Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 2 July 4 >

July 3[edit]

Category:List of supermarkets[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/merge (deletion and merging coincide in this case because the content is already in the target) (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See Category:Lists of supermarkets. What could be the difference in scope? DB1729 (talk) 22:35, 3 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:Honey Bunny Film Series[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. According to Honey_Bunny_Ka_Jholmaal#Movies there is an extensive series of these cartoon movies, but only the first one Honey Bunny in Bank Robbery has an article, and that article makes no claims of notability, so there is little prospect of other articles being added to this category. – Fayenatic London 20:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If in the future more film articles are created, in the category can be recreated. But as it stands, even the single article Honey Bunny in Bank Robbery is borderline. Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 4 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:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists[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. While there are strong policy grounds for deletion, these have only persuaded a bare majority. I would encourage editors to attempt a definition, and discuss it on the talk page; and to purge category members who do not justifiably belong here. In prominent cases, it would be useful to leave a note about removals on the category talk page, as well as on the article talk pages. For the record, the category currently contains 59 pages, three of which are organisations. – Fayenatic London 07:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think having a category like this raises severe BLP issues, many of the people included in this list are not supported by the article text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases the category is WP:NONDEF, with their views about COVID being a minor aspect that is not lended significant weight in reliable sources. There is also not a clear categorisation of what a "COVID-19 conspiracy theorist" is. Does opposing lockdowns make one? "COVID-19 conspiracy" is an umbrella for many unrelated ideas to do with different aspects of the pandemic, many of which don't warrant the label "conspiracy theorist". Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think in terms of BLP issues, this category is not fundamentally different from any sub-categories of Category:Conspiracy theorists or any other category covered under WP:BLPCAT or WP:EGRS; what this category needs is a solid definition (by consensus) to be abided by (akin to the one on Category:Conspiracy theorists, for example) and clean-up/sourcing for the individual articles (per WP:BLPCAT). I wholeheartedly agree that possible BLP violations in individual articles should be accounted for but I don't think potential controversy is a very solid rationale for deletion. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Conspiracy theorists is another controversial category. But let's keep the focus of our discussion on this specific category and not get into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, many people in this category are multiple-conspiracy theorists, Covid-19 being just one of their targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are obvious BLP concerns with the current state of the category (and I raised the suggestion of a CfD on an article talk page), but I am not convinced yet the issues cannot be repaired through editing. I'll have a !vote in a few days. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete people like Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist) should just be categorized as conspiracy theorists, we don't need a taxonomy of categories that specifies which people have conspiracy theories that mention COVID-19. We wouldn't want "Lizard-people conspiracy theorists" as a category. This also conflates people of whom "conspiracy theorist" is a defining characteristic with people like Peter Hitchens; that article clearly establishes that he opposes government health recommendations, but is not clearly saying he is promoting (or creating) conspiracy theories. And then we have Rush Limbaugh, where the article currently doesn't support the category. There's nothing here to save, this is just a honeypot for WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP violations. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I've been removing poorly applied articles from this, as it seems that anyone tweeting they don't like lockdowns, criticizing government responses , or retweeting a questionable source containing Covid misinformation is game for inclusion. This is unlikely to be a WP:DEFINING trait for more than a very small number of people, and so it might better be purged and upmerged to conspiracy theorists. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we should only have opinion categories where the criterion for inclusion is clear and noncontroversial. This is not an instance. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Criteria for inclusion in this category is not well defined. What exactly makes someone a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist? In many cases, it not even explained in the individual articles. The category is just an attempt to apply a label to someone. I also believe this to be a BLP violation.