Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 24

< July 23	July 25 >

July 24

Category:Self-published authors

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Self-published authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: While some authors, in various genres, may have become known for some works they self-published, this seems to be non-defining characteristic that is incidental to their defining traits as novelists, cartoonists, playwrights, etc. and contra WP:COPDEF guidelines. I think this is a trivial and arbitrary category: how many self-published works are required to be included? Self-publishing can be found in any literary genre, from alternative comics and punk zines to poetry, fiction, and self-help books. I'd say that any category that groups Oscar Wilde, Gerhard (cartoonist), Beatrix Potter, David Duke, Milo Yiannopoulos, Stephenie Meyer, and Kamala (wrestler) is pretty indiscriminate and unhelpful for anything but niche trivia. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self published just means you're paying for the costs and I assume notable people pay for any number of services: valet parking, groceries, utilities. If these people are notable as authors, then group them by whatever type of author they are. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The exact method by which a writers works was published is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several of these people were self-publishing because their work kept being rejected by mainstream publishers or could not pass censorship tests. For example Beatrix Potter's article explains concerning her debut novel: "Unable to find a buyer for the work, she published it for family and friends at her own expense in December 1901." In Oscar Wild's case, he apparently self-published The Soul of Man Under Socialism to voice his support for libertarian socialism. Not exactly a mainstream view in the Victorian era. I feel that we are trying to sweep under the rug how inhospitable the publishing business tends to be. Dimadick (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are two verifiable yet widely unrelated facts that may be significant to their respective biographies, but that don't demonstrate "self-published" itself is a defining trait of the author. We don't have categories for "People ignored by mainstream publishers." How many self-published books by Potter, Wilde, or anyone else would merit inclusion? All? More than half? Just one? Unlike Category:Self-published books, a person's publishing status can vary by time and medium. Similarly, we have Category:Crowdfunded projects, but not Category:Crowdfunded people. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:30, 21 August 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:Prisons in Haryana

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) 06:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Prisons in Haryana

Nominator's rationale: Only one article categorized under this. A list article about prisons in Haryana. No articles about prisons in Haryana exist on Wikipedia making this category a one-off. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The article indicates there are 19 prisons which would make a viable category if we had articles on individual prisons; but we do not. The list artifcle is well categorised so no need to merge anywhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 28 July 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:Jagan Nath University, NCR

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) 06:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Jagan Nath University, NCR

Nominator's rationale: The mainspace was deleted over failing GNG. Thus, the category is now useless and is only under two articles that are members of the faculty of the school. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Muhandes (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- What happened to the main article? If a university exists we should have an article on it, even if it is a bad one. You should have linked the AFD on it. The article should be Category:Jagan Nath University, NCR faculty and the main article should be reinstated. If the college is defunct because it has merged, there should be a redirect to the current institution. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, I nominated it for deletion using PROD. I linked above in my rationale. It was deleted on July 11. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:27, 28 July 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.

Male journalists

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Male journalists
Propose deleting Category:Male journalists by nationality
Propose deleting Category:American male journalists
Propose deleting Category:British male journalists
Propose deleting Category:English male journalists
Propose deleting Category:Canadian male journalists
Propose deleting Category:French male journalists
Propose deleting Category:German male journalists
Propose deleting Category:Indian male journalists
Propose merging Category:Indian male television journalists to Category:Indian television journalists
Propose deleting Category:Italian male journalists
Propose deleting Category:Pakistani male journalists
Propose deleting Category:Russian male journalists
Propose deleting Category:Spanish male journalists

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection between gender and occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC):[reply]

