Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 16 June 18 >

June 17[edit]

Category:Keynote Speaker[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) 15:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is essentially a performers by performance category. Having been a keynote speaker for something is not a defining characteristic and in most cases is hardly even noteworthy for a biographical article. If fully populated, the category would be enormous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously a PERFCAT. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's not populated I'm unclear on the intention, but I don't see a possibility that it is defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 19 June 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:Sylheti writing system[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 3 pages, one of which is proposed for deletion and all of which are already in Category:Sylheti language. Fails WP:SMALLCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:40, 17 June 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.

1846 in Nebraska[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: speedy delete. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The state was only established in 1867. The member article Florence Park is already correctly categorised as established in Indian Territory. . – Fayenatic London 16:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: I created these categories but did not realize they are cats for an, at the time, non-existent entity. Gjs238 (talk) 22:53, 17 June 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:List A cricket leagues[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The cricket leagues one is a duplicate category, so should be merged. Category:List A cricket competitions would be the correct name (as all leagues are competitions, but not vice versa) Joseph2302 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 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:Metafictional characters[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) 02:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SUBJECTIVECAT) and maybe WP:OR
According to the header on the category, this " is for fictional characters who display an awareness that they exist in a work of fiction". Bugs Bunny, Deadpool, Frank Underwood routinely break the fourth wall and those articles all use that term, although none use the word "metafictional", which is the norm for articles in this category. Determining self awareness leads to subjectivity: The Brown Hornet knows he's a super hero on a cartoon but does he know that not a real show and is just a segment within Fat Albert? Kermit the Frog knows he's on TV as the host of a variety show but does he know he's a puppet and not an actual frog?
(Alternatively, maybe this isn't defining at all and we should delete the category. In that case, I copied the current category contents right here so no work is lost if another editor wants to create an article similar to List of metafictional works.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tags Already notified the creator but now manually tagging WikiProject Literature, Talk:Metafiction, and the only talk page commenter to get more input for a consensus. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think breaking the fouth wall is in a broad scale defining. For example, I can find a few cases where Clark Kent/Superman/Kal-El has clearly broken the fourth wall (I think more so in the 1950s Adventures of Superman, but also in the 1990s Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman), but with over 80 years of constant publication history, appareance in 5 different mediums, at least 9 live action films, being the lead in at least 5 live action TV shows, and being a recurring character in at least 1 more, and so on, this is not enough to make this defining, and I can recreate this list over an over again. A list of significant breaking of the fourth wall may be doable, but placing characters in categories for doing this makes no sense at all. Categorizing fictional works for significantly breaking the 4th wall may make sense, but it does not make sense for characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 17 June 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:Clean-up categories[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. bibliomaniac15 04:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with the category Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month, and accuracy. The categories that populate these categories are exactly the categories in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month, this is how the monthly category system works. Additionally, not all of the categories contained are cleanup categories. For example, categories such as Category:Use British English from April 2020‎ are contained in Category:Clean-up categories from April 2020 - which is not a cleanup category, but a maintenance one. The current name implies all subcategories contain issues to be cleaned-up, which is entirely untrue and very misleading. Therefore, they should be renamed.
