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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Life imitating art ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: While there's Life imitating art, the category's scope is vague and likely runs afoul of WP:NONDEF. Brandmeister^talk 22:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (see below) for now, as creator, to see if other examples can be added to the category. If not then it should be deleted, and I can see some people stretching the category too far. But the Ukrainian election was too good to pass up as a novel-like example. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a subjective and non-defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there is not a unifying WP:Defining topic. Although Category:Actor-politicians is too diverse to identify actors who have become politicians after playing politicians, the article Life imitating art is not actually about that phenomenon. If there are WP:reliable sources discussing the phenomenon, consider starting an article or list about it; but this category is not a helpful place to start. – Fayenatic London 15:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as creator, no new additions have been added and per above comments. A perfect example though, probably the best event in television history that would fit such a category. Other examples would be interesting, but few-and-far-between category-fitting ones. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2019 (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: rename to Category:Animatronic engineers. MER-C 10:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This appears to be an attempt to coin a new word to describe engineers who develop and program animatronic devices. A search finds no prior use of this term anywhere except on Wikipedia, and "animatronic engineer" (which is widely used) seems to be a perfectly good descriptor for people who do this work. (Would support a move to "Animatronic engineers" versus deletion.) General Ization ^Talk 02:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Animatronic engineers, per nom's suggestion. Oculi (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Engineer" is often not applicable. Alternative suggestion: Category:People in animatronics (comparable with Category:People in sports). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See further discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @General Ization and Oculi: would you mind giving your further thoughts about either rename alternative? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still think "Animatronic engineers" is appropriate, as there are easily found many examples of usage of the term. I'm aware of the debate around the use of the term "engineer" for anyone other than those with a degree in Engineering (e.g., at Elon Musk), but I personally feel that in this sense engineering is as much an activity, regardless of training, as it is an academic qualification. "People in animatronics" sounds too broad and vague for my tastes. General Ization ^Talk 13:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - "People in sports" is intentionally broad because it includes athletes, coaches, trainers, team owners, etc. My sense of this category is that it should include only those who design and/or build animatronic devices and systems, not everyone who somehow contributes to or comes in contact with animatronics. General Ization ^Talk 15:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom Engineering is not limited to those with degrees, and Engineer is dedined in the main article as people "who invent, design, analyze, build, and test machines, systems, structures and materials to fulfill objectives and requirements while considering the limitations imposed by practicality, regulation, safety, and cost." Dimadick (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Fair enough, then I'm withdrawing my earlier comment. This discussion should not end as 'no consensus'. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2019 (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: restructure consistently with other maintenance cats, making Category:Portals with triaged subpages the parent category, while keeping Category:All portals with triaged subpages to contain all cases directly. The sub-categories will be renamed, e.g. Category:All portals with triaged subpages from June 2018 to Category:Portals with triaged subpages from June 2018. This requires removing one word "All" from Template:Portal maintenance status. This achieves the nominator's objective. Pace UnitedStatesian and Marcocapelle, it is normal to have an "All" category alongside the dated categories within the parent (see e.g. Category:Articles to be split). – Fayenatic London 08:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:All portals with triaged subpages to Category:Portals with triaged subpages

Nominator's rationale: To make start with Portal like most cats at Category:Portal pages amd because this is far from a complete category. Also to match the subcats names. Legacypac (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is currently the parent of a monthly dated category tree; "All" is a normal word to have as the parent of such a category tree. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, while there are some 40 other tracking categories starting with "All" we may rename them one by one. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2019 (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: keep/rename per Option B. MER-C 10:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OPTION A:

• Propose renaming Category:2000 Tennis Masters Cup to Category:2000 Tennis Masters Cup and ATP Tour World Championships
• Propose merging Category:2001 Tennis Masters Cup‎ and Category:2001 Touchtel ATP World Doubles Challenge Cup‎ to Category:2001 Tennis Masters Cup‎ and Touchtel ATP World Doubles Challenge Cup‎

Or

OPTION B:

• Propose keeping Category:2000 Tennis Masters Cup
• Propose merging Category:2001 Touchtel ATP World Doubles Challenge Cup‎ to Category:2001 Tennis Masters Cup‎

Nominator's rationale: The first part of Option A is a procedural nomination, as 95.134.201.207 tagged the page with this edit summary: "see main article, content is about two similar tournaments, not only one". Indeed, the main article is 2000 Tennis Masters Cup and ATP Tour World Championships, those being the names of the Singles and Doubles events. I added 2001 to make a similar long name, as it currently has two categories.

From 1990 to 1999, the name within Category:ATP Finals was (e.g.) 1999 ATP Tour World Championships. From 2001 to 2008, there is simply 2002 Tennis Masters Cup. Option A would produce one-off double-barrelled names for 2000 and 2001, which would mean that {{Navseasoncats}} or similar templates would not link to either year from the preceding or succeeding years' categories.

I therefore prefer option B, just using one name to cover both events, on the KISS principle (even though love means nothing in tennis). – Fayenatic London 21:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B -- Category names are best when they are short. The complication of the longer title for two years can be dealt with by means of a longer headnote than in other years. Can the technical inaccuracy for the other competition be dealt with by piping? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2019 (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: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Unreferenced album articles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Does not seem to be used as it is empty and has no foreseeable use, I have previously discussed the matter here. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. @Champion: So long as the parameter remains in place on Template:WikiProject Albums, this category may be needed.