do not delete as nominated Instead, each comprising article must be checked and placed into its 'xxx journalists' category, as necessary. Hmains (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is necessary, apart from Category:Indian male television journalists they are non-diffusing categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever they may be in theory, looking at various articles finds the 'xxx male journalists' to be the only xxx journalists' category currently assigned to some (how many?) articles. Hmains (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I hope this can be done in some automated way. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have, or do we need, a clear policy of when Male categories are needed in occupations?Rathfelder (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:OCEGRS, are you thinking of something more specific? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the male categories are actors, singers, artists, writers and sports people. We have male poets, Male dramatists and playwrights and Male non-fiction writers. I'm inclined to agree that for journalists this is a trivial intersection, but if so, is this not also true for non-fiction writers? Maybe we agree that imagination is affected by gender, but more factual stuff isnt? We dont seem to have male scientists. Rathfelder (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Isn't it useful to have such a division? BTW non-trivial. --Just N. (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely against the WP:CATGENDER consensus. Abstract:
As another example, a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest, though it does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male. [...] Do not create separate categories for male and female occupants of the same position, such as "Male Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom" vs. "Female Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom".
Unlike sportsmen or actors, there is no reason to argue that male journalists would have any activity that would be defined by their gender, even for men's magazines (I guess that women are just as good as men in writing articles in men's magazines). Place Clichy (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to support, but I'm ending up oppose because we have Category:Women journalists. If there is some encyclopaedic interest in women journalists then there has to be encyclopaedic interest in men journalists. Either both are removed or neither - otherwise it is sexist: men journalists become invisible - we cannot assume that a genderless Category:Journalists is populated entirely by male journalists - and if it is to be populated entirely by male journalists, then it should be identified as such. My utter preference is that we simply have Category:Journalists populated by male, female, and non-binary journalists with no differentiation. Gender is complex - people assigned a gender may not identify with that gender. And some people (such as myself) may be very aware they have characteristics of both genders, and on some days, and in some circumstances, may identify with one gender more than the other. And people may publicly or privately permanently change their gender. Removing gender from categories where it serves no useful purpose would be my preference, but it has to be done bilaterally or multilaterally rather than unilaterally. SilkTork (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CATGENDER explicitly says that male and female categories do not need to be balanced directly. Sports is an exception that is specifically mentioned in the guideline, because men and women competitions are usually separated. Consequently Category:Women by occupation has 157 subcategories, while Category:Men by occupation has 34 subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Qwerfjkl talk 14:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear violation of ERGS rules. The instersection of being male and being a journalist in a broad historical view is not significant and not worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Journalism is an occupation where neither gender is dominant, like acting. Subcategorization by gender should follow acting's example. Dimadick (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See WP:GENDER and also because Category:Women journalists exist. If you're going to remove these roles, remove female based roles as well. -- User:SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as creator of at least some of these. We have been dinged in the past for segregating women of a certain profession into categories by gender without doing the same for men in the same profession. This is an attempt to respond to that concern. Yes, there are a lot more male journalists than female, historically...even so, if we're going to categorize by one gender we need to start thinking about doing so by both more broadly.

Or if I may borrow a line from BDD, who said it elsewhere better and more concisely: "...this move would absolutely further entrench our systemic bias. It's probably worth discussing clarification to CATGENDER." --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ser Amantio - well-intentioned nomination, but this change would need to be more widespread and have a broader consensus. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:06, 21 August 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:2021 storming of the United States Capitol

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, discussion may start over if and when the article is renamed (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2021 storming of the United States Capitol to Category:2021 United States Capitol attack

Nominator's rationale: This category was moved out-of-process to this new title, an action I reverted but since the main article is now titled 2021 United States Capitol attack, I thought I'd officially propose this move to see if there is a consensus to move the category as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's suspend this discussion while the main article move is being reviewed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support as I am not sure it shouls not be called a riot, but this is the artocles title.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename: per WP:C2D. Main article of the category was recently renamed by RM consensus. I'd tag it myself but am unfamiliar with this process and would love additional opinions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC) struck 00:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am striking my !vote and instead support Suspend until after move review. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia:Move_review#2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol is currently 21 overturn, 9 endorse, and is likely to be overturned when closed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hold Off for Now I'm all for blindly deferring to WP:RMs but this is still active in move review. Whatever the eventual consensus for the article name I'll support in the category space. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (procedural oppose). The pagename is still up for discussion. Suspend this discussion until move review outcome is made. BusterD (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while the move review is still open. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already an excessive amount of content on Wikipedia about this event. It's as if this event was similar to 9/11, etc. But we all know that it was not. 04:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
Appears to misunderstand the purpose of categories, which is to create a list of related articles for the convenience of our readers. Any topic that has a lot of articles is a good candidate for a category. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that that event should be covered in a single article and not in the excessive amount of articles that it is currently covered in. I do understand that most of WP does not agree with me on that. 05:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
Procedural oppose. The title of the category should match that of the head article, per WP:C2D. Once the WP:RM/WP:MR process has concluded, any discrepancy between the titles of the category and the head article should be resolved by a C2D speedy nomination of the category. So there is no need for this discussion here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support whatever future titles may be, 'storming' is no longer used by RSes. Feoffer (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom The article name appears to have stabilized, so this category should be renamed to match it. Hmains (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Move review still unclosed. That's far away from stable. BusterD (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that the result of this discussion should reflect the result of the move review linked above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The move review is still open. I think we should wait with a relisting of this discussion until the MR is closed. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Move review closed today as overturn. Main article title is back to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another RM has been opened to move the article back to "attack". It is currently leaning toward yes. However, I recommend a close of this CFD, and then it can be CFD'd fresh after the page moves again in a week or two. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:32, 6 August 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.

