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. MER-C 19:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians against Force Thirteen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Violates Wikipedia:User categories#advocacy * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong keepDelete. I don't know~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I though you meant deleting the WP:F13 page. 21:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)~ Destroyeraa🌀
• Delete we don't need everything to have category. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as the category name does not properly represent the userbox associated with it. Chlod (say hi!) 01:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Rename to what? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't think of a good name. Changing to Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlod (talk • contribs) 08:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, we have userboxes for this kind of stuff. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. On WP:F13, after warning not to use the Force Thirteen YouTube channel as a source for Wikipedia, it is explicitly said that Force Thirteen itself supports this position and has urged its followers not to add its content to Wikipedia, stating that that its own data "should not supersede" that from RSMCs. So technically users adding the infobox are not against Force Thirteen if they agree with it on what seems to be the core issue of the WP:F13 page, the individual and the category. Place Clichy (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This also includes categories created in protest or to make a point. It comes across as a bit confrontational. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I know I'm in the minority, but why? We have categories for all sorts of things. I actually like this one.22:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)ChessEric (talk · contribs)Neutral Nvm. I would like to see who was with me on this, but I see why the category should be removed.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even if this were allowed I have qualms about its naming. Category:Wikipedians against the use of Force Thirteen in articles is more of what they're going for here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 18:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There's nothing to be gained by having this category as F13 is already prohibited as a WP:SPS; a user category will have no deterrent effect.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. I myself oppose Force 13, but who needs to know that? All of WPTC opposes F13, except the vandals. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like Force 13. Love there content. But, I do not believe it should be used on wikipedia. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: reads like a protest. Sounds provoking.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2020 (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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rugby league players that played in the NFL ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF. This is a trivial intersection. User:Namiba 15:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I took a look at some of the articles in the category and for some of them I would argue it is defining (played professionally in both leagues or on an international squad for league and on an NFL team) and others not (tried to play league after playing football a bit). SportingFlyer T·C 18:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is definitely defining for Philippe Gardent, one I knew before this discussion. A NFL stint for someone otherwise known as a rugby player will often be the highlight of his career. There is a coherent structure in Category:Footballers who switched code, including e.g. Category:Rugby union players that played in the NFL; it would therefore be weird to discuss the rugby league category alone. Place Clichy (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the difficulty here is it includes gridironers who may have dabbled in league, which it's not defining for, but I agree with you. SportingFlyer T·C 00:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer: It's correct that the category and its siblings are so named that it implies a hierarchy between NFL and RL play, although not a chronology. However I think it would be going down a dangerous road to assume that players who essentially played code A and made a stint in code B would be notable for it while the other way around would be less defining. I've cited the case of European rugby players who made an appearance in the NFL and where therefore very famous for it in their hometown, certainly more than hundreds of NFL players with longer careers and bigger success. However I can also think of confirmed players of American sports who made a sometimes surprising appearance in a European club which attracted them a similar fame. It's hockey and not football, but Bob Gainey's stint in small-town Épinal in 1989 or Steven Reinprecht in Mulhouse during the 2004–05 NHL lockout come to mind. Therefore the only possible improvement I could see here would be to rephrase category names which include "who played in the NFL" to remove the implied hierarchy. A suggestion based on alphabetical order:

  • Category:Association football players that played in the NFL → Category:Players of American football and association football
  • Category:Australian rules football players that played in the NFL → Category:Players of American football and Australian rules football
  • Category:Rugby league players that played in the NFL → Category:Players of American football and rugby league
  • Category:Rugby union players that played in the NFL → Category:Players of American football and rugby union