We might also want to consider separating monthly clean-up categories from monthly maintenance ones, but that would be far more difficult to work with the current infrastructure than this rename, so I don't see a reason to not do this rename based off of that. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename in Some Fashion These should all begin with "Wikipedia". No opinion on clean-up vs. maintenance. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I work with the clean up categories regularly so a name change is a little jarring but if it must be done, let it be done. I just thought I'd add to Elli regarding the second suggestion about separating them out that a typical month has 180-190 clean up categories created. Then I come along on the first day of the subsequent month and delete approximately 40-50 categories that are empty. There are always dozens of empty clean up categories but I haven't kept track of which ones are most often never used but they probably don't need to be created every month. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Liz: Yeah, I guess the question of what to do about that problem doesn't have that easy of an answer. Hopefully, this change makes it easier to manage these in the future. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll add it to the list of "Problems where there isn't a noticeboard, group or individual to go to to get a change done". Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when I originally posted about this in a few places (I think WikiProject Cleanup and WikiProject Categories) I didn't get much of a response. Seems like you're one of the main people working on this so I'll just reach out to you next time - or maybe put up some organizational pages in project-space? Shrug. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz and Elli: A month and a half late, but let me know if anything happens. I also check these things; mainly for stuff to clean up, be it articles with problems or categories that are blank and need to be hard-purged so they appear in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to oppose. (new !vote below) Strictly speaking, the nominator's rationale is correct, and well-reasoned. But I struggle to see the benefit of a rename, and the change will cause a lot of disruption: editors will need to relearn, and there are bound to be tool and bots which need adjustment. @Elli : Is there any reason to believe that all this tweaking will solve any actual problem, or make anyone's job any easier? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl: yes - the current naming is inaccurate and confusing. I don't think we should be using inaccurate names for categories, even administrative ones - the current name confused me, and it's sure to confuse others. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Elli: it dosn't confuse me, but YMMV. However, I don't see what problem is caused by any confusion. What difficulty did these names cause you? How did it impede your work or your navigation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BrownHairedGirl: well, I expected that all subcategories would be, well, clean-up categories, containing issues to be cleaned up. This lead to me attempting to "clean up" things which were not actually issues, under the mistaken assumption that they were. For example, things such as Category:Userspace drafts from April 2014 or Category:User-created public domain files from April 2014. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Elli: with all due respect, I would have thought that the titles of those categories make it clear that they need no attention. If their parenting in a "cleanup" cat causes confusion, then labelling them as "maintenance" won't help much, because e.g. "User-created public domain files" is not a maintenance issue, it's a pagetype grouping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @BrownHairedGirl: the categories do exist for maintenance though - the definition of "maintenance category" is kinda broad on the project (the main ones I'm thinking about - which didn't confuse be, but clearly aren't cleanup categories, are the "use X English" categories). I think increasing clarity is worth it here - and I'm unaware of automated tools which would be disrupted by this rename (the one which creates these categories would automatically work from the rename of Category:Clean-up categories). Elli (talk | contribs) 15:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Elli: unaware of tools is a very poor test, unless you have done a huge amount of research and surveying. Many editors have bundles of tools which are not public, let alone documented. For example, I have hundreds of AWB modules which rely on existing structures, and almost none of them are public, and so do mamy other editors. You imply cannot know the extent of the side-effects.
                And as above, I see litle gain in clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Firming up my !vote after the discussion above failed to persuade me that there is any meaningful gain to offset the disruptiion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
It seems to me that Category:Clean-up categories contains Wikipedia maintenance categories by month and then by issue, whereas Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month contains Wikipedia maintenance categories by issue and then by month. Renaming them to something like that might add clarity for someone coming across them the first time. However, renaming – and especially renaming all the nominated sub-cats – is not required for the benefit of editors who actually use these categories, and would cause them some (unpredictable) amount of extra work to update their workflows, and perhaps also some loss of continuity.
As the nominator has not provided links to prior notices/discussions on project pages, let's ping @Anomie and Gonnym: to invite their input in case they have not commented already.
Would it be a fairly simple matter to rename just the top Category:Clean-up categories to e.g. Category:Wikipedia dated maintenance categories by month? How much more work/disruption would you foresee if the monthly subcats were renamed too? – Fayenatic London 06:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I commented and deleted my response, but in general there is a huge mess with the whole tracking categories area of Wikipedia and pages are placed in clean-up when there is no cleanup, or maintenance when there is none to be done. Not sure if this is really the venue to sort that though. To the matter at hand, I support adding the prefix "Wikipedia" and a slight preference for the word "maintenance" over "cleanup". Gonnym (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a separate nomination to add "Wikipedia" in the name of Category:Maintenance categories, and to rename Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month to Category:Wikipedia dated maintenance categories by issue. The non-maint counterpart Category:Wikipedia categories sorted by month could perhaps become Category:Wikipedia dated content categories. – Fayenatic London 09:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic london: I find your suggestions confusing. "Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month" is what the category contains: maintenance categories that are sorted by month. As best I can figure out, "Wikipedia dated maintenance categories by issue" describes the grandchild categories rather than the contents of the category itself. Your suggestion slightly above for "Wikipedia dated maintenance categories by month" has the same problem. "Wikipedia dated content categories" isn't bad if the maintenance category were to be renamed to "Wikipedia dated maintenance categories" (no "by issue"), but I don't think either name is that much better than the existing names to be worth the trouble (and might be clearer if you replace "dated" with "monthly"). Anomie⚔ 13:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Anomie: I think you only find my suggestion confusing because you are used to the existing name. However, it is inconsistent with others, and not intuitive.
