one temple in Italy, and it is highly unlikely there will be any more than 5 in the next decade (OK, it would not surprise me if there is still only 1 on Feb. 19, 2031, but on Feb. 19, 1991 I might have made the same prediction about Australia having multiple temples by Feb. 19, 2001, so I do not think I can predict the future well. I could see two more temples being announced for Italy sometime in the next decade, but only very unlikely, but hey I never thought both Vanuatu and Kiribati or both Orem and Lindon would have temples announced in the time frames announcements have come, so I am not good at predicting future temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to avoid predictions and just create the category if and when it's needed to hold more than one or two articles. The categories do not use the full name of the church because the article is Temple (LDS Church). Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Order of Brilliant Jade[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.
Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are listed right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Humane Order of African Redemption[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.
What all these disparate articles have in common is that they do not treat this award as defining and mention it either in passing or not at all. The category is so heterogeneous that it is unlikely to aid navigation but all the category contents are now listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background/Speedy? We previously deleted a category for this award back in 2009. I'll defer to others if this still qualifies for speedy deletion. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another case of overcategorzation by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