  However this would come with a change of scope as American football is wider that just the NFL, and would also include other leagues such as NFL Europa, AFL, high school and college football as well as European amateur leagues. This may be too wide as I guess for instance that a very large proportion of American rugby union players came to rugby after playing high school football seen the popularity of the sport. Also note Category:Dual camogie–football players. In the absence of a certain improvement, better keep things as they are. Place Clichy (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we do not need categories for every conceivable combination of people who do more than one activity for which notability may attach. And this is one such. The closer two relatively similar activities, the less likely it matters. For example, Category:Governors who were mayors makes no sense; Category:NFL players who played in the NCAA etc. We generally don't categorize even the most notable folks by their prior jobs so no Category:Presidents of the United States who were submariners (Jimmy Carter). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I clicked through the articles and some are defined by both sports and should be categorized by each. Trying to have a combo in one category would lead to a lot of intersectional pathways that would be hard for a reader to navigate. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not really a necessary category. It should be obvious from the other categories attached whether an NFL player also played rugby league previously. Not every intersection of topics needs its own category; I think that's mainly to avoid redundant categorization, and to qualify for that this would need to be used in place of other categories that indicate a player's history in both the NFL and rugby league. It does not allow for that as is. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:42, 23 November 2020 (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: delete. MER-C 19:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Destroyed landmarks in Hungary ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: As per other CfDs, a "landmark" is subjective. While it's part of a generally accepted structure it's also only got one entry which is already in the appropriately diffused categories (Demolished buildings and structures in Hungary and Buildings and structures demolished in #year). SportingFlyer T·C 15:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the term "landmark" may locally have significance e.g. in places in Australia and the United States, but that certainly is not relevant for non-English speaking countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comments on the Rome, Italy one above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2020 (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: redirect to {{PRChina-geo-stub}}. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Template:China-geo-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Deprecated stub template with 0 transclusions [1]. Opalzukor (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought this had been redirected to {{PRChina-geo-stub}} years ago! Deletion or redirection would both work. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It should not be deleted, as the name follows a standard format which editors are likely to use again. IMHO it was useful to keep it as a deprecated stub,[2] as this then gives instructions about the alternatives available. However, redirecting might be better now, as "China" is widely used and understood as PRC in Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 09:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With stub types, "China" is supposed to only be used for stubs which cover the entirety of "historic China", i.e., both the PRC and Taiwan (e.g., {{China-hist-stub}}) - it looks like quite a few stub types have slipped through over the years using it only for the mainland, though. Given that geography articles are about specific locations, there's no point in having a similar {{China-geo-stub}}. And yes, FL, I did defend it as deprecated... ten years ago. That was done because some editors were still using it and probably would for some time. ISTR that old stub types were usually deprecated for a year or so and then deleted. No idea why that didn't happen to this one. In any case, it's unused, and there's been no apparent use of it for years. Truth be told, this one probably dates from an ongoing series of edit-wars with a long-since banned editor whose username eludes me, who was intent on using "China" to mean Taiwan on all templates and categories (User:ChickenNoodles maybe? Something like that, I think). Grutness...wha? 12:05, 19 November 2020 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of medieval Islam to Category:Medieval Islam

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer, currently only contains Events in medieval Islam (and perhaps that one should be nominated too). – Fayenatic London 11:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternatively, this could be populated with Category:Military history of medieval Islam, Category:History of the Abbasid Caliphate, Category:History of the Umayyad Caliphate and Category:History of Al-Andalus – but other caliphates e.g. Category:Fatimid Caliphate do not have a "History of" sub-cat. – Fayenatic London 11:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, I can't see the added value of the history subcat in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2020 (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: there is consensus that a rename to something is appropriate. Category:Activists for victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church got the most support, so we will go with that. It could be re-nominated for renaming if anyone can come up with something better. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Anti-pedophile activists in Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals to Category:Anti-abuse activists in Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals

Nominator's rationale: First of all, per WP:CATV I could right now be completely justified in reducing this cat to 1 article. In the eight others, nowhere does the word "pedophil*" appear, and you'd be hard-pressed to find sources.

Secondly, "pedophile" is a highly charged, sensationalistic, inaccurate term for a child sexual abuser. It is not often used in the reliable sources, certainly nobody medical or psychological would use it for priests who abused chiefly adolescents. WP:NPOV demands that we neutralize this label wherever it can be found inaccurate.