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Covid science denialism is a thoroughly-discussed and well-defined sub-topic of conspiracy theories. Would also note that one of the above users, Animalparty, has been on a mass removal spree that may need attention for possible disruption. ValarianB (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I admitted to removing many entries where "covid-19 conspiracy theorizing" is but a trivial flash-in-the-pan mention, not a WP:DEFINING trait that sources commonly and consistently ascribe to the subject (see also WP:COPDEF). Previously this category lumped Van Morrison, Pitbull, Jake Paul, Kirk Cameron and others along with noted conspiracists Alex Jones and Mark Steele. Even if this category is kept, it is trivial, non-defining for most people and should be monitored closely. Not everyone who has ridden a bike belongs in Category:Cyclists. --Animalparty! (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kirk Cameron is also a noted conspiracy nut, as you would have noticed if you'd read the article and Kirk_Cameron#COVID-19_views. This is becoming a problem that may need to be escalated, if you continue you just blindly remove categories without knowledge of the subjects of those articles. ValarianB (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians tend to write in undue proportion about whatever trivial churnalism pops up in the day's news, and synthesize sources to infer what's not explicitly stated, both of which are BLP and other policy violations. Note that the word "conspiracy" is not in Cameron's article at all, and none of the sources in Cameron's Covid-19 section, except Cameron himself (rhetorically), use the word conspiracy theory/theorist. Having maskless parties during a pandemic is irresponsible, but not a conspiracy theory. Making hyperbolic statements invoking communism and socialism and other boogeymen is not in and of itself a conspiracy theory, otherwise the majority of Republican politicians would be in a conspiracy category. "Definingness", not verifiability, is the key. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all of what you mention are the hallmarks of conspiracy theorists. ValarianB (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then I severely question your judgement and your ability to separate your opinions from what sources actually state. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above, it is widely discussed and RS thinks it is highly significant. People are dying over this BS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have several dozen such daughter categories in the general category "Conspiracy theorists". Many of them (Flat earth proponents, Great Replacement conspiracy theorists, etc.) are far less notable or widespread than Covid-19 - of which deniers or spreaders of misinformation are numerous, high profile, and dangerous. The OP's reasons for wanting this category removed are weak and unconvincing. If the category is being cited where it is not supported by the text, then remove it from the article. Occasional misapplication is no reason to delete the category. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the topic lacks notability for an article, then it lacks notability for a category. It's not clear either what qualifies as a COVID conspiracy theory. In a CBC article on COVID conspiracy theories, all of them were some variation of a theory that it was created as a bioweapon, probably by the U.S.[1] But others have broadened the topic to include such things as speculation that the pharmaceutical companies hope that the vaccine will be required every year. It's too early to draw a line between the false narratives of conspiracy theories and legitimate if misguided speculation. TFD (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It does have an article, COVID-19 misinformation. Zaathras (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The deliberate spreading of misinformation is a cornerstone of being a conspiracy theorist. You really do not grasp the subject matter here, and it'd be best for all if you find another topic area to be in. Zaathras (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think they grasp it fine, you've offered no real counterargument, and this comment borders on a personal attack. jp×g 21:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others, covid denialism is a widely-covered and well-sourced phenomenon. Exact same boat as Category:American anti-vaccination activists. Zaathras (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anti-vacciation is well defined belief. "COVID-19 conspiracy" is not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • COVID denialism does not necessarily mean conspiracy theorist. Being ignorant, wrong, or misinformed is not a conspiracy. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I had to comment because this is a repetitive but flawed argument. Many false beliefs are indeed integrated with conspiracy theories. If someone believes that distancing guidelines are wrong, conspiracy theories are usually involved in the justifications. It could only be pure ignorance if cut from the world enough, then suddenly landing... —PaleoNeonate – 17:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, no. If someone is vaccine-hesitant or anti-vaccine (for any vaccine), it could be because they think Bill Gates is planting 5G microchips in the blood of humankind to make them subservient to the coming Globalist New World Order. Or it could be that they simply have religious, cultural, or health concerns, or legitimate differences in views about personal freedoms versus government mandates. If someone believes that the negative economic, social, and personal health impacts of lockdowns are a net worse than the public health benefits, a shadowy conspiracy theory need not be invoked at all. It is concerning that Wikipedia editors seem to be increasingly equating any deviation from scientific consensus as conspiracy theorizing. Are all theists conspiracy theorists because it is a false belief? --Animalparty! (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons stated above. It is too weakly defined and is a category that could be weaponized against people who are not in favor of lockdowns. TJD2 (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It might be fuzzy at the edges, but fairly stringent inclusion criteria could be defined. I tend to agree with MelanieN here; misapplication isn't a problem solved by deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MelanieN. Category has useful navigational purpose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provided we can agree on the criteria for