Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 22 January 24 >

January 23[edit]

Category:Speculative fiction podcasts[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: do not rename; though the target category was created as a parent during the discussion, which made things very confusing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is not inclusive of other fictional genres such as historical fiction, contemporary fiction, romance or social realism, mystery or detective fiction, fictional adventure or survival, fictional sports stories, or non-speculative audio dramas. After renaming the genre to fiction podcasts the subcategories could be further split into realistic fiction and speculative fiction, but as of right now there is only a speculative fiction podcasts category. Perhaps there aren't many realistic fiction podcasts, but it doesn't make sense to have a category for such a specific branch of fiction and not for it's complementary or opposite branch. It also makes it difficult to have categories like "audio drama / scripted podcast" because an audio drama might be speculative fiction or realistic fiction.TipsyElephant (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick:, part of the reason I'm recommending that the genre be renamed is because I think "realistic fiction" would fall under WP:SMALLCAT, but also that "Speculative" versus "Realistic" is both WP:NOTDEFINING and also WP:X or Y. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle:, Category:Fiction podcasts would contain the already existing 46 articles that are categorized under Category:Speculative fiction podcasts. Would that not be enough to populate the category, and if so then should we consider outright deleting the category? There appears to be plenty of sources and defining content. Fiction podcasts are often represented as a category in podcast awards and there are numerous sources that list best fiction podcasts. Someone even started a Horror podcast article, which "Horror" is listed as a subcategory of Category:Speculative fiction podcasts. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is whether enough fiction podcast articles exist, apart from speculative fiction podcast articles. Currently you have created a category without any articles and just one subcategory, that does not aid navigation between articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Oh, I didn't even realize there was a Category:Fiction podcasts that already existed. Rich Farmbrough created the category separately and without my knowledge. I was intending that Category:Speculative fiction podcasts be renamed to Category:Fiction podcasts so that it would contain all three of the pre-existing subcategories and their 46 pre-existing articles. The only reason I see for creating Category:Fiction podcasts with the subcategory Category:Speculative fiction podcasts would be to create an additional subcategory called Category:Realistic fiction podcasts, which I don't think has enough content and I don't think "Speculative" versus "Realistic" is defining in any meaningful way. To clarify, I am suggesting a tree as follows:
  • Fiction podcasts
  • Audio drama podcasts
  • Fantasy podcasts
  • Horror podcasts
  • Science fiction podcasts
  • Other potential subgenres (i.e. Historical fiction podcasts) TipsyElephant (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This may indeed be the way to go. Whether the intermediate category is needed or not I couldn't say without closer examination. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I should probably also mention that I decided to open this discussion because of the discussion here on where to put a category for "audio dramas", which are always fictional but not always speculative (i.e. sometimes it's a fictional detective story). TipsyElephant (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That can be resolved by creating a parent category, instead of renaming the current one. Dimadick (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Dimadick, in principle. But before changing anything, first check if there are enough articles to populate Category:Fiction podcasts at all. Categories are not a purpose in themselves, they are a means to connect related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you both still oppose my proposal Dimadick and Marcocapelle? If so why? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speculative fiction is a real part of the hierarchy of fiction. Historical fiction, romantic fiction, detective fiction are a few other genres. I make no claims about the "correct" way to order this hierarchy, there is a category Category:Speculative_fiction which seems to be a bit of a hash itself, but demonstrates one way of (dis)organising fiction. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: I'm not saying that "Speculative fiction" is not a subgenre of fiction. I'm saying it's not useful in the context of podcasting and is WP:NOTDEFINING because absolutely no sources that I'm aware of use the term when referring to podcasts. Podcasts that fall under "Speculative fiction" are only ever referred to in sources as "Fiction podcasts" or one of the subgenre names. In addition to that having a "Fictional realism / Realistic fiction" category would result in WP:X or Y and WP:SMALLCAT, but without it we have nowhere to put categories like "Audio drama podcasts". TipsyElephant (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole speculative fiction tree is a bit questionable as a potentially redundant interim layer in genre. But while we have it, we should keep relevant content within the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick Can I move Fantasy podcasts, Horror podcasts, Science fiction podcasts into Category:Fiction podcasts and delete Category:Speculative fiction podcasts? That was my original intention and I've provided ample reasoning and waited for discussion and consensus. Rich Farmbrough has created and moved the categories we've been discussing without any reasoning, discussion, or consensus, which can be fairly disruptive in general but also disrupted the discussion here (I'm not even sure whether the action being discussed made any sense afterward). Marcocapelle has now moved a category without discussion as well. I was under the impression that discussion and consensus is required to be moving and creating categories and would like these creations and moves discussed and potentially reverted if there is no support for them. I think I generally support the sentiment of the creations and moves, but I'm