If the switch is disabled, then just WP:G6 the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Champion: Please inform us if/when the switch is disabled so that we can close this discussion accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2019 (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: rename to Category:WikiProject Aviation advice. MER-C 09:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Aviation guidelines to Category:WikiProject Aviation advice pages

Nominator's rationale: These are not WP:Guidelines; they're WP:PROJPAGE essays ("WikiProject advice pages").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the inclusion of the word "pages" in the proposed category name is inconsistent with existing categories (e.g. Category:WikiProject style advice). DexDor ^(talk) 16:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something more appropriate. Merely as a suggestion: Category:WikiProject Aviation essays. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although the pages may have the "legal" status of an essay rather than a guideline they are not normally considered essays - e g. they don't call themselves essays and, for example, the text at Category:WikiProject style advice doesn't refer to them as essays. Advice pages should not contradict each other so they have a status a bit above normal essays. DexDor ^(talk) 05:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok in that case I'll happy go along with Category:WikiProject Aviation advice as suggested below. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:WikiProject Aviation advice (and create a subcat for Category:WikiProject Aviation style guides). DexDor ^(talk) 05:08, 8 May 2019 (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: no consensus to delete, so rename. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Debuts mixtape albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure this category is even needed because I don't think someone's first mixtape has the cachet and significance that one's debut album has, but at the very least this needs to be renamed to Category:Debut mixtape albums. I just hope this doesn't lead to something like Category:Debut compilation albums.Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename. I agree it can be renamed as Category:Debut mixtape albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happypillsjr (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. I don't see any evidence that "debut mixtape" has anywhere near the significance of "debut album". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename / do not delete, based on what I am reading in the articles this appears to be the most important characteristic of these articles. If significance is questionable then the articles should be discussed at AFD. Disclosure: this is not my field of expertise. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of these mixapes is not what is in question but only if being an artist's debut mixtape is a defining quality. Reading something like The Come Up doesn't suggest that being J. Cole's first mixtape is its most important characteristic anymore than No Strings Attached (NSYNC album) most important characteristic is that it's NSYNC's second album. An artist's debut album will receive a lot more coverage as being their debut, and I don't see that being the case for these mixtapes. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:55, 25 March 2019 (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 post this on the manual page to verify that contents have been recategorized if appropriate. MER-C 09:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not categorize articles by what they are not about. There is no need to merge, all articles are in the tree of Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire already. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: where are they within Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire? Are they all within Category:Christianity in the Ottoman Empire and Category:Jews and Judaism in the Ottoman Empire?

• That, or a few articles are directly in Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Could this be useful and acceptable if renamed to Category:Religious minorities in the Ottoman Empire as a sub-cat of Category:Minorities and Category:Islam and other religions? – Fayenatic London 15:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Then Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire would split in Category:Religious minorities in the Ottoman Empire and Category:Islam in the Ottoman Empire. How helpful is that? It would just be an extra layer before reaching Christianity and Judaism. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Were Muslims always a majority? As the empire expanded into Europe in the fifteenth century, it acquired large numbers of Christian subjects. We'd need to be careful in case Muslims were a religious minority in the Ottoman Empire at that time. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting question. If they were a minority too, there is even less reason to have Category:Religious minorities in the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with no objection to renaming if appropriate. This is a major matter of law throughout several centuries of Ottoman history (see millet system), with separate legal codes for each major religious group. The fact that there were significant legal differences between Muslims and non-Muslims (much greater than the legal differences among Druze, Christians, Jews, etc.) is enough to warrant keeping this. Nyttend (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Millet (Ottoman Empire) is one of the few articles that does not refer to Christianity or Judaism specifically and is directly located in Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire. While it was very important in itself, there aren't a lot of different wp articles about it to warrant a separate category. If kept though, the category should be renamed to Category:Millet (Ottoman Empire) per this article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm not talking about that article; I'm talking about the system that's the subject of the article. The legal distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims (to which the millet system was intimately connected) was a core feature of law and society in the Ottoman Empire; I'm no expert, so don't trust me implicitly, but I can't think of any other legal divisions that cut across all sectors of society throughout the empire's history and that affected every person's legal status in basically the whole history of the empire. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Distribute among the subcategories of Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire. General articles such as millet covering multiple religions/denominations can go into the parent. I am doubtful whether even a general "Christianity" category should be kept, since each denomination was dealt with as a separate millet. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The few articles that are not already in a subcategory of Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire, i.e. those that deal with the Ottoman or Muslim minority system as a whole, are better found elsewhere, such as Category:Ottoman society and Category:Taxation in the Ottoman Empire. Place Clichy (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but possibly rename. There are good reasons why we generally avoid "not X" categories, but this is one the instances where a negative category is very much WP:Defining. In a state so closely bound to a single religion, being not of that religion is an attribute which dominates life and career, and failure to categorise on that basis would be a misapplication of the principle behind WP:OCMISC.

I'm not familiar enough with Ottoman terminology to suggest an alternative name, but it would be nice avoid "non-muslim". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirl: In fact the opposite is true: in the Early Modern period the Ottoman Empire accepted minority religions by law while European countries officially or even factually accepted only one religion. For categorization the question is: do we have the Religion category split in three religions at once (Muslim, Jewish, Christian) or first split in two (Muslim, non-Muslim) and then again split in two (Jewish, Christian); for navigation the former is much more efficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle, point taken about the European model of official religions. So there may be other countries which raise similar issues: early modern Spain seems like a prime example, and 15th/16th-century England might have been if it was more stable about which brand of Christianity it upheld until the early 18th century when it gave up debating toleration vs comprehension and began to adopt both.

However, the Ottomans were unusual in that while having a very clear official religion, they also ruled over very significant populations of other religions. As you rightly note, the Ottomans accommodated these minority religions rather than persecuting them, but my limited understanding is that they had a sort of tolerated-steer status: a sort of second-class freedom with limits.

