Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 23

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

June 23[edit]

Category:Anti-Taliban users[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) 20:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate user category. While the Taliban are pretty universally considered bad, this does not improve the editing environment. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a category which groups users by advocacy of a position * Pppery * it has begun... 22:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait @Elli: Your are right if you mean Al-Qaida, Bokoharam, IS and the others, But about Taliban actually they are not "universally considered bad". They are supported locally, regionally and manybe globally by their friends, and there is an ognoing war there, War in Afghanistan. And also there is Afghan peace process toodays, making peace with terrorists started by Trump. lets make it into our projects, Just look at File:Flag of Taliban with X-Mark.jpg nomination for deletion So, i am stating my view on this in my userpage, What is wrong? There is many userpage templates to express religious or political way, in a very very genrally words and very theorically, like this user is atheist, this user is democrat. But i want clearly state something. And being anti-taliban is a basement in my social life. no matter if i am Afghan or not. --Ruwaym (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ruwaym: stating your position here on your userpage is probably fine, but a category for it is not. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Elli: I thought its about the template! Sorry for confusing. --Ruwaym (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ruwaym: no worries. I do think it would make more sense to move the template to your user namespace instead of the general template-space - as userboxes advocating opinions usually are - but that's not something I care much about doing. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:01, 30 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:Persian astrologers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not clear what the difference is. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 23 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:Latvian political party shortname templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same topic, overall naming scheme just uses the country, not the demonym. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Convincing reasons. --Just N. (talk) 13:04, 30 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.

Diplomatic visits by national leaders[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: purge/clean up; no consensus to merge.– Fayenatic London 07:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. There is considerable overlap and misplacement between these two categories. Much of the content is duplicated, as it cannot probably be easily differentiated between the two functions (1, 2 etc.), but there are also several entries in the heads of government categories that are clearly about presidents or heads of state (1, 2, 3 etc.) or vice versa (1). It will be more practical to have a merged category. Place Clichy (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in Some Fashion/Maybe Purge These categories clearly overlap in practice and should be combined; I'll defer to others for the best name. These categories seem meant to group by individual person (like with List of international prime ministerial trips made by Scott Morrison) but a lot of the content is by country (List of diplomatic visits to North Macedonia). - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Some positions double as head of state/head of government, so there's going to be some overlap. But should the proposal not be Category:Diplomatic visits by national leaders? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These categories seem to be organized by the personality of the diplomatic visitor, hence the singular. Other possible titles could be Diplomatic visits by visitor or Diplomatic visits by individual, as in parent Category:Categories by individual. I could live with the plural though. Also note that Category:Diplomatic visits by visitor nationality is also overlapping much of the content. We could either merge it as well (in which case the plural in national leaders would be justified), or keep it separate and move all non-individual content there (e.g. categories and lists of state visits by Fooian leaders). Place Clichy (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can live with the singular too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (with plural suggested by Good Ol'factory). The whole category seems a bit of a mess, from Category:Diplomatic visits down. Lots of duplication and things in the wrong place. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 02:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose As it is now it is unambigious! In the UK the queen is head of state, Johnson is PM. Even in France it is clear, president Macron is not to be confused with the head of government. Only the US are an exception: no premier minister. OTOH "national leader" is a very ambigious term. It's not even made sure that only the heads of state are meant; in Russia or Iran the national leader of religion could be meant?! The Vatican is sort of a state but not a nation - no national leader at all. -- If there are indeed any misplacements as the nominator says purge them! --Just N. (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Just N. This merely needs a clean-up. We do not even have a Category:National leaders. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 1 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:1894 establishments in Nigeria[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 for now, but I will implement this by redirecting this one to the Lagos Colony sub-cat, as this is part of a hierarchy, see Category:19th-century establishments in Nigeria, so a wider discussion on Category:Establishments in Nigeria by century would be would be appropriate. – Fayenatic London 08:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:1894 establishments in Nigeria