      Many regular categories have "by" in their name, which is short for "[subdivided and] sorted by", and refers to what is found within the named category. E.g. Category:Television by country contains a category for each country, in country order. So a category named "...[sorted] by month" might be expected to contain a category for each recent month. However, it contains categories for separate issues, with no months in sight; only inside those subcats are there further subcats that are sorted by month.
      It is not intuitive that "sorted by" means something rather different from "by", referring only to the contents of the subcats. So "categories sorted by" is short for "categories containing subcats whose contents are sorted by", whereas "categories by" is short for "categories sorted by"!
      Thus, my suggestions for "by month" and "by issue" are intended to bring the naming of these maintenance categories into line with the usage of "by" in the names of content categories.
      I suggested the word "dated" following Elli's tagging at Category:Clean-up categories. – Fayenatic London 16:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the present nomination, @Liz and BrownHairedGirl: isn't it the case that you each work on certain issue-specific sub-cats, so the naming of the nominated intermediate container categories by date should not affect your work? – Fayenatic London 16:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, picking up Gonnym's comment, would it be more useful to keep the "Clean-up" hierarchy but restrict it to issues where there is a problem to be resolved, as opposed to e.g. WP:ENGVAR or date formats? – Fayenatic London 16:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic, if we keep the 'Clean-up' hierarchy but restrict it to issues where there is a problem to be resolved as you suggest, then we will need a separate monthly hierarchy for the other monthly categories. Creating that parallel set of categories seems to me to be a lot of work in itself, as well as probably requiring the reprogramming of various bots and tools and umpteen templates. Is anyone actually volunteering to do the heavy listing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure from Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category how much re-programming would be required if there was a consensus to set up a monthly hierarchy of Clean-up categories within a monthly hierarchy of Wikipedia maintenance categories. Presumably Anomie could advise on that. I'd be prepared to split and re-parent the existing hierarchies, but I recognise that it would also be an imposition on Anomie to update the bot and templates. If there's not enough benefit from such a split, then I would favour renaming Clean-up to Wikipedia maintenance instead, as nominated except using a more specific name for the top category. – Fayenatic London 06:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Fayenatic, I am not really bothered about the category names per se. My main concern here is that whatever decision is made should be fully and promptly implemented, because the worst outcome would be to leave bots and templates and scripts still trying to implement the old configuration. I continue to oppose, because I don't yet see a full picture of the scope of what would need to be done, let alone the ducks lined up in terms of bot owners ready to reconfigure. I agree that @Anomie's input here is crucial, but there may be other bots involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Fayenatic london and BrownHairedGirl: Seems like this discussion is getting a little off the topic of the nominated categories. Anyway, AnomieBOT looks at Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month to find the list of categories it needs to look through, then looks through articles in those categories to process for templates that need dating (the templates themselves are mostly listed at WP:AWB/DT). If a separate parallel structure of "clean-up categories" were created that works in exactly the same way, it shouldn't be too hard to update AnomieBOT to process it too.
            I don't know anything about other bots, tools, or scripts that might be affected. As for templates, I see {{Parent monthly maintenance category}} and {{Monthly maintenance category}}, but someone would have to update Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category and any other docs to specify when to use those instead of the clean-up versions, and update them to populate the appropriate hierarchy, and audit the existing uses to make sure the correct template was used. Anomie⚔ 12:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Fayenatic london and Anomie: I think it would be reasonable to have one category scheme for all dated monthly maintenance categories (this one, which imo is improperly named), and a separate one for clean-up categories. I also think Fayenatic's suggestion of an alternative rename is decent and I have no opposition to that occurring - I'd just like to see this area clean-up (ironic, heh). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unless there is a clear need or advantage in changing a category name, we should default to keeping the existing name. I'm not seeing the need or advantage in adding "Wikipedia" to the category name as the purpose is clearly understood - indeed, the use of the word "Wikipedia" in many categories is entirely redundant, but it's really not worth us going around and removing the word. Nor is there any need or value in changing "clean up" to "maintenance" as "clean up" is a helpful and active description, telling us that there is some action to be taken. If there is a problem with the inclusion of a category, such as Category:Use British English in a clean up category, then perhaps it's worth considering if that category should be placed elsewhere, rather than renaming all the others. My suggestion is to remove all Category:Articles using English type template (and other such non-clean up categories) from monthly clean up categories and listings. SilkTork (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question then is how to parent the monthly categories for non-cleanup issues such as English type. They would require a new hierarchy of dated maintenance categories above the current hierarchy of cleanup categories by month. IMHO it would be worth doing that, but that would not require renaming of the nominated sub-cats. It could be done later as a separate project; I would be willing to do the work on categories if Anomie would do the necessary on templates and bots, after working out a full plan elsewhere.