inclusion. As others have commented, the current people included in the category need to be checked. For instance Brazilian businessman Carlos Wizard Martins was included - I've removed him because the article about him never mentions Covid-19 at all. Neiltonks (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This very much reminds the debates for climate change denialists: 1, 2, 3. The same arguments for deletion are valid. Not only this breaks a number of policies and guidelines (WP:OPINIONCAT, WP:BLPCAT, WP:ATTACK etc.), more importantly this gathers together things and people that are too unrelated between them, e.g. those who believe that there's no pandemic and those who believe that the pandemic was deliberate, or deliberate deceiving theories with mild or I-don't-know-type half sentences. Guideline WP:CLNT explains why the black-or-white category inclusion system is wrong for topics that require this type nuance. List and topic articles allow to present context and all possible range of nuance that a category cannot provide. Place Clichy (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Raises severe BLP issues" sounds serious, but is an meaningless statement, void of context. If there are allegations of BLP violations that arise, deal with them in the normal way that they're dealt with. And, as User:Zaathras points out, COVID denialism is a widely-covered and well-sourced phenomenon, and pretending that COVID-19 conspiracy theorists aren't named by reliable sources is just denialism of a different sort. --Calton | Talk 17:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - simply because it helps navigating pages. No, that does not cause any BLP concerns assuming that the categorization is sourced. If not, just remove the category from the specific page. This is not a valid reason for deleting the entire category. And even when using such category is disputable (for example, I would not use it here [2]), it still helps navigation, and this is the only purpose of having categories at the first place. My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've recently deleted the inclusion of Nicholas Wade from this category, which was justified because a reliable source called him a conspiracy theorist. However, this attribution was the personal opinion of the source, which we could only use with attribution, not in wikivoice. This distinction is lost in category inclusions and is very much a BLP concern. It is precisely the existence of this penumbra that makes opinion categories problematic. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the arguments articulated by Hemiauchenia, 力, and others. Many of the "keep" !votes are using a rationale along the lines of: "This owns the right-wingers, so it's good". This may be true, but reflecting negatively on people who hold an opinion is not a reason to include something in an encyclopedia. You'll notice, for example, that Varg Vikernes is a member of Category:People convicted of murder by Norway and Category:Far-right politics in France, but not Category:Assholes. The fact of him being an asshole is beside the point. Similarly, being a "COVID-19 conspiracy theorist" seems to be a very nebulous category, to the point that people are disagreeing vigorously about what it entails in this very discussion. Some have said that the category should be kept and defined more strictly, but there's no consensus here as to what that means, and I don't expect any to emerge any time soon. Personally, I think that the only thing that should count as "promoting a conspiracy theory" is if someone promotes a conspiracy theory, but some have argued otherwise (i.e. if someone says something stupid, that was also said by a different person who at one point said something positive about a conspiracy theory). It doesn't seem reasonable to have a category for BLPs based on an extremely contentious political subject if we don't know what the inclusion criteria are and can't agree on what they should be. jp×g 21:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This owns the right-wingers, so it's good" Where have any of the "keep" !votes said anything remotely similar to that? –dlthewave ☎ 01:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)User:Dlthewave[reply]
See Jaydogmarco and Calton's keep votes, and how they have been aggressively edit warring to the point of page protections to see how this tag has been misapplied and weaponized to "own the right". Also see his entry on this page [[3]] (note I can't link it because the exact version was deleted for some reason).TJD2 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be the same edit war that you had a hand in, with 5 reverts over 2 days? Zaathras (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean the one in which I was restoring the addition you're trying to ramrod through without a consensus? The one in which I was reverting to the original version of the article? The one who's editors are showing an extreme amount of bias in their dialogue and edit summaries? Yeah I suppose it is the same one then - and you're on the wrong side of it. I saw you had a 6 month topic ban on this very subject back in the day, by the way. This kind of behavior is exactly where that leads if not a direct block - best to actually engage in discussion versus trying to one up.TJD2 (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many of the arguments above. Simply being controversial does not mean this is non-notable or should not exist as a category. The relevant question in my mind is: "Is this a grouping that would make sense to an average person?" And the answer is, of course, yes. Most people are aware not only that there are conspiracy theories about COVID-19, but also that there are people who promote and believe in many of these theories. There are multiple people for whom this is a defining trait of their notability, who have also been battlegrounds for the removal or inclusion of this category. Just because a topic is controversial, or difficult, does not mean we should not cover it. It means we should cover it more carefully.