  • Nominator's rationale This is a clear example of anachronistic trying to impose boundaries invented at a later date on the past. Nigeria is known to many as the "mistake of 1914" although sometimes the year I believe is actually 1908 when the plans to unify the northern and southern Nigeria protectorates was put in place. The Southern Nigeria Protectorate was formed in 1900, but Lagos Colony remained a seperate place until 1906. The only contents that this category has ever had are curretnly correctly placed in Category:1894 establishments in Lagos Colony. Lagos Colony was a distinct place from the domains of the Royal Niger Company. Having this category implies that there is some inherent unity to the lands that make up Nigeria. This is an idea that is hotly debated and contested even to the present, and to try and claim it as applying when Nigeria was multiple polities that in no way say themselves as a coherent grouping is just plain false. This is an extreme of historically anachronistic and inaccurate categorization that should not be done. We should categorize by either coherent political units of the time, or coherent and with contemporary recogniztion social-cultural units of the time. There is no such unit that would in 1894 consider Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, and many other ethnic groupings, some in tribal societies and some in complex states linked to the Sokoto Caliphate to be one unified social-cultrual zone that we could call "Nigeria". especially one that would limit itself in any way to anything like the modern boundaries. The Lagos Colony is a clearly defined place, Nigeria is not at this year and there is no reason to have a category for it. The lands controlled by the Royal Niger Company may or may not in this year form a unit, and it may or may not make sense to call them "Nigeria", I would say that using that name for those lands would be at best misleading. However since the actual articles we have relate to Lagos Colony, and Lagos Colony was clearly not under the Royal Niger Company, even if in principal we would accept this category for the Royal Nigeria Company territory, we hav no contents for this year in that territory and so as applied we should delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would not be practical to have separate chronology structures for Nigeria and the Lagos Colony. Place Clichy (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet it is practical to have one for the undefined non-bordered Ukraine in the 19th century? Your arguments make no sense at all, and you clearly do not believe in maintaining reasonable sized categories in all cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have a cateogry for the Lagos Colony. We have all sorts of category structures for various places, because we categorize things by where they were established when they were established, not by where it is now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As anachronistic. Retroactively applying the current country that has had multiple borders is unlikely to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just prior to starting this nomination, Johnpacklambert emptied the nominated category. (He also managed to suggest that I was a liar in the edit summary, but I suppose that is neither here nor there.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There was no Nigeria in the 19th century. The Lagos Colony categories are adequate. @Johnpacklambert: please calm down. Your current manners are not winning you friends. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:36, 30 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:Wikipedians who like Mass Effect[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) 20:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by video game * Pppery * it has begun... 13:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery could you explain the rational and why the Mass Effect category is different than the ones in Category:Wikipedians interested in video games? Gonnym (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I missed that entire tree when nominating this category (due to this one being created with no parent categories) and probably wouldn't have started this nomination if I had found it. I would support deletion of many of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians interested in video games that use the term "like" for the same reason. So, in short, nothing, other than you having revealed that other bad categories exist. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery Could you point out why this category was nominated for deletion besides revealing that you hate "like" in the title, and my noob mistake of not adding a parent category to it? Jimydog000 (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with my feelings. It has to do with Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories#Irrelevant likes, and more generally the fact that categories grouping users by which video games they like have been deemed not to ha[ve] the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia by numerous past discussions. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I was following the example of dozens of other pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_who_like_Assassin%27s_Creed I guess I will have to remove any links to this page as well such as in the userbox template.

