The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Bomber Command Clasp[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.
Nominator's rationale: A category of an award that doesn't even have an article. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is worse than an automatic campaign medal: it's a literal clasp to be added to the automatically issued 1939–1945 Star for flying one or more missions (source). Since we don't categorize by the underlying award, this attachment can hardly be defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a service clasp. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Most templates use "District" and it's the proper name for the administrative division than "Rayon" — CuriousGolden(T·C) 19:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Items to be merged makes it sound like the most general merger category which really isn't the case. Instead it's simply where {{merge}} and related templates place non-article, non-user pages. "Miscellany" is an especially good term for this considering that WP:Miscellany for deletion is concerned with the same namespaces. --Trialpears (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the current main article, First Shō Dynasty (it's also the most common used name). Please move back. El caballero de los Leones (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I started an RM regarding the article title. Presumably the closure of this category discussion can wait until the RM discussion is closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the current main article, Second Shō Dynasty (it's also the most common used name). Please move back. El caballero de los Leones (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I started an RM regarding the article title. Presumably the closure of this category discussion can wait until the RM discussion is closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:split as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It is not obvious that Category:Hatred is viable at all but we will see that happening when this nomination is implemented. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Split between parent categories, then delete. I think we can adequately determine now that the remaining category after the split will be too small. Between Category:Emotions, Category:Prejudice and discrimination, and the other current parent categories, the possibilities seem well covered. --Bsherr (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral note - restored second target of split. Not sure why it was removed in this edit - jc37 17:36, 12 April 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:Post-presidencies of Presidents of the United States (and all related 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:rename. I'm pushing the issue of deletion of some of the categories to the side, but this is without prejudice to a future deletion nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The idea of a right of asylum is a concept or principle of international law, so the law need not be a subcategory. We do have within this two separate subcategories of case law and legislation, which I'm not proposing to merge. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles, Republic of the North Solomons and Alexis Sarei, a former prime minister of this breakaway state. Although the North Solomons was nominally a republic, this breakaway state was an independence movement, rather than an exercise in republicanism opposed to the Monarchy of Papua New Guinea. As such, this category contains no articles with information about republicanism in Papua New Guinea, and is therefore misleading. As far as I am aware, there is currently no content on the English Wikipedia that would be suitable for this category. LukeSurltc 10:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a former resident in PNG, I agree thta this category is not needed. --Bduke (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support To reflect its contents. Dimadick (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is English language wikipedia so I don't expect French wordings. --Just N. (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It follows article name Haitian Vodou. The word Vodou has apparently been adopted by English language when put in Haitian context. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:18, 1 April 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:Voodoo practitioners 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.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, redundant category layer, the parent category is otherwise empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The computing/technology/web industry has dozens of annual conferences in Category:Technology conferences and the Web Summit is one of the more prominent ones but people in the industry would participate in many over time. According to the header of the category, this is for "People who have spoken, presented or been interviewed at the Web Summit" which is a textbook performance category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, don't agree that is is WP:PERFCAT, as most of the speakers aren't mainly performers. However, can't argue with WP:NONDEFINING for most of the speakers. I made the category, but I wonder if I should migrate the information back into the Web Summit article, or just let it go? David Malone (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dwmalone: For background, we've had a couple nominations where we considered WP:PERFCAT through a broader lens of short work assignments even if it wasn't acting. For the article, my inclination would be to give a few of the big name marquee speakers. Alternatively, a collapsible list (example) would let you keep all the category contents without impacting the readability of the article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: I like the sound of the collapsible list, so maybe I should do that. Any preference if I do it before or after the category is removed? David Malone (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dwmalone: I would at least copy the article contents so you don't have to bug an admin if the category is deleted. If you think adding the list is controversial, I'd take it to the article talk page, otherwise you can be bold. (Ultimately, the editors at the article level have the final say as happened here.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: Grand - I have a copy of the content, so please go ahead, and I'll add the list when I have a moment. David Malone (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This category is for people who were afflicted with eye cataracts at any stage of life, whether treated successfully or not.
While there are exceptions, cataracts are a common medical issue later in life. For historical figures, this condition may have dramatically reduced their quality of life but after they already established notability; for contemporary biographies, this is more likely a passing medical condition. Neither seems defined by this category and Wikipedia is not a medical history of every disease or ailment of notable people. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Loss of eyesight, reduced quality of life, and a problem that was untreated until recently. I think medical categories and cause of death satisfy "Defining" more than trivia about occupations and ideologies. Dimadick (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not something that should be mentioned as one of the key characteristics of people in the articles. For example Samuel Genensky was known as an advocate of the blind, it is completely reasonable to mention that in the start of the article, but it is less relevant whether he was that before or after he was treated for cataracts. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Listify but only for notable cases (and yes, I realise that is subjective). Certainly for people like Claude Monet cataracts were a significant career and life event, and that should be noted, but for many people it is little ore than a run-of-the-mill ailment. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be able to create a list that satisfies WP:LISTN but I copied the current category contents right here so no work is lost if someone else feels more able to take that on. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defining. Especially since a huge percentage of people will only develop these after they engage in activities that lead to their notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 6 April 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.