So it seems to me that the single-layer split is more efficient if there is no significant collection of topics belong in all on the non-muslim categories. But if we have a group of topics which are common to all the non-muslim faiths, then navigation will be more efficient if we group those common topics together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirl: Completely agree on this principle, and the proposal stems from the situation that there are very few articles (Millet (Ottoman Empire) being an exception) that are common to all the non-muslim faiths. Nearly every article in this category is either about Christianity or about Judaism. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest renaming to Category:Millets in the Ottoman Empire, with the main article millet (Ottoman Empire). – Fayenatic London 07:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: Would you then keep the scope and content of the category unchanged, or is it your intention to limit the scope of the category? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I need to withdraw this suggestion, as it would exclude events/topics in the period after the Tanzimat reforms in the mid-19th century which abolished the millet system. – Fayenatic London 11:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are good reasons why we avoid non categories, and they apply here. We group people in ways that make sense to them, and grouping Christians and Jews as non-Muslims makes no sense in the actual historical context of the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete or perhaps merge to Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire, which amounts to the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• When this was nominated in March all content was already in the tree of Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire (insofar applicable), so merging was not needed. We might have another manual check upon closing the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This PetScan will do it. Currently there are just three members that are not within Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire: Tanzimat, Ispendje and Category:Ottoman period in Armenia. – Fayenatic London 11:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge of the above two articles to Religion in the Ottoman Empire. The above Armenia category has already been added into the Christianity category. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the articles in this category are already in Christian or Jewish Ottoman categories, so this one is not needed as it adds nothing but an extra layer readers are better off without having to pass through. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2019 (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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 12:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:World Golf Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)

The World Golf Hall of Fame has a formula for being eligible for this Hall of Fame: you need to be 50 years old and have either 2 career wins in the "Major" competitions or 15 wins in other approved tours. For instance, LPGA golfer Betsy King won 6 majors and 34 tours and was 40 years old when she was inducted. This award seems to echo rather than create the fame and doesn't seem defining. The HOF members are displayed as part of a museum within the massive World Golf Village resort/hotel/convention/residential complex. The articles handle this award in a variety of ways: most mention it in passing while a number have it in the lede although that's largely the work of the editor who created this category. The contents of this category are already listified here within the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The "formula" is only a minimum necessary to be considered for induction. The minimum has changed over time. Non-golfers (writers, golf course architects, administrators, etc) are also eligible for induction. Entry into any hall of fame is an echo of achievement not the source. Tewapack (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarifications! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Just because you can happen to read the rules for induction to this hall of fame on their website, doesn't mean you should use it as part of the rationale for a category discussion. It's really none of Wikipedia's business how they decide their inductees. That aside, The World Golf Hall of Fame is inherently notable and defining in and of itself because it is listed in the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guideline under the Golf section. By its own strength, it can make a subject notable enough for an article. "Golf figures are presumed notable if: They are enshrined in one of golf's recognized Halls of Fame (example: World Golf Hall of Fame)." The notability page does not make any stipulations about the way the hall of fame decides their induction or how the subject's article incorporates it. The notability guideline is obviously the one with the most weight, and thus lends the HOF article and category more than enough notability and definition than they need to be kept. Again, there is no clear line here other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. dawnleelynn^(talk) 06:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Regarding your statement that notability guidelines pertain to the main article, please see WP:NOTESAL, "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One could perhaps infer that the application of notability to lists could also be applied to categories.

Lastly, the statement about not needing a category because the contents of it are already listifed. Please see WP:CLNT "...these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks you for your clarifications and allow me to add one of my own: I did not mean to imply that the existence of a list article was ever a reason to delete a category only that, if this category was deleted, the contents of this category would still be available to readers interested in the hall of fame. My wording could have been clearer. The WP:CLN guideline cuts both ways: categories should not seen as non-defining because a list exists but the existence of a list provides no protection from deleting a non-defining category.

Yes, I made a mistake, I thought the paragraph was part of the rationale. I hit publish to respond and you had removed the comments. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply; honest mistake! My rationale is definitely WP:NONDEFINING. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete - Another NN OCAWARD case of category clutter. Listify of necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose My apologies for the lengthy misapplication of policy. I do disagree with WP:OCAWARD as it does not mention halls of fame and because a hall of fame honor is not an award. I also believe that because this hall of fame is in a subject-specific notability guideline WP:NGOLF, which makes it inductees also notable and it undergoes more rigorous verification, it is more defining. I am also interesting in getting answers regarding some policy that might explain to me how the evaluation of the external hall of fame and its reliable sources (mentioned in WP:DEFINING is backed up. Here the proposer makes evaluations about the hall of fame, such as "This award seems to echo rather than create the fame and doesn't seem defining." How is a discussion of the hall's induction method relevant? The formula for induction is described. I could add that 95% of PGA members will never win one major let alone two. The feat of 15 wins is also out of reach for the majority of members. I don't see what the point is of Betsy King's accomplishments. I can add information about the hall of fame too. Are we as editors qualified to judge the actual hall of fame, a mainstream sport in America? dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your helpful revisions above, even we continue to respectfully disagree on the nomination. If you think of halls of fame inductions more as joining a museum organization than as an award, that just slides the issue from WP:OCAWARD to WP:OCASSOC. (My nomination could have been clearer about echoing rather than creating the fame though: what I meant was that Betsy King could be placed in Category:Winners of LPGA major golf championships as soon as she won her first major while waiting until she turns 40 to add her to this hall of fame is redundant.) Even though we came to different conclusions, we're both sitting in judgment of the category: that's the rush of participating in CFD! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I do now understand that you are not advocating for the deletion of categories just because there is a list article. And I now understand what you mean by your statement about a hall fame induction echoing fame of earlier accomplishments. I also see what you mean about notability coming from an award or a hall or fame; coming from competing "awards". And using Betsy King as an example. And that could possibly be true for this hall of fame. I will check on it. But I think that has to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Because I know it is not true for all halls of fame, and I can prove it. I submitted the example of the King of the Cowboys Ty Murray [1] in another CfD. Oh, and I am also digesting the information about WP:OCASSOC. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Category:National Baseball Hall of Fame inductees and many other categories (check out Category:Sports hall of fame inductees, which should make this an instant Keep). Categories, templates, and lists are three different things and three different ways readers get information. They are all important parts of Wikipedia, and overlapping works. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Sports hall of fame inductees has a long list of similar categories. This is the most important of the golf halls of fame and as such inductees have it included in their {{Infobox golfer}} template. In my view this one is sufficiently defining to justify one, see e.g. recent death: "World Golf Hall of Famer Gene Littler, 88, passes away" eg https://www.pgatour.com/news/2019/02/16/world-golf-hall-of-famer-gene-littler-88-passes-away.html. Category:Caddie Hall of Fame inductees on the other hand is, in my view, not defining and would be a good candidate for deletion. National and sub-national halls of fame do not currently have categories, eg Canadian Golf Hall of Fame. Nigej (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nigej has a good point that I was going to make myself. This hall of fame is the most important golf hall of fame in the field of professional golf. All of the most notable players since the invention of golf in Scotland are inductees, for example, Allan Robertson and Old Tom Morris. Not to mention it advertises on television with golf legend Gary Player as its spokesperson. This is a mainstream sport.