When does the page get deleted? I see that there are four other user accounts agreeing on it's deletion. Jimydog000 (talk) 08:05, 1 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:Regional governors of the Philippines[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 1#Category:Regional governors of the Philippines

Category:DYK videos[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) 01:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created in 2009 and has no video files in it. The one template is already in the template categories. Gonnym (talk) 09:06, 23 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.

Subcategories of Category:Paintings by collection[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the collections of Sheffield Galleries and Museums to Category:Paintings in the collection of Sheffield Museums
  2. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Albright–Knox Art Gallery to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Albright–Knox Art Gallery
  3. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Musée des Beaux-Arts, Tournai to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Musée des Beaux-Arts, Tournai
  4. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the San Diego Museum of Art to Category:Paintings in the collection of the San Diego Museum of Art
  5. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art to Category:Paintings in the collection of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
  6. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the São Paulo Museum of Art to Category:Paintings in the collection of the São Paulo Museum of Art
  7. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Slovak National Gallery to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Slovak National Gallery
  8. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Smithsonian American Art Museum to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Smithsonian American Art Museum
  9. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Sorolla Museum to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Sorolla Museum
  10. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe
  11. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Städel Museum to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Städel
  12. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Strada Nuova Museums to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Musei di Strada Nuova
  13. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art
  14. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Timken Museum of Art to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Timken Museum of Art
  15. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Tokyo National Museum to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Tokyo National Museum
  16. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Turin City Museum of Ancient Art to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Museo Civico d'Arte Antica
  17. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Uffizi to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Uffizi
  18. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Vatican Museums to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Vatican Museums
  19. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Victoria and Albert Museum to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum
  20. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Villa Stuck to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Villa Stuck
  21. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts
  22. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Walker Art Gallery to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Walker Art Gallery
  23. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Walters Art Museum
  24. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Whitney Museum of American Art to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Whitney Museum of American Art
  25. Propose renaming Category:Paintings of Versailles to Category:Paintings in the collection of the Palace of Versailles
Nominator's rationale: These are categories I left out of this earlier nomination by accident. The outcome of that nomination was that categories beginning "Paintings of" were moved to "Paintings in the collection of" because of the ambiguity of the first phrase; e.g. Paintings of Versailles could be read as meaning paintings depicting the palace (or the gardens, or even the city) of Versailles, rather than paintings within the palace. For good measure I've also added the sole example of "Paintings in the collections of", plural, so that it's not an exception to this scheme. Ham II (talk) 11:59, 23 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:Lambrakis Democratic Youth[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as a redundant category layer, containing just one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now Doesn't currently aid navigation, but no objection to recreating if it ever reaches 5+ direct articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Unnecessary redundant category layer. --Just N. (talk) 13:46, 30 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:Independent Colleges of Southern California[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) 00:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's hard to tell whether or not this association still exists (the main Google results for it are the Wikipedia category and a Guidestar profile that shows that it last filed a 990 in 2011), but whether or not it exists, it certainly doesn't seem very defining, except to the extent that it overlaps categories such as Category:Universities and colleges in Los Angeles County, California and Category:Private universities and colleges in California. We've deleted similar categories in the past. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a defining grouping of universities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Accreditation bodies can be defining. This seems like an inactive trade association. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "The Independent Colleges of Southern California is an association that secures "money and other resources" for its seventeen member institutions." Representation of interests for 17 colleges! 'Id call that DEFINING! --~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justus Nussbaum (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, most articles in the category do not even mention it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 1 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:Maltese merchants[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one, 19th century, article. Rathfelder (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no doubt Rathfelder wishes to rename the 'Merchant of Venice' as well. These edits should be undone. I think T S Eliot had a 'Smyrna merchant' too, Mr. Eugenides to be precise. (Businesspeople is much wider than merchant.) Oculi (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The merchant categories are largely medieval. Vincenzo Borg, the only article here, is not actually notable for being a merchant, but because of his activity as a rebel leader. Rathfelder (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Generally, merchant was a notable occupation especially in the Middle Ages and Early Modern era, so diffusion by modern nationalities is not too meaningful. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'd be open to keeping a small cat for Malta if this person was clearly defined as a merchant specifically. He was in the modern period and was defined by his military role, but with a background in the cotton industry. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Businesspeople is functionally just another name for the old, obsolete 'merchant'. --Just N. (talk) 13:55, 30 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:IATA 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT & WP:OVERLAPCAT)
The International Air Transport Association is an industry trade association representing airlines and it is so dominant that it represents 82% of the world's total available seat miles, with the exceptions typically being domestic carriers. That main article discusses the organization's dominance in the industry and how it has often been accused of anti-competitive price fixing and being a cartel. The "former" subcategory is not for airlines that left the association--that's not really a thing--but for members that went out of business since the IATA was founded in 1945. Normally I suggest listification but the the 500+ articles here significantly overlap with Category:Airlines. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 23 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:Critics of Planned Parenthood[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) 01:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT & WP:OVERLAPCAT)
All 3 of the biography articles in this category are American anti-abortion activists who are already categorized under Category:American anti-abortion activists. They're in this category because they entered Planned Parenthood clinics and secretly recorded conversations and then released them as part of their activism which feels like a performance category. (There is a 4th article, LifeSiteNews, which doesn't mention this organization but is already under Category:Anti-abortion organizations in Canada.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not want to start categorizing people by what they critize. Most of these people will be under pro-life categories. If they are not pro-life, and critize Planned Parenthood for not disavowing the racists motives and views of its founder, or other structural practices and issues related to the organization, I am less than convinced that this is defining. People can critize lots of things. Even if they publish am major work doing so, this is not always going to be truly defining. If it is worth mentioning in the article we can do it there, but there is no reason to group together people as a group for critizing a specific organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aren't it even more extremist political activists than the anti-abortion partisans? This faction of the wild-eyed radicals does not even concede parents the least autonomy rights. This is definitely DEFINING! OTOH it seems not correct to name terroristic activists as mere critics. --Just N. (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OPINIONCAT. Should any of these people be guilty of criminal offenses (terrorism?) then we have other categories for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 30 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:Famous dogs[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) 20:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP usually does not categorize things as "famous FOOs". This category can be upmerged to Category:Individual dogs; all of the articles in this target category are (hopefully) notable, and thus arguably "famous". (Category:Famous dogs was renamed to Category:Individual dogs in this 2011 discussion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If the current category was actually moved from that name, wouldn't the new category and the merge be speediable? Grutness...wha? 01:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge & delete - "famous" is completely subjective, per the nom if they're notable enough for their own page they likely have a degree of fame. Cavalryman (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. William Harris (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:14, 30 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:The Translators Memorial Monument[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) 20:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category presumably is categorizing people who are honoured by the monument. There is no scheme for categorizing people in this way, and being honoured in a particular monument is not defining. Note that there is not even an article Translators Memorial Monument, so it's difficult to assess whether or not this is even notable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 23 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_23&oldid=1034334592"