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shibbolethink: Surely, if someone is looking through Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists, they are trying to learn about conspiracy theorists (i.e. people who come up with or are instrumental in the establishment of conspiracy theories), and are not benefited by an indiscriminate list of people who merely believed a thing which later turned out to be untrue. In a similar vein, Barack Obama famously said that he smoked weed when he was younger, yet he is not in Category:People involved in cannabis, Category:American cannabis activists, et cetera. jp×g 22:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's just no way to cover more carefully a POV honeypot. Place Clichy (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Anti-vax activist and COVID-conspiracy tags has a discussion to render any "keep" decision here moot. --Calton | Talk 03:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see a problem with this category per se but wp:NOTDEFINING may be a serious issue. While there are many people who have said something about covid that falls into the conspiracy theory bucket, how many examples do we have of someone who is defined by their conspiracy theories related to covid? These tags have to be seen as something in Wiki-voice since they appear on the article page. That means we should only use them in cases where we have consensus to describe the person as a covid conspiracy theorist. If not, the tag shouldn't be used. Springee (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This can be a subjective classification of BLP, and as such, should never be a category as per WP:CATPOV (eg See CFD for Climate change deniers here). While there may be individuals that can be more objectively classified into this, there is far too much subjectivity to make this a legitimate category. --Masem (t) 04:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment here. Way too many BLP issues with these types of categories. The harms of this category severely outweighs any potential benefits.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no objection to recreation at a later point in time I'm afraid that this is far from being anything even close to WP:DEFCAT for the vast majority of cases. The few isolated examples of notable BLPs where this is actually a proper categorisation are rare enough that it would not make sense keeping this as a separate category from Category:Conspiracy theorists, because it would be a WP:SMALLCAT. I'm also afraid that much of this is the usual WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS type of stuff ("oh, it was in the news cycle for a short while"...), and it is hard to judge the long-term significance of this. If, in a few years, there are still prominent figures promoting bollocks about COVID, and they are numerous enough to justify a category, then this can be revisited. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep This is evidence enough that my previous concerns about this (mostly the bit about this being a small category) were wrong. Issues about this being "POV" or being UNDUE/non-defining in some articles can be fixed by removing them from the offending articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Subsequent comment: 8/12 of the listed names in that had an article (and they now have the category to correspond - all of them have a substantial amount of content on this). This of course entirely ignores a whole lot of other names, not listed there, such as a former US president and his right-wing allies (who are also already in the category)... The only reasons to delete, now that I've addressed my own concerns about this, basically sum up to WP:IDONTLIKEIT: that is, of course, entirely unconvincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, most of the 12 on that list (PDF) seem to be primarily run of the mill anti-vaccination activists (and I have no problem categorizing them as such), which was the main focus of the report ("Executive summary: The Disinformation Dozen are twelve anti-vaxxers who play leading roles in spreading digital misinformation about Covid vaccine"). Kudos to Ty & Charlene Bollinger though for thinking outside the box and going full 'Bill Gates will inject you with microchips' too. But since "COVID-19 conspiracy theories" run a nebulous gamut from "maybe it did escape from a lab and China covered it up" to "I'm just saying Chinese military could have been conducting gain-of-function research..." to "the virus was natural but elites/liberals/opposition candidates are using it to bring about The Great Reset" to "Tony Fauci and Bill Gates deliberately created the pandemic to control people and inject them with 5G chips and ensure Joe Biden a win" , etc., having a category this specific may be as fraught or more so than a category for "Climate change deniers/denialists" as rejected here, here, here, and reaffirmed here. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POVCAT....WP:PROPORTION.Moxy- 06:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's very useful to list who the crazies are, Covid cases are spiking again due to conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine misinformation, If we delete this category to pander to trumpers and anti-vaxxers i'm leaving this site for good. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the more reason to delete this category then.TJD2 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting categories specifically for the purpose of political activism would certainly be pandering to someone. jp×g 11:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if any Trumpers or anti-vaxxers are involved in this discussion, or that any are being pandered to (and surely not all Wikipedians are involved in nor care much about American politics, so maybe add Bolsonarians to be more inclusive). There are legitimate concerns with using vague and subjective labels, even if one can find a thousand sources using the label. There are many sources which call someone a "climate change denier" of sorts, but a category for such has repeatedly been deemed unwarranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as MelanieN says, "The OP's reasons for wanting this category removed are weak and unconvincing. If the category is being cited where it is not supported by the text, then remove it from the article." We have processes for dealing with BLP issues for specific articles. Sure, it can be subjective and that could be a good argument for not using it in a specific case, but in other cases it's in-your-face obvious ("the vaccinations are meant to give you Covid, nor prevent it" "You're being injected with a magnetic chip" etc). Doug Weller talk 10:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is just political theatre for wikipedia. It is not Wikipedia's job or mission to "identify the crazies" in real time. Let history and historians sort them out. We are meant to be a tertiary source but when it comes to politics, wikipedia has a habit of being a secondary source citing primary sources. Slywriter (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slywriter: Is this a "primary source"? Is this a "primary source"? Or is it just that you don't like it? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: First one I would consider secondary as reporting on a study, Times I would consider Primary as writers appear to be the investigators. Rush Limbaugh is tagged for comments made at the beginning of pandemic, a time frame when no one knew anything. At least one other, George Christensen is tagged without anything in article justifying. David Clarke (sheriff) is similar. Both express right wing views and so get labeled without supporting documentation in article. So, to counter... is it you just you don't like these people and their political views? BLPs are held to the highest standard. That standard doesn't change because someone holds specific political views. Slywriter (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MelanieN. If the category is being misapplied, the solution is to remove it from those specific articles. –dlthewave ☎ 18:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In general, categorizing people as "conspiracy theorists"—unless that's what they're primarily known for—is an embarrassment for an encyclopedia. Surely everyone has at some time professed a view that was outside whatever Wikipedia claimed the "scientific consensus" was at the time? Should every Chinese historical figure before the Qing Dynasty be termed a "Flat Earth proponent"—given that the worldwide scientific consensus had been a round earth since the 4th century BC? This category might be a worthy one in a decade to come—but for now, it's a naked attempt to tar public figures for unpopular political views, and so obviously illiberal that it's hard for me to believe that Wikipedians are endorsing it. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is too open to abuse. Too many people have either supported the notion there was a lad leak, or at least pushed back against those who want to not consider it as even possible for there to be a good way to categorize on this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just discovered this category and added it to James H. Fetzer, who has written a blogpost with lots of nonsensical claims [4], but then I saw this discussion and I realised how this category may be open to abuse. I just searched to see if Fetzer has been covered in RS as promulgating COVID-19 conspiracy theories but I couldn't find anything, so I removed the category from his page and I cite this as an example of how easily this category can be abused, even if only inadvertent. Fetzer would of course be perfectly suited to this category if RS covered his idiotic blogpost, but I can think of other cases which aren't as clear-cut. 92.3.152.80 (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While some people advance COVID-19 conspiracy theories, there isn't a class of people who promote these theories who are not general conspiracy theorists. A lot of them are anti-vaxxers. To confuse matters, Wikipedia labelled the theory that the virus escaped from a Wuhan, China lab as a conspiracy theory, but that is actually now an accepted theory. While I can tell the difference between rational speculation and conspiracism, we currently lack adequate reliable sources to draw the distinction. TFD (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me the lab link issue is the most compelling on. I also have to admit I am a literalist on conspiracy theories. Thus, to be a conspiracy theorist, you have to belief multiple people planned something. Thus with the September 11th, 2001 incidents it is probably not accurate to describe the cazies as "conspracy theorists", because virtiually no one believes there was not a conspiracy. That would require believing that 11 hijackers all randomly attacked 3 planes at almost the same time, in some cases multiple ones attacking the same plane, with no pre-planning on their part and no one besides themselves being involved in orchestrating it. So the difference between the accepted view that Osama bin Laden and his subordinates were responsible and the woo view that it was planned and carried out by the US government is not belief in a conspiracy but disagreement about what caused the conspiracy. This [5] article arguing that the evidence highly suggests that Covid-19 escaped from the virology lab in Wuhan, but admitting it might just be that virology lab workers contracted the disease while gathering bat cornaviruses in Yunnan caves and then brought it back to Wuhan, does not in any way posit that anyone in China plannned to create Covid-19, they posit it escaped from the lab by accident due to poor security, which is in no way arguing a conspiracy. This [6] article shows the lengths to which some will go in twisting the words of their political opponents. Cardinal Burke did not claim that the Covid-19 vaccine would implant microchips in people, he just wanrned that it is something some people want to do, and Terry Mattingly has provided a clear link to a reputable source that actually advocates doing exactly that. Wikipedia should clearly not be in the basis of laberlling people as such based on original research of an editor reading one twitter post, and as shown above that is exactly what this category is causing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:POVCAT. This is unlikely to be a defining characteristic as reflected in reliable sources, so there aren't good criteria for inclusion. We already have a category for conspiracy theorists. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or otherwise merge with Category:COVID-19 misinformation, where a few biographies have been categorised already, or rename to something like COVID-19 misinformation proponents. There are already categories for Category:HIV/AIDS denialists and Category:5G conspiracy theorists; having a category for those who promote COVID-19 misinformation is definitely needed, if not under this name as 'conspiracy theorist' is a specific term. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:25, 18 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:Prefecture of the Papal Household[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: UpMerge - jc37 15:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer, only contains the main article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 3 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:15th-century Netherlandish women[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. – Fayenatic London 22:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, first, we do not categorize 15th-century Netherlandish people anyway because there was no Netherlandish entity - but there was a Burgundian Netherlands in the 15th century that has its own category tree - and second, even if there would have been a Netherlandish entity the category would violate WP:FINAL RUNG. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 3 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:Raëlians by nationality[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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge as a redundant category layer, it is the only subcategory of Category:Raëlians. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 3 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:Male social workers[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. Or, to be more specific, an upmerge into Category:Social workers. bibliomaniac15 17:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEGRS as a trivial intersection by gender, male social workers is not a notable topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With most occupations I would object against an equal treatment of male and female categories, but I can see that this is an exception, so I have nominated the female categories too. @Laurel Lodged: updating other contributor to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear OEGS violation. No one has presented information showing there has been academic study of how males and females do social work differently. I also say that in the broad scope of history female clergy have been in such the minority that we have no reason for a male clergy category. Although who is and who is not clergy itself is a tricky question. The Hosana Tabor case in part turned on the fact that the defandant was basically in a like unto clergy position in a Church that reserved core clergy positions for males, but allowed females to be "called teachers". There are clear reasons beyond inbalance to treat female and male clergy as different groups, I do not see the same as applicable to social workers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 27 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:Burials in Bydgoszcz[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. bibliomaniac15 17:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete and move subCategory:Burials in Nowofarny cemetery in Bydgoszcz‎ to Category:Bydgoszcz, we categorize burials by burial places, burials by city categories are container categories only. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now with no objection to recreating later if the additional potential subcategories emerge. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:06, 3 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:Honorary citizens of Bydgoszcz[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. bibliomaniac15 17:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not categorize honorary citizens per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 3 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:Albums produced by Carl Saff[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#Category:Albums produced by Carl Saff

Category:Arab States Broadcasting Union[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. Note that the contents of the category are listed in Arab States Broadcasting Union#Members. bibliomaniac15 17:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT)
The Arab States Broadcasting Union is affiliated with the Arab League and was originally a development program that became a trade association for Middle Eastern broadcasters. This category consists of those member broadcasters but that association is so non-defining those articles rarely even mention this affiliation. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 3 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:International Musicological Society[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:International Musicological Society presidents. bibliomaniac15 17:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME
This category consists entirely of biography articles of people who were president of the International Musicological Society so this rename just better describes the current contents. The name change will require removing the subcat.) Alternatively, being the president of this group gets only a passing reference in the articles so we could just delete this category and rely on this list in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming and redirecting. Good catch. Hyacinth (talk) 20:36, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_3&oldid=1040716428"