It certainly demonstrates the thoughtfulness and completeness of this Hall of Fame. Allan Robertson and Old Tom Morris died either a century or many decades before this organization was even founded so they may have the weakest claim to being defined by this award. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be more defining if they weren't in it. All good sport Hall of Fames have players and officials from long before the Hall was founded. Baseball, for example, elected its first professional Hall of Fame members in 1939, and is full of players, officials, and innovators from the 1800s and early 1900s. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nigej....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining and to avoid unnecessarily duplicating what is done better by a list. HoF categories are not good for categorization purposes because not every golfer (for whom we have an article) is in a/the HoF (and we don't categorize people for not being in a HoF) - so they don't provide a comprehensive categorization scheme (cf. Category:Scottish male golfers etc). Wp is an encyclopedia of (human-readable) articles; if people want to create a database of who has won what then there are better ways to do that (e.g. WikiData). The oppose !votes above are each a misunderstanding of categorization and/or OSE arguments. DexDor ^(talk) 05:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Both a category and a list are fine. The mistake too many editors make in these discussions is that either a "list" or a "category" is better or that one already exists so the other isn't needed. In MOS reality, they are totally separate and stand-alone ways for readers to search. The lede of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates "these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia." I would ask editors and closers of these category discussions to please stop using either-or arguments when discussing categories and lists, or, if someone does, that they be directed to the guideline language. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Randy and let me also state the nominator is also not proposing that the list is enough and can replace the category. We have discussed this in other HoF CfDs. The argument that HoF categories are not good for categories is an opinion and there is no policy or evidence to back that up. What does what we don't categorize them for not being in HoF matter; you can apply that argument to anywhere. It's also off target to talk about creating databases of who has won what?? These have nothing to do with the rationale of WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEFINING. It's really just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RevelationDirect Just a note that we should discuss, after we have discussed the new information I posted on the AQHA and Motorsport Hall of Fame categories. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 15:20, 29 June 2019 (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: rename to Category:Chemical compounds by metal oxidation state. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Chemical compounds by transition metal oxidation state to Category:Chemical compounds by metal oxidation state

Nominator's rationale: It now has subcategories for cerium, thallium, and uranium, which are not transition metals. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 00:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It could be Category:Metal compounds by oxidation state, which would be even simpler. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Chemical compounds by oxidation state may also be OK, considering there will be subcategories for nonmetals or noble gases in the future. --Leiem (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @The Nth User, Peterkingiron, and Leiem: any chance that you reach consensus about this? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that Leiem's suggestion of diffusing nonmetal categories by oxidation state is a good idea. When I created the category, all of the compounds that met my requirements for diffusion by oxidation state were transition metals. For example, initially, I would have never diffused Category:Thallium compounds by oxidation state because I wouldn't have considered four instances of Thallium(Ⅲ) enough to merit their own category. However, based on the fact that someone has created that category, I have concluded that the categories don't have to be as large as I initially assumed in order to be viable, which can be is shown by the fact that I plan to diffuse Category:Lead compounds, Category:Manganese compounds, and Category:Mercury compounds as soon as the renaming discussion for this parent category is complete. Sorting nonmetals by oxidation state didn't even occur to me, but now that I look, there are several nonmetal compound categories, like Category:Sulfur compounds, that I definitely would have diffused by oxidation state originally had they been metals. However, because we can't use Roman numerals for the nonmetal oxidation states (because Roman numerals do not cover negative numbers), maybe there should be a separate category for nonmetals so we don't have mixed Roman numerals and Arabic numerals in the same category. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 02:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- It is a long time since I did a chemistry degree. I do not think I was taught the chemistry of the Lanthanide and Actinide metals, except a general comment about them being similar to scandium. I am thus not well placed to comment. My suggestion was really about finding a simple name covering the scope of the category. I do not think Leiem's suggestion would so well because everything could go in it. Ideally this would be a container with subcategories for II III IV VI, etc. However including the periodic table columns with magnesium and sulphur would clutter it up. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: I don't think that sorting these categories by oxidation state before metal would be a good idea because of how much the chemistry and common oxidation states vary from metal to metal; however, I am open to being convinced otherwise. I don't think that you should need to worry about everything going into this category; for example, I don't think that it's necessary to diffuse Category:Magnesium compounds by oxidation state because there are few, if any, Wikipedia articles for compounds with magnesium in any oxidation state besides +2 (although other oxidation state categories have been created with what I would originally contained too few members to merit such, like Category:Thallium(III) compounds with only four members). Furthermore, many of the subcategories of Category:Chemical compounds by element, like Category:Holmium compounds (4 articles; 5 members total), are too small to merit diffusion. However, sulfur has a significant number of compounds in multiple oxidation states, like −2 and +6, so I think that it does merit diffusion by oxidation state. I think that your suggested category name (Category:Metal compounds by oxidation state is good, and if Category:Sulfur compounds is diffused by oxidation state, I think that it should be put into a separate category, like Category:Nonmetal compounds by oxidation state, to avoid cluttering and to avoid subcategories using Roman numerals being interspersed with subcategories using Hindu-Arabic numerals, which I don't think would look good. Would you be okay with diffusing categories for nonmetal compounds by oxidation state if they go into a separate category? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 22:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is a good idea. We could use Category:Metal compounds by oxidation state or Category:Chemical compounds by metal oxidation state. When categories of nonmetals occur, we can create the other one. PS: Category:Chemical compounds by metal oxidation state may be better because there could be both metal or nonmetal elements. --Leiem (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Peterkingiron and The Nth User: could you please also share your thoughts on Category:Chemical compounds by metal oxidation state as suggested latest. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with Category:Chemical compounds by metal oxidation state. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 21:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No further comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2019 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in Pakistan Super League to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Pakistan Super League