    • However, one possible use that might yet come from the work that has gone into this nomination is to rename "cleanup categories" to "Wikipedia cleanup categories". If the direction of travel is for "Maintenance categories" to become "Wikipedia maintenance categories" then would it not be appropriate to rename the cleanup categories likewise? – Fayenatic London 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I support a restructure of categories being split to cleanup and non-clean ones. This will make it much more clear what actually needs work vs what we track for wishful "one day a bot can run over this and do it, but it will never actually happen but for some bizarre reason we keep tracking these" dreaming. Also support adding "Wikipedia" as that is consistent with the general backend tree. Gonnym (talk) 13:20, 18 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:Wikipedia featured sound contributors[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 as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 15:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Featured sounds is marked as historical. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:00, 17 June 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:Wikipedia featured portal contributors[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 as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 15:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Featured portals is no longer operational. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:00, 17 June 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:Books by Leonard Woolf[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) 02:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article and is likely to only ever contain one article. Dan arndt (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:Smallcat: part of a large well-established scheme, viz Category:Books by writer. Or, alternatively, the author of a book is clearly the paramount defining characteristic of the book. Oculi (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the tree of Category:Books by writer is far from complete and single-article category do not help navigation at all. Compare to the tree of Category:Musicians by band where single-article categories are deliberately excluded. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A closer comparison is with Category:Albums by artist which explicitly does allow single-article categories. Oculi's second point is unanswerable. I would delete a single-page category if it contained only a redirect, but if a book is notable enough for an article then we must keep its category by author. – Fayenatic London 06:42, 26 June 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:Genocide deniers[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: keep as container category (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted by consensus in 2007. I have re-created it as a parent category for Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide, Category:Deniers of the Bosnian genocide, Category:Holocaust deniers, and Category:Deniers of the genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. Should the category be kept or re-deleted? If kept, should it be limited to a container category? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but as a container only category. 4 items is a little low, and I hope we do not get more, but we might. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Now but Containerize Per PKI. As long as we have these subcats, we should keep them well categorized. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as a useful container catagory Hmains (talk) 22:16, 20 June 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:Died 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: City of death is probably not defining; there is no overall scheme for deaths by city. This could be upmerged to Category:Deaths in Poland, but that seems to be more of a container category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hope you don't mind, but I've also added four similar categories for places in France that I noticed the other day. They have the same rationale for deletion too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Not defining, not part of a categorization system. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 18 June 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 Recovery Group members[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. – Fayenatic London 06:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OPINIONCAT, WP:PERFCAT, and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)
According to the COVID Recovery Group article, "is an informal group of Conservative MPs in the United Kingdom who opposed the UK government's decision to introduce a second period of lockdown measures". Members of Parliament have opinions on many topics and just about all will have multiple opinions on different aspects to the COVID19 responses. Also this group will presumably be short lived and, since this is an informal group, the inclusion criteria maybe be imprecise. I just listified the category contents right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We deleted similar categories for members of the COVID19 task forces from the US, Canada, and the UK right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, opinion category of very temporary relevance. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a temporary topic. Membership of All Party Parliamentary Groups or of Commons committees would be equally temporary and hardly defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 18 June 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:OCLC members[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) 15:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT)
The OCLC (formerly the Online Computer Library Center) is a combination trade association and subscription service and this category is for library articles, not biographies. Right now the Missoula Public Library is the only article in this category but WP:SMALLCAT is not the problem here: the OCLC maintains the WorldCat database and, according to that article, there are "15,600 libraries in 107 countries that participate in the OCLC global cooperative". The main article discusses criticism that the organization functions as a monopoly in the library industry. This is way too ubiquitous to be defining for libraries. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subscription to this service is likely to be too common for it to be defining among libraries. We have previously deleted memberships of associations of universities, which is similarly non-defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 18 June 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_June_17&oldid=1073193025"