Thirdly, the proposed name casts a wider net, which is nice, and can encompass more than the narrow label currently assigned hereon. Elizium23 (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (not opposing), an alternative quite different type of phrasing, loosely based on the text of one of the articles, could be Category:Activists for victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Marcocapelle, I like that idea, but I would prefer the term "Advocates" because "Activists for victims" reads poorly. Elizium23 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That is also fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are paedophiles in the Catholic Church, that's well evidenced, and there are activists against such people and their continued involvement with an institution that still somehow tries to claim some semblance of moral authority. The claim that such "paedophiles" ought not to be so named because to do so is highly charged, sensationalistic, inaccurate is hilarious special pleading originating from a clearly biased and self-exculpatory viewpoint within the church itself. Strong oppose. GPinkerton (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  GPinkerton, okay, so you don't oppose sexual abuse of adolescents, and neither do the members of this category? Elizium23 (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Elizium23: I'll ignore your crass personal attack on me. It's not just sexual abuse of adolescents I oppose, but all abuse systematically perpetrated and covered up by the Catholic Church, against all ages. Paedophilia in the Catholic Church is only a small subset of the vast child abuse for which the Church and its members are guilt and in which they are complicit. As a consequence, this category should sit within a larger category of Category:Anti-abuse activists in Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals. Not all of the Catholic Church's abusers are paedophiles, but all the Church's many paedophile are all abusers. GPinkerton (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  GPinkerton, this cat is not here to WP:RGW as you wish, but to describe reality, and it fails in describing that reality. Elizium23 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  GPinkerton, I will remind you that 8 of 9 articles are unsourced and I will be reducing this cat to 1 article if it is allowed to stand at this name. Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with nom regarding moving away from paedophile. Using paedophile is a case of WP:SYNTH, not technically wrong but also not the way it is commonly referred to. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT of Category:Activists for victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Laurel Lodged's proposal. Closer in scope to main article Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, and avoids conflating pedophilia with child sexual abuse. To quote the main article on pedophilia: "This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, because although some people who commit child sexual abuse are pedophiles, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and some pedophiles do not molest children." Dimadick (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Laurel Lodged's proposal of Category:Activists for victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, which is more in line with parents Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals and Category:Sexual abuse victim advocates. We may also use advocates, e.g. Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse victim advocates. Place Clichy (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT Category:Activists for victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. I hate "activists" categories but these folks' only claim to notability is in relation to this issue. I would consider delete were this populated by various politicians or church hierarchs who make this one of many issues they are active on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Find something brief -- I suspect Category:Catholic sexual abuse victim advocates would cover it, though its precise scope miught need to be explained in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2020 (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: delete. I'll leave the decision to others on whether to add Category:BEJ48 members to Category:SNH48 Group.' Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:BEJ48 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent category for a single subcategory. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No, not delete, because that would leave the sub-cat BEJ48 members orphaned. Merge to parent Category:SNH48 Group. I am not sure whether the sub-cat should also be in Category:AKB48 Group members. – Fayenatic London 14:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have parented the subcat to Category:Musicians by band. I am not sure if it should be merged to Category:SNH48 Group. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2020 (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: merge/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Upmerging Category:Figures of UPA to Category:Commanders of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army
• Propose Deleting/"Listifying" Category:Knights of the Cross of Merit

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SMALLCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, and WP:OCAWARD)

Both of these categories contain only 1 article and it is the same article: Nil Khasevych.

Mr. Khasevych is notable for being a WWII military leader of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UIA). The first category is the Ukrainian acronym for the same organization, Ukrayins'ka Povstans'ka Armiya (UPA) and, as used here, is redundant. The second category is for the Cross of Merit (Ukrainian Insurgent Army), an obscure award from the UIA/UPA. I don't know if I can say I "listified" the recipients of the award since there is only 1 article but it is now linked right here in the main article. Clearly, neither category aids navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT and delete per WP:OCAWARD respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2020 (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: delete. MER-C 19:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Places named after Yasser Arafat

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:DEFINING (WP:SHAREDNAME)

This category is for places named after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and currently has 3 articles. They are Martyr Yasser Arafat Governmental Hospital, Yasser Arafat Cup and Yasser Arafat International Airport which have nothing in common other than the name which is classic WP:SHAREDNAME. There wasn't a list so I created one here in the main article with a redirect. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Background In the past, we've deleted similar categories here, here, here, here, here, and here and more nominations are forthcoming. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, given that it's been appropriately listified. Grutness...wha? 03:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and long-standing precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2020 (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.