Nominator's rationale: Same Topic. WOSlinker (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (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 10:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT (one article). UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't really understand the scope of this genre. Per the main article: "Mythic fiction is literature that is rooted in, inspired by, or that in some way draws from the tropes, themes and symbolism of myth, legend, folklore, and fairy tales." There are numerous works of fiction adapting characters and other elements from myths and legends. What sets this apart? Dimadick (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As you pointed out yourself, the definition of mythic fiction is broad enough such that there should be more members in the category. The problem that articles that belong in the category haven't been added, not that there aren't enough articles that belong, so the appropriate action is to find and add more articles, not delete the category. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 03:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or rather upmerge) unless populated with more than a main article. It should be possible to populate it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this does not seem to be a significantly established genre, or at least distinct enough from fantasy. Place Clichy (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2019 (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/rename as nominated (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Vox (Spanish political party) politicians to Category:Vox (political party) politicians
• Propose renaming Category:Vox (Spanish political party) to Category:Vox (political party)

Nominator's rationale: No other political party exists going by the name of Vox outside of Spain. The use of "Spanish" in the title is therefore redundant. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - article is Vox (political party). Oculi (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Agree with nominator. --Banderas (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2019 (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 and merge as nominated. MER-C 10:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Homosexual military personnel to Category:Lesbian military personnel and Category:Gay military personnel
• Propose merging Category:Homosexual politicians to Category:LGBT politicians

Nominator's rationale: Within just five days of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_17#Category:Homosexual_people having been closed as a delete, the original creator has twice attempted to recreate it again. That category itself has already been speedied as a recreation of CFD-deleted content, but the new wrinkle is that the most recent attempt included two new "homosexual [occupation]" subcategories for military personnel and politicians.
The politicians category exists solely as an unnecessary intermediate step between Category:LGBT politicians and the subcategories that already existed for lesbian and gay politicians -- but those subcategories should just be parented directly by "LGBT politicians" itself, rather than having a new "homosexual politicians" step wedged between them.
The military personnel category, however, is slightly different: the parent category was not previously quadrantized at all, but rather the sibling categories for bisexual and transgender military personnel were created alongside this -- but instead of creating distinct categories for "gay military personnel" and "lesbian military personnel", the creator combined gay men and lesbians into a single "homosexual military personnel" category.
As last time, however, "homosexual" is not an appropriate label for people -- per standard practice, "homosexual" is confined to descriptions of sexual activity or clinical orientation, and is not used as an identity-label adjective for people: if subcategorizing LGBT people more specifically than the LGBT level is desired, then men are described and categorized as gay, not as homosexual, and women are described and categorized as lesbian, not as homosexual.
Accordingly, I'm proposing the following: "homosexual military personnel" should be split into separate subcategories for gay or lesbian military personnel, in accordance with standard practice for dividing LGBT categories -- and "homosexual politicians" should just be upmerged since the correct division was already in place as it is. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly is "homosexual" worse than having a "bisexual" category? Who went and decided that exactly? Not everyone who is homosexual actually identifies as "gay" or "lesbian". And why are you acting so accusatory to me? The category said it was deleted because it was empty, I assumed someone had just emptied it out. I did not recieve any deletion notification for any of the deletions.★Trekker (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity's sake, I'm going to go over what actually happened here: the first time you tried to create it, it was listed for CFD and you were properly notified of that — but you reverted the notification off your talk page and chose to ignore the actual discussion. Then whoever actually implemented the CFD result made the mistake of forgetting to delete the category after it was emptied out, so when it did finally get deleted it was just as an "empty category" instead of making actual reference to the CFD discussion, and then you recreated it again. So no, your characterization of this is not what actually happened — you were properly notified at the start, so any error here was not on my part.