unsure whether I agree with moving Category:Comic book podcasts into fiction. Only 1 of the 7 articles in the category even mention the word fiction and I'm guessing their sources don't either. Not to mention it's unclear what "fiction podcasts" include because it was so hastily created without any criteria for what gets categorized under it. For instance, do subcats need to be entirely fictional stories or can they just occasionally discuss fictional stories? The problem then arises, are the comic book podcasts fiction or non-fiction? According to the category description "This category refers to any podcast program with comic books as the primary subject of discussion.", which could mean the discussion of comic cons, comic sales, larping, comic design, and a host of other non-fiction things. In addition to that, I would assume that most of these podcasts are discuss, critique, and review comic books. Is a critique or review of a comic book fictional or non-fictional? I'm inclined to believe that critiques and reviews are non-fictional discussions that discuss the effectiveness of a piece of art. I could see Wolverine (podcast) being placed under a new fiction category called Superhero_fiction, but it would most definitely be a WP:SMALLCAT as it's the only article I'm aware of that would count. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fwiw, it's not a problem adding content to a category during a discussion if it belongs there (though you're obviously entitled to disagree that it belongs there). It is however a problem removing content from a category during discussion because discussants may be deprived from relevant information for the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I was under the impression that discussion and consensus is required to be moving and creating categories" No discussion is required for creating categories, though whether they are kept or deleted is a matter of consensus. Removing categories from Category:Speculative fiction podcasts would also remove them from the wider category tree for speculative fiction, which is probably ill-advised. Category:Comic book podcasts could probably include non-fiction podcasts discussing the medium's creators or companies. Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter applies equally to speculative fiction podcasts, where authors or the genre as a whole may be discussed. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, well if discussing real world events and activities is a non-issue (I think I still disagree) there is still the problem that there are no reliable sources that describe comic book podcasts as fiction podcasts, which is also true of speculative fiction. There simply are no available sources where someone calls a comic book podcast a "fictional podcast" or a "fiction podcast" and there are absolutely no sources that call a podcast a "speculative fiction podcast." However, there are sources that use fiction, fictional, or audio drama to describe fantasy, science fiction, and horror podcasts. I'm also unaware of any fantasy, science fiction, or horror podcasts focused on real world events or activities, which might just mean I haven't looked hard enough, but as far as I'm aware there either aren't any or they are in the minority. Whereas 6/7ths of comic book podcasts is clearly dedicated to real world or non-fiction things based on each articles description.TipsyElephant (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually thought that a fiction podcast was defined as a podcast that told a fictional story in some way, either as an audio drama or a roleplaying story. We still haven't really defined it yet though so until we do so there will be confusion as to what is included. TipsyElephant (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: But then I'll be exactly where I started and the only reason would be because you guys were moving and creating pages during the discussion. That seems pretty ridiculous to me. If Category:Fiction podcasts is then merged with Category:Podcasts by genre and I renominate Category:Speculative fiction podcasts to be renamed to Category:Fiction podcasts then you guys can just create and move pages again and I'll have to go through the entire process again. I still don't understand why you guys have the authority to make disruptive edits during the discussion and yet I have to go through a long discussion and consensus process. I provided an extensive amount of reasoning for why the category should be renamed and I can provide ample evidence from reliable sources that the subcategories of "Speculative fiction podcasts" are never referred to as "Speculative" but are regularly referred to as "Fiction" (Thus WP:NOTDEFINING). In addition to that "Speculative" is the only subcategory of "Fiction" and even if there was an alternative it would fall under WP:SMALLCAT and WP:X or Y. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone please provide a link to the guideline that supports this "No discussion is required for creating categories, though whether they are kept or deleted is a matter of consensus" TipsyElephant (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for clarity I haven't moved the sub-categories of the spec-fiction category. And when we "move" a category, the target category needs to be created, and the source redirected or deleted.
Interestingly a sub-cat "Comic book podcasts" has been added to "Fiction podcasts".
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:40, 30 January 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.

Athletes by city in Pakistan[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:Athletes by city or town in Pakistan. Merge Category:Athletes from Okara, Pakistan, Category:Athletes from Faisalabad‎, Category:Athletes from Gujranwala, Category:Athletes from Lahore and Category:Athletes from Rawalpindi‎ to Category:Athletes from Punjab, Pakistan and appropriate "Sportspeople from CITY" category. Merge Category:Athletes from Karachi to Category:Sportspeople from Karachi. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow subcategorisation with little chance for expansion. There are only seven athletes at the province level in Category:Athletes from Punjab, Pakistan (the parent of five of these), and the division of Category:Sportspeople from Karachi also seems premature as (excluding cricketers) the volume is under 50 in total. I suggest we upmerge to Athletes from Punjab, Pakistan and the relevant Sportspeople from X city categories. SFB 18:55, 23 January 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.