Subcategories of Category:Paintings by collection

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Paintings in Christ Church Picture Gallery‎‎ to Category:Paintings in the collection of Christ Church Picture Gallery
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in Palazzo Abatellis to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Galleria Regionale della Sicilia
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Delaware Art Museum to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Delaware Art Museum
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Dulwich Picture Gallery to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Dulwich Picture Gallery
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Galerie Neue Meister‎ to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Galerie Neue Meister
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Galleria Sabauda to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Galleria Sabauda
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Hamburger Kunsthalle to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Hamburger Kunsthalle
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Harvard Art Museums to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Harvard Art Museums
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Musei civici di Padova to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Musei Civici di Padova
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts of Nancy‎ to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts of Nancy‎
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the National Library of Wales‎ to Category:Paintings in the collection of the National Library of Wales
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the National Portrait Gallery, London‎ to Category:Paintings in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery, London‎
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the National Portrait Gallery (United States) to Category:Paintings in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery (United States)
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Old St. John's Hospital to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Memling Museum
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Philbrook Museum of Art to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Philbrook Museum of Art
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Pinacoteca e museo civico di Volterra to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Pinacoteca e Museo Civico di Volterra
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Pinacoteca Nazionale (Siena) to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Pinacoteca Nazionale (Siena)
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Sforza Castle to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Pinacoteca del Castello Sforzesco
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Wadsworth Atheneum to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Wadsworth Atheneum
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Yale Center for British Art to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Yale Center for British Art
Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Yale University Art Gallery to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Yale University Art Gallery
Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art
Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Baltimore Museum of Art to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Baltimore Museum of Art
Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Galleria nazionale d'arte moderna to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Moderna
Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Royal Collection of the United Kingdom to Category:Paintings in the Royal Collection of the United Kingdom
Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Rubenshuis to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Rubenshuis

Nominator's rationale: The subcategories of Category:Paintings by collection previously used a mixture of the styles "Paintings in" and "Paintings of"; in a CfD nomination in May I argued for changing the instances of the latter style as (e.g.) "Paintings of the Louvre" could be taken to mean paintings depicting the Louvre's building, rather than ones in its collection. The outcome of that nomination was that every "Paintings of" was changed to "Paintings in the collection of", because "Paintings in" was thought to be imprecise. (A painting in the Louvre's collection might not actually be in the Louvre at any given time; it might be at the Louvre-Lens, at the Louvre Abu Dhabi, or on loan to another institution.) So it now remains for these examples of "Paintings in" to be changed to "Paintings in the collection of", in order to achieve consistency.

In the cases of the Castello Sforzesco, the Old St. John's Hospital and the Palazzo Abatellis, which are buildings housing museums rather than museum collections per se, I propose changing the names in the categories to those of the museums in question: the Pinacoteca del Castello Sforzesco, the Memling Museum and the Galleria Regionale della Sicilia. I've also found five instances of "Paintings of [a collection]" which slipped through the net at the time of the original nomination, so I've included those as well. "Paintings of the Royal Collection" should be changed to "Paintings in the Royal Collection", as opposed to "Paintings in the collection of the Royal Collection" (which would be both redundant and meaningless), per the outcome of this CfD nomination in June. Ham II (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move from Category:Paintings in the Old St. John's Hospital to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Memling Museum, as the museum is not called the "Memling Museum" but the "Saint John's Hospital".[1] We shouldn't be making up names. Would support a move to Category:Paintings in the St. John's Hospital as the "Old" isn't necessary here. Fram (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make "Memling Museum" up; there are several pages of results for it at Google Books, notably a guidebook published by the museum itself titled The Memling Museum—St John's Hospital Bruges (Irène Smets, 2001). (Some of these instances will be of the variant form "Hans Memling Museum".) That said, I've found a single source that says this name is outdated: Andre de Vries, Flanders: A Cultural History (2007): "What was formerly called the Memling Museum is now part of the Sint-Janshospitaal complex". Conversely, The Art Museum from Boullée to Bilbao (Andrew McClellan, 2008), published a year later, refers to "the new Memling Museum in Bruges".