At any rate, we have a long-established rule of respecting contemporary best practices for writing about LGBT topics: "homosexual" is not appropriate identity labelling for people (especially not for any category that's meant to be inclusive of contemporary lesbian or gay people): it's clinical, and is used as an adjective for people only by homophobes. And no, the fact that there's a tree for "bisexual people" is not a reason why the trees that we already have for gay men and lesbians would need to be supplemented or replaced by a "homosexual people" tree, either — whether it should be or not, the word "bisexual" has not yet been replaced in standard usage by any other term, the way "homosexual" and "transsexual" already have. So as of today, there are appropriate and accepted alternatives to "homosexual" and "transsexual", which is why we preference those alternatives over "homosexual" — but there is not yet any alternative term to "bisexual" or "pansexual", so there's no other term we can substitute in those categories. Gay and lesbian categories do not need to be complemented with or replaced by "homosexual" categories just because "bisexual" categories still use the word "bisexual" — the bisexual categories still use the word bisexual because there's no other word they can use yet, and do not mandate the parallel use of deprecated terms for which there are preferred alternatives now. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome to look at my talkpage again, there is no notice related to homosexuality categories. So no, you're wrong. And none of your reasoning makes even a little bit sense, completly nonsensial. There is no widespread "it's wrong to lable homosexual people homosexual" thing in the world, this seems to be something some Wikipedians seems to have gotten into their heads for whatever reason. And again, it seems like you're just ignoring people who do idenity as "homosexual" and not gay. Like for example Franco Zeffirelli. Why exactly should his identity be ignored exactly? The word "gay" doesn't even exist in tons of langauges while homosex... derivitive words are very common.★Trekker (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usage on the English Wikipedia is governed by usage in the English language, not on what words do or don't exist in other languages besides English. Labelling a person as "homosexual", in English where preferred alternative terms do exist, is pejorative. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is not "pejorative" to use the term homosexual. This is not widely belived by anyone outside of this site it seems. And again, what about people who don't identify as gay or lesbian. Does their opinings mean nothing at all?★Trekker (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd invite you to familiarize yourself with GLAAD's guidelines for writing about LGBT people, which are the standard that we follow on the English Wikipedia. Usage on here is governed by English language usage rules, not by what words do or don't exist in other languages — so the fact that you might be able to find an Italian language source in which Franco Zeffirelli is referred to by the Italian language equivalent of "homosexual" does not constitute proof that it's more appropriate to label him "homosexual" than "gay" in English. Some people might still use a "homosexual" equivalent in foreign languages where it's still the only word that exists to be used, but that does not turn "gay" or "lesbian" into inappropriate labels in English — there is no documented proof of a single living person on earth today identifying as "homosexual" on the grounds that they consider "gay" or "lesbian" to be offensive, only that some people use that word in foreign languages where it's the only word available. Conversely there is well-documented proof that many gay or lesbian people consider "homosexual" to be offensive, so for the sake of neutrality we defer to the least problematic terminology. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some people think something that doesn't mean its actually the widley held belife by most. GLAAD is not the God and ruler of what all LGBT people think. And again, if it's all about not offending people then how about the feeling of people who do prefer homosexial over other terms? And why is it that I as a LGBT person has never once in my whole life come across this "homosexual" is offensive thing then? Is it maybe that it's a far more niche and isolated problem than some seem to think? And why is it called homosexuality then? This seems like a way overblown issue.★Trekker (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero evidence that even one single solitary person on earth still uses the word "homosexual" to describe themselves does so on the grounds that "gay" or "lesbian" are somehow offensive — the only evidence on offer is that some people are still labelled with the foreign language equivalent of "homosexual" in foreign language sources where that's still the only word that's available to be used at all, and there is zero evidence of even one person on earth who insists on being referred to as "homosexual" in English on the grounds that "gay" or "lesbian" are somehow more offensive. So, since there are zero people for whom "gay/lesbian" is problematic or offensive, but a significant number of people for whom "homosexual" is problematic or offensive, we default to the least problematic terminology regardless of whether other people can be found who don't really care about the distinction. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this whole comment a joke? I linked a person above who does prefer homosexual over gay. Are you even reading my replies. Stop being so angry over a non-issue. And stop going on and on about "foreign language sources", I mentioned it once.★Trekker (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page indicates that you speak Swedish natively, but English only "advanced" (en-3); so I'm going to guess that you live (or at least grew up) in Sweden, rather than in a country where English is the default language. This might make you less-than-authoritative on English-language terminology and how it is used among English-speaking people. For the record: I have spoken English natively in an English-speaking society for more than half a century. In that context, the terminology of "homosexual" vs. "gay"/"lesbian" has been an ongoing conflict pretty much that whole time, with the former clearly preferred by those who view it as a pathology and the latter pretty consistently preferred by those who view it as a mere difference. This is why nearly every LGBT organization in the English-speaking world has described itself using the terms "lesbian" and/or "gay", and more recently "LGBT"... and notably not "homosexual". Your failure to experience that distinction in your life where you live doesn't mean it doesn't exist or doesn't count, and I strongly encourage you to keep that principle in mind the next time you feel an impulse to lecture native anglophones about their language, or any other topic that God has not given you etched tablets about. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far you have been very uncivil to me. It's not my fault when other people make mistakes, you for some reason assumed and accused me of recreating the category on April 27 and then again today, which I didn't do. And no, again, I did not get any deletion notice about homosexual named categories. Again feel free to look at my talkpage.★Trekker (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did get a notification, and then you reverted it. I use Twinkle for CFD nominations, and creator notification is an automatic part of the Twinkle process, so it's impossible for you not to have been notified — the notificiation isn't on your talk page now because you removed it from your talk page, not because you never got one in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not get a notification about the category "Homosexual people" on my talkpage. Be nice and use your eyes and look at the history of my talkpage.★Trekker (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only "homosexuality" named category I have notices of on my talkpage is "Homosexual military personnel" which is not the one which you are accusing me of "ignoring the discussion about". That one I reverted because I had already seen it. No need to keep notices I have already seen there. That's how I like to do things, I see notices and if am interested I look at the link, if I'm not I ignore it, either way I generally remove them.★Trekker (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, having a 'homosexual' category as an extra category layer between 'LGBT' and 'gay'/'lesbian' is not helpful for navigation and not in line with the existing LGBT category structure. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, why do we have Category:Bisexual people and Category:Transgender and transsexual people then? And what about if there aren't enough articles to fill out two separate "gay" and "lesbian" categories but enough to fill out one "homosexual" category? This all seems very inconsistent.★Trekker (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, because "bisexual" is the only word in English that exists to be used as a label for bisexual people at all — there is not yet any other term that can be used in its place, because even bisexual people themselves have not even proposed an alternative usage that avoids the "-sexual" suffix yet. And as for "transgender and transsexual", that category tree actually needs to be renamed to just "transgender", because "transsexual" is also a deprecated old term that is no longer consistent with best practice for writing about transfolk — the distinction used to be that "transgender" was an umbrella term for all forms of gender-variant behaviour including drag queens, while "transsexual" was the term for people who have actually undertaken gender transition specifically, and the categories were created on that basis, but that is no longer the way the terms are actually used today. It's just such a big batch job that nobody's been willing to actually put in the effort to actually tackle nominating the whole batch. And incidentally, if there weren't enough articles to fill out two separate gay and lesbian categories, then we just wouldn't subcategorize people past the common "LGBT" level at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • • That doesn't explain my issue. Why not have just "bisexual women" and "bisexual men" if having a parent category that only includes the who subcategories is bad? Which is what OP here said.★Trekker (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are enough of each for separate lesbian/gay "military personnel" groups, so that's a remarkably pointless bit of whataboutism. (I'd argue for "Trans" as a replacement for "Transgender and transsexual", since it was coined to include both concepts.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not whataboutism to question why having homosexual category is wrong. I just used an example for a case where having one would be good in general.★Trekker (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The simple answer to the question is: we have lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender categories that each represent one of the four letters of LGBT. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per Bearcat's persuasive nom. Oculi (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • His reasonings are utter nonsense and he has made several 100% false assertions.★Trekker (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's time for you to sit down. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the normal ourtome would be to upmerge to Category:LGBT military personnel. If this is big enough to need splitting the normal split would be by country. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - while the creator of these categories is acting in good faith, an equal good faith is behind the current consensus in and outside of Wikipedia of favouring the term LGBT. Persisting in making attempts to disrupt the current structure against the reaffirmed consensus is somewhere between WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Place Clichy (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2019 (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: keep. MER-C 10:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Is this meant to be songs by an artist called 'Nostalgia' or songs expressing nostalgia, or the non-defining 'songs about nostalgia?' Presently it seems to encompass anything to do with the past and I can think of many things nobody is nostalgic for that is in the past. Richhoncho (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If you go to the actual category, it's obvious it contains songs expressing nostalgia (there is no artist called 'Nostalgia'), as it displays For more information, see Nostalgia and it is under Category:Nostalgia and Category:Songs by theme. Songs in this category contain nostalgic lyrics, lyrics which are reminiscing past events (eg. "yearning for the past, its personalities and events, especially the 'good old days' or a 'warm childhood'" etc.). Maybe it could be renamed to Category:Songs about nostalgia or Category:Songs expressing nostalgia? A Google search displays many results of good examples of nostalgia songs ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Hiddenstranger was the creator of the category. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as having a no more, or less, defining characteristic than other subcats in Category:Songs by theme. No objection against a rename though. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. A fine category. So on this page alone there are many good categories editors are trying to delete. If this goes on on a daily basis I applaud and thank those who keep track of the page to save categories such as this. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2019 (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: rename. MER-C 10:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Melaka to Category:Malacca