Centuries and people in Safavid Iran[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping scope of categories and we do not usually categorize centuries and people by the ruling dynasty of a country. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Oppose: A lot of people within the 16th to Category:18th-century people of Safavid Iran articles were not Iranian in origin, but rather Georgian, Armenian, Lezgian, Turkmen, Circassian, etc. The Safavid Empire was multi-ethnic and multi-religious, hence I believe some sort of empire-related category that can include all of its "citizens" is needed. Based on these arguments, a merge into 16th-century / Category:18th-century Iranian people would simply be erroneous from a historic and ethnic point of view. Safavid Iran was surely in heavy decline by the 18th century, but it still functioned as an large entity. Its still 235 years of history we're dealing with, not 23,5. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that it is an empire category. But it isn't any different from the 21st century where Iranian citizens of any ethnicity are also in the tree of Iranian people. I would not have a problem with creating subcategories for ethnic minorities, but a subcategory for an ethnic majority is confusing, especially while the category names are quite similar, and will merely lead to wrong classification of articles along the way. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per LouisAragon. I get Marcocapelle's point but this is not the right way to do it and is only gonna make it worse imo. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. While not entirely wrong, it is preferable to distinguish people of pre-modern and multi-ethnic empires from the titular ethnicity. Thus not all Ottoman subjects were Turks, nor all Byzantine ones Greeks, or of the Mongol Empire Mongols, etc. etc.. The problem here stems from the naming of the main article. If it were 'Safavid Empire', and the categories followed this naming, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Constantine ✍ 14:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HistoryofIran: @Cplakidas: @LouisAragon: I understand your point too. Just to be sure, you do not oppose merging Category:16th century in Safavid Iran to Category:16th century in Iran, etc., right? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not make much sense, there is no objective and stable Iran proper. We nowadays consider the Republic of Iran as Iran (proper) while 17th-cenrury people considered Safavid Iran as Iran (proper). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle and LouisAragon: I also have no problem with merging the geographical categories per se, since the context should be enough to differentiate 17th-century 'Iran' from modern Iran, but I also fear that subtlety and nuance is not built into the naming. The average modern reader, even if deprived of POV, projects modern terms back into history. That's why we have had Category:7th century in Spain, for example. It might actually be preferable to for merge Category:17th century in Iran into Category:17th century in Safavid Iran rather than vice-versa, precisely since the term 'Iran' needs to be contextualized, and because having categories for modern Iran before its existence is rather ahistorical. I am merely thinking aloud here, however, I don't know whether this would open other cans of worms. Constantine ✍ 14:44, 29 January 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.

Pahlavi dynasty[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/rename. I have performed the split but would appreciate other eyes on it as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split to new parent. "Pahlavi Iran" will fit better alongside the other historical periods e.g. the preceding Category:Qajar Iran. – Fayenatic London 08:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be certain about this: you do agree that keeping the category names at Pahlavi dynasty is incorrect, don't you? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to using Category:Pahlavi dynasty for the royal family, but for most purposes "Iran 1925-79" would be better. For one thing it is obvious what the period is for those who do not know details of Iranian history. My wider proposal is that Iran of 1830, 1930, and 2000 are essentially the same country, though with some losses of territory at various periods. A new dynasty does not create a new country, merely a new regime. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:59, 7 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.