Given these contradictory sources, a category name that uses "St. John's Hospital", or whichever variant of it is the WP:COMMONNAME, might be best. Perhaps this should be "Sint-Janshospitaal" instead of "St. John's Hospital", but the existence of other St. John's Hospitals (not to mention the various ways of writing "Saint"/"St."/"St") makes this hard to determine. As other St John's Hospitals exist, I would oppose Category:Paintings in the St. John's Hospital without "Bruges" as a disambiguator. Whatever is deemed to be the best name, the title of the article currently at Old St. John's Hospital should be consistent with it. Ham II (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is merely adding unnecessary verbosity to what are reasonably clear names. If verbosity is necessary, it can be put in a headnote, to define the scope more clearly. I have no view on the Memling controversy, which ought to be dealt with in a separate nom. It is reasonable to regard a picture as "in" a museum, even if it is in practice out-housed in a remote store or even on loan to another museum. Picture of the Louvre (which is a former royal palace) ought to refer to paintings of the building, not the collections housed in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the categories already at "Paintings in the collection of"? Should they be moved to "Paintings in", as I originally suggested? Whichever style is decided on should be applied consistently across Category:Paintings by collection. Ham II (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a consistent style were agreed on, I'd start CfR nominations to apply it across the category tree for paintings in museums and other collections, and after that for other works in museum collections such as sculptures, drawings, etc. I'm looking at the subcategories of Category:Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art at the moment, where there's a mixture of three styles: "Paintings in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art", "Clothing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art" and "Architecture in collection of [sic] the Metropolitan Museum of Art". It strikes me how the architecture category really needs "collection of" (even if the current name is grammatically incorrect); "Architecture of the Metropolitan Museum of Art" suggests the architecture of the museum's building, and "Architecture in the Metropolitan Museum of Art" requires more careful parsing than the unambiguous "[...] in the collection of [...]". Ham II (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overly long titles, without adding any additional clarity. We should avoid titles that resemble entire paragraphs. Dimadick (talk) 22:34, 6 August 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.

Events by city

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 23#Events by city

Category:Waterways campaigners of the United Kingdom

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:British waterways activists (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming Category:Waterways campaigners of the United Kingdom to Category:British waterway activists

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME and the spirit of WP:C2C, consistency with established category tree names

These people are definitely defined by their activism preserving British waterways and canals but there doesn't appear to have been a single "campaign" and this follows the more common naming format in Category:British activists. Not every subcategory follows this format though so I wasn't sure if a speedy name was appropriate. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:British waterways activists sounds more natural to me, but I'm not sure whether it'd be a better name. Note the -s in the current category name. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would work too. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Grutness. There is no one campaign. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 28 July 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:Non-governmental organizations with consultative status at the United Nations

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Non-governmental organizations with consultative status at the United Nations

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Organizations with roster consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Organizations with special consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council‎
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Organizations with general consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOT and WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT)

There are currently 5,593 non-governmental organizations that have consultative status to the UN United Nations Economic and Social Council (online database). This category creates a mish-mash of otherwise unrelated organisations with little in common that are unlikely to aid navigation including the Blind Union, Baltic and International Maritime Council, Planned Parenthood, ISO, Greenpeace, Scout Movement, Road Transport Union, YMCA, Fellowship of Buddhists, AARP, and the Celtic League. We already have List of organizations with consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. Not definiting, in WP's categorization sense, but still of considerable encyclopedic interest. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:43, 30 July 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.

Note: Converted to List of non-governmental organizations with consultative status at the United Nations. – Fayenatic London 09:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]