Nominator's rationale: This category, along with a number of its subcategories, was renamed in 2017 from "Malacca"/"X in Malacca" to "Melaka/X in Melaka" due to an official government policy at the time. Given that only some pages and categories were moved, not all, the change caused great inconsistency. Furthermore, the page Malacca was not moved at the time due to opposition on the talkpage (it was not a proper RM, the last proper RM was in 2012). The categories should match the main page, and move with it. CMD (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, for consistency. Some of the subcategories need to be nominated as well. 10:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs)

Marcocapelle, do the subcategories need to be listed here? I mentioned them but thought they might move with the parent cat, instead of having to be moved separately. CMD (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: It does not automatically happen. The category pages should be tagged and the categories should listed here as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have listed the subcategories. CMD (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but leave a cat-redirect as the present form is a plausible search term. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - but as stated by Peterkingiron above the former should be kept as a redirect to the latter as it is a valid search item. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2019 (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: rename, but following comments at the end I will rename the castle detainees to Category:Prisoners held at Qahqaheh Castle and Category:Prisoners of war held at Colditz Castle. "Detainees" is used for various lists and categories re Gitmo, so Category:Detainees of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Follow-up nominations are welcome. – Fayenatic London 15:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming
  • Category:Black Dolphin Prison inmates to Category:Inmates of Black Dolphin Prison
  • Category:Prisoners in Fleet Prison to Category:Inmates of Fleet Prison
  • Category:Sing Sing inmates to Category:Inmates of Sing Sing
  • Category:Prisoners in Marshalsea to Category:Inmates of Marshalsea
  • Category:People held at the Qahqaheh Castle to Category:Inmates of Qahqaheh Castle
  • Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to Category:Inmates of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp
  • Category:Colditz prisoners of World War II to Category:Inmates of Colditz