Indian district councillors[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, almost exclusively single-article categories. A few categories contain two or three articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Insufficient volume for this level of categorisation at the moment. State level is sufficient. SFB 09:51, 27 January 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:United Kingdom in the Roman era[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the scope of two categories are largely overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge As Fayenatic london observes, the main utility is the Category:Roman history of modern countries and territories tree structure; it should therefore use the name of the modern country - UK - not the similar-sounding "Britain". The problem with Category:Roman Cyprus and Category:Roman Italy and the like is that they contain the names of provinces or of civil dioceses; this is not the same thing as a modern state. On the other hand, you have instances like Category:Ukraine in the Roman era where only a small sliver of the modern state was ever influenced by Ancient Rome; we would never create a category called "Roman Ukraine". In summary, we should have tree structures for modern states and for Roman provinces; a tree structure that combines both of these, ought to be avoided. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Britain" should be used for both. The idea "Britain" and "United Kingdom" do not have the same meaning is pedantry. GPinkerton (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the people in Northern Ireland might not agree that it is pedantry. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom; it was never part of the island of Great Britain nor the Roman province of Brittania. And by the way, you might be surprised at the proportion of regular contributors to this forum who derive enormous enjoyment from pedantry. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Laurel Lodged, irrelevant. Hawaii is nowhere near America and yet I don't see Hawaiians insisting on not using "America" to describe the USA. To the Romans, both Great Britain and Lesser Britain (i.e. Ireland) were in the British Isles. GPinkerton (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ireland = Lesser Britain? Are you going out of your way to be insulting? Out of charity, I will ascribe this to a gauche attempt at humour by one who's native tongue is not English. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Laurel Lodged, if you're insulted by 2,000 year-old geographical tradition I'm afraid that's none of my doing. GPinkerton (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would my lack of knowledge of a topic justify gratuitously insulting behaviour? Bad behaviour is just bad behaviour and is inexcusable in a community such as this. Please confine your comments to the facts and arguments; avoid ad hominem attacks which can only serve to reflect badly on the attacker. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, Ireland being called Lesser Britain isn't a 2000-year-old tradition. It's a tradition confined to a misunderstanding in this thread. Lesser Britain is the term used for Brittany, from which the term Britain comes from, rather than Ireland. SFB 10:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom The category is empty, except from a single subcategory. If it can not be populated, it serves no function. Dimadick (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not empty. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. 'UK in the Roman era' seems a dubious name as there was no UK in the Roman era. Oculi (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, every other member of Category:Roman history of modern countries and territories ought to be renamed as barely any of these of these modern states existed in the Roman era. How else to describe the events, people, relations, monuments and archeological sites that are contained in the borders of a modern state? Britain was never a state by the way. The closest to such a state would be the former Kingdom of Great Britain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi PK. To your points: (1) The rumour of a fort in Ireland is just that - a rumour. There is slight evidence of Roman finds / presence on the island of Lambay off Dublin. (2) Please explain how it would be "appropriate for Category:Roman Britain to be the UK subcat of Category:Roman history of modern countries and territories". This would only be true if you were to take the demonym of "British" as referring to the whose body of citizens / subjects of the United Kingdom. You'll be aware, PK, of my long antipathy to the use of demonyms. On the contrary, I prefer to use (long) country names to avoid ambiguous representations that are not always true. (3) I agree that "there was no Roman Northern Ireland". However, that suggests to me, contrary to your conclusion, that a "UK/GB distinction" most definitely arises, which only the fudge of an ambiguous term like "British" could possible gloss over. In summary, I prefer the precision of long state names precisely to avoid terms that are looser and not wholly true. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply -- The demonym British does indeed have multiple meanings, but derives from (Great) Britain, itself a version of Britannia, the Latin (and Roman) name for the island and the Roman province, though it never covered the whole island. That does not mean that we cannot use "British" and more particularly Britain in contexts where this is clear. UK is an anachronism until 1801, but Britain is not. "Roman Britain" is a well-known term in archaeology (and history), also used in an adjectival form as Romano-British. The category system is intended to be an aid to navigation, but imposing pedantic distinctions on it hinders that. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge we should use categorizes based on labels that apply at the time, not labels for a polity that would not exist for over a thousand years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have labels for the polities that existed two thousand years ago - Brittania, Hispania, Pannonia etc. But that is not the scope of this category. It is exactly about the sites currently in the modern state that date from a particular period of history. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:43, 26 January 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:Honorary Members of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT
The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy is a Dutch political party and all of the biography articles in this category were active politicians not just members, which is why this is a subcategory of Category:People's Party for Freedom and Democracy politicians. It's not clear what makes these politicians "honorary" since they appear to be full members so maybe it's a translation issue. The other Dutch political parties don't seem to have this subcategory. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, many membership-based organizations in the Netherlands have a honorary membership for retired chairmen and so on, but it is wholly trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Honorary membership is an WP:OCAWARD, commonly given to distinguished emeritus members. I do not know specifically about this case, but that is the common context. It is given as an honour or reward to someone who is already distinguished, so that being an Honorary member is a NN characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:04, 30 January 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:Hepatitis survivors[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) 05:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT and maybe WP:PERFCAT)
We have a category for Category:Deaths from hepatitis so this is for people that survived hepatitis. There are two articles in this category which both mention the disease in passing:
1. BayWatch star Pamela Anderson contracted Hep C when getting a tattoo with Tommy Lee but was cured with medication
2. Korean American journalist K. W. Lee contracted Hep B and obtained a liver transplant.
I certainly can't argue WP:SMALLCAT here though since there is definitely growth potential: according to the main article the Hep A rate in children approaches 90% in low resource countries, Hep B has over 240 million global carriers, and about 20% of the population of Egypt has Hep C. During the course of lifetime, people will have multiple non-fatal health issues and this seems too common to be defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_23&oldid=1073192925"