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories in Category:Prisoners and detainees by prison. Renata (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I am somewhat troubled by this nom, because it is mixing up prisons used for quite different purposes. Marshalsea and Fleet were mainly places of imprisonment for debt. Colditz was a Prisoner of War Camp. Qahqaheh Castle seems to have been a political prison, but this seeks to make all kinds of prison much the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Making the category names more consistent doesn't make the prisons "much the same". DexDor ^(talk) 08:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename for consistency of structure of category name, although it would also be best to have a bit more detail (e.g. "Colditz Castle" rather than just "Colditz") and "PoWs held at ..." (where applicable) might be better than "Inmates of ...". Deletion could also be considered as this characteristic is non-defining in at least some cases (e.g. for Hannah Glasse). DexDor ^(talk) 11:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a reason for not including all the similar categories - Guantamo bay, Tower of London etc.? The parent category is Category:Prisoners and detainees. Should we not follow that?Rathfelder (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Gitmo is included in the nom. Category:Prisoners in the Tower of London already follows the standard of referring to the person first. I don't see a problem with the parent cat having that name and the subcats having the most appropriate name for their particular circumstances (see also Peterkingiron's comment above). DexDor ^(talk) 08:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Renata and DexDor: would you be willing to address the two questions/objections of User:Rathfelder in this discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. DexDor ^(talk) 08:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If the proposal is based on consistency then that principle should be followed through. It's much easier for categorisation. Wouldnt "Prisoners in ..." be better? Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination appears (although it's not explained) to be mainly about consistency of the word order (changing from "Place people" to "People of place"). There may be good reasons for making further changes but it'd probably be best (to avoid this CFD getting too confused) to either add an alternative proposal to this CFD (then people can !vote along the lines of "Support either - prefer Alt1") or leave it to a subsequent CFD. DexDor ^(talk) 05:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Renata and DexDor: Sorry for pinging again, but this really is a confusing discussion. At least DexDor's previous comment on the purpose of the nomination was very helpful. But the question remains, is there a convincing rationale to change "prisoners" and "people held in" to "inmates"? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on "prisoners" vs "inmates" (and support the change to word order). Perhaps Renata can provide a rationale - maybe it's just to avoid the slightly clunky sounding "Prisoners in Foo Prison". DexDor ^(talk) 21:34, 25 May 2019 (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: rename. MER-C 10:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sacred sites to Category:Sacred natural sites

Nominator's rationale: rename per article Sacred natural site, this alternative rename was suggested during a speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Keep present name Support per Oculi , as the category contains the subcategory 'Holy cities'. And per 'Sacred sites' as a good name, brevity obtained, and fits the entries well if the 'Holy cities' subcategory is kept per above discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - although clearly Category:Holy cities will need to be re-parented. Oculi (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per name of main article and current category content. Note that Holy cities was only added to the category on 2 April, right at the start of this discussion, and is probably best located elsewhere. Anyway, the scope of a category which considers Cologne or Canterbury as holy cities seems tedious to me... Place Clichy (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2019 (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: purge Category:Honorary degrees, no consensus for Category:People stripped of honorary degrees, delete the rest. MER-C 09:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Purging Category:Honorary degrees of all loose biography articles

• Propose Deleting Category:Honorary doctors of the University of Copenhagen
• Propose Deleting Category:Honorary Doctors of the University of South Australia
• Propose Deleting Category:Honorary doctors of Uppsala University
• Propose Deleting Category:Doctor Honoris Causa of the University of National and World Economy
• Propose Deleting Category:People stripped of honorary degrees

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:PERFCAT

The header for the parent category warns that "Individual recipients of honorary degrees should not be categorized here." And yet, that what this nomination is all about. Most of these articles I clicked on didn't even mention the award. And where it is mentioned, the background that these "degrees" are usually given as part of an honorarium for giving a speech is omitted. We might as well categorize people who received cab fare--or Uber reimbursement--to speak at a Ted talk. (For the last category, if not getting a real degree isn't defining, I can't see how no longer not getting one is any more defining but I can pull that one out as a separate nomination if needed.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Background We recently deleted by far the largest subcategory of honorary degrees here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Against: Honorary Degrees are a prestigious award presented by educational institutions to recognise achievements in various fields. I am not sure the parent category defines the validity of these lists. Perhaps a new parent category, "Lists of recipients of honorary degrees" may be more appropriate. The award is not dissimilar to Halls of Fame, orders of chivalry and other generic awards that are granted. Do we remove all lists that are not primary to a field of achievement? Screech1616 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They really are not what you say they are. Honorary degrees are often handed out like parking validation to anyone who speaks at a commencement address. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - we have been deleting these as a matter of course for 10 years or so: here are some from 2013. Another from 2009: Yale. Oculi (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per OCAWARD. Honorary doctorates are awarded because the person is already famous, not to make them famous. Having one might be evidence of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DNWAUC and non-defining (e.g. for Phillip Adams). DexDor ^(talk) 18:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, with the exception of Category:People stripped of honorary degrees, which should be retained. Peterkingiron put it very nicely & succinctly. Being stripped of a degree, however, is quite another thing -- and far more noteworthy. In fact, there is an entire parent cat, Category:People stripped of awards, for that very reason. Anomalous+0 (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other "stripped of award" categories (e.g. Category:Hero of the Soviet Union forfeitures) generally sit under a category for people who received the award. Are any of the people in Category:People stripped of honorary degrees actually notable for having that characteristic? (they are people who are notable as politicians, entertainers etc). DexDor ^(talk) 13:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per consistency with previous decisions. Place Clichy (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, except Category:People stripped of honorary degrees, agreeing with Anomalous's reasoning Aloneinthewild (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2019 (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 10:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Reclaimed words

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and possibly MOS:ENGVAR and WP:POVNAMING

This category is meant to group slur words that have been reclaimed by the group they originally were meant to disparage. The problem with the category is the success of such efforts is often contextualized by place, time, country and used internally among the group but still remains as a slur in other contexts or when used by outsiders. Indeed, the definition in the main article, Reappropriation, notes just how nuanced this process can be. The original meaning and subsequent efforts at reappropriation are best handled in the articles. (Alternatively, if kept, we should rename to Category:Reappropriated words to match the main article, Reappropriation, per WP:C2D.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:SUBJECTIVECAT certainly applies here, on what bases a word can be "reclaimed" is up to debate. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I agree with the analysis presented by the nominator, and furthermore, reappropriation is a process: some terms have shall we say completed the process, but many others are still somewhere in between. A good List Article would be much better, since it could address all of the nuances. Anomalous+0 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subjective, and better treated in an article than a category. Place Clichy (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2019 (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.