Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 23

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

October 23[edit]

Category:Military operations involving Polish resistance during World War II[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename both to Category:Military operations involving the Polish resistance during World War II, for consistency with Category:Polish resistance during World War II. Personally, I weakly agree that the title should include "movement", but any effort to add "movement" should start first with the parent category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was meant to be a renaming, but I overlooked the fact that it was a category and manually moved the page instead of nominating it here first, so as a result two categories exist. Anyway I think that merging into Category:Military operations involving the Polish resistance movement during World War II is the better option since the title is more clear in both meaning and grammar, as well as maintaining consistency in naming with Polish resistance movement in World War II. Alcherin (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military campaigns and theatres of World War II involving Australia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: selectively merge to Category:Battles and operations of World War II involving Australia. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The 'campaigns' part of this category overlaps heavily with Category:Battles and operations of World War II involving Australia, and I see no reason to split them apart. The 'theatres' articles in this category could be split into a new category 'World War II theatres involving Australia', along the lines of the 2 existing categories Category:World War II theatres involving the United Kingdom‎ and Category:World War II theaters involving the United States‎ (there are only 3). Alcherin (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems reasonable. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support partial merge but I'm not quite seeing the point of keeping a category for World War II theatres involving Australia - and neither do I see that for the sibling categories involving UK, US and Canada. These countries were involved in WWII across the globe so the content of the categories is entirely indiscriminate. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I largely agree with you on that point but that'll probably have to be a separate deletion discussion. Alcherin (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This isn't aiding navigation. Agree with Marcocapelle that we should also look at some other countries. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see also this follow-up discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment, the before mentioned discussion has been closed as delete, which implies per precedent that we should not create Category:World War II theatres involving Australia either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Team physicians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sports physicians‎ seems to be a more common term,and a bit wider in scope. Not all sports are team sports. Rathfelder (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Team" medicine isn't a distinct thing from sports medicine per se; the only difference is whether the physician's employer is a sports team or not, which isn't a defining point of differentiation from working at individual-sports events. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Italian medical doctors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. In practice, all articles already appear in a subcategory of Category:Italian physicians by century, and most of them do not identify the specific medical specialization, so no merging is required. Please note, this discussion should be construed as setting any precedent within the context of the wider debate of "medical doctor" versus "physician"; however, it is clear these categories are redundant and Category:Italian physicians is part of an established scheme. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Established category system for this country Rathfelder (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've tried listing other incidences of this before, and been told that the problem is that while in some countries physician is synonymous with all medical doctors, in some other countries the words aren't used synonymously and instead "physician" is used to refer to one particular specialty within the medical profession to the exclusion of any other. That is, in Canada and the United States a general family medicine practitioner would be called a physician — while in the United Kingdom or Australia he or she would not, because the term is reserved specifically for what North American speakers would call an internist or an internal medicine practitioner. So the question I would need answered here, before I could "vote" one way or the other, is which of those two distinct usages corresponds to the Italian context. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That issue only arises in English speaking countries. As far as I can see there is nothing to distinguish those categorised as doctors from those categorised as physicians. And they all need to be subcategorised in any case.Rathfelder (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disperse to specialization subcategories of Category:Italian physicians per latest comment of nominator. Note that a few of the "doctors" in this category have studied medicine but haven't become a doctor afterwards, they should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge We should use medical doctor. In Britain, this is clearly the right term, in the US this is the more commonly used term. This whole tree is messed up with the overuse of the term physician, but I don't have the will to spend the time to nominate for a mass fix, but when categories do come up, I push for a fix in them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Italian physicians as focused, non-ambiguous. gidonb (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How is medical doctors ambiguous?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If wee have two categories it appears that there is a distinction between doctors and physicians. That is not the case in Italy. Rathfelder (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Media and Entertainment in the Mitchell, South Dakota Micropolitan Area[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match naming format of similar categories, correct capitalization. Trivialist (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians banned from Jimbo's talkpage[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Joke/nonsense category. VegaDark (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as joke/nonsense category, which could also easily become a troll's "badge of honor". Editors who wish to have the notice at the bottom of their user page can display it (without creating a category grouping) using {{fmbox}}. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia Lousy Article contributors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Funny, but violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot foster encyclopedic collaboration. Joke category. VegaDark (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No value as a user category in facilitating collaboration, but editors who wish to have the notice at the bottom of their user page can display it (without creating a category grouping) using {{fmbox}}. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't the place for joke titles Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ancient Jewish history of Roman Republic and Roman Empire eras[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all nominated. There may be scope for further consolidation, but that's for another day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge overlapping categories. See the picture at the category talk page, the picture makes perfect sense until you realize that in this case the white top category is a history category in and by itself, so that a blue subcategory is redundant. Note: I have tagged all six categories, thus allowing a merge or a reverse merge either way. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly merge these -- However I wonder whether the Republic/Empire split is a useful one, when the crucial dates are the Fall of Jerusalem in about AD 70 and the final Jewish rebellion in AD 135. I expect there is nothing to include between the foundation of the Republic and about the 70s BC when Pompey conquered the whole region. Thus perhaps merge all to Category:Jews and Judaism in the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, which may need splitting into categories relating to Judea and the diaspora in exile after the rebellions. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) I wouldn't have an objection against the previous proposal to merge all six categories into one. From Jewish perspective the distinction between Republic and Empire is quite trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since these categories focus on specific categories and known periods of Roman history that these changes would destroy. If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it! IZAK (talk)
  • @IZAK: By this comment it seems like you're opposing merging Republic and Empire categories. What about the original nomination, to merge history and history categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all merge proposals as they just do away with useful categories from the Roman POV since this is about both Roman and Jewish history and cannot be swung in either direction to come up with artificial reasons to either merge or delete. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal as originally nominated does not propose to merge categories from different Roman eras or different Jewish eras, it just proposes to merge categories with an identical scope. That is not a very artificial reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, effectively the same scope. Also if a preference for a reverse merge emerges then I would suggest taking the "Ancient" out of "Ancient Jewish history" since naming the Roman Republic/Empire already implies that meaning. Alcherin (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale: [1] Ancient is clear by eras/republic/empire as specified and thus redundant. [2] "the" seems missing before specific eras. [3] this is primarily about Jewish history hence shouldn't be merged as suggested. gidonb (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, I'd appreciate your feedback! gidonb (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objection against the new names, but still maintain that Category:Jews and Judaism in the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire and its two subcategories should be included in a merger with these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian music genres[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the category hinders navigation in the sense that if you are in Category:Christian music it's not very intuitive that the well populated Category:Church music and Category:Contemporary Christian music can only be found via this genres category. A direct link would be much more transparent. Besides a categorization by genre is a bit questionable at this level, the music genre is actually "religious music" so this category contains sub-sub-genres. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as redundant and to simplify navigation Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a subcategory of Category:Musical subgenres by genre (just added). I think this category helps navigation by allowing Category:Christian music to contain only high-level topics related to the genre (lists, albums, awards, composers, festivals, performers, songs, etc.) and keeping out content related to individual variants of Christian music. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for this music genre to be a special case is the fact that there is no Albums subcat and a very modest Songs subcat, which is very unlike other genres. So if you want to go to the "core content" of the tree, this subgenre subcat is the only way to go. If we keep the category, it should be highlighted as good as possible. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Christian music by subgenre. Hopefully the new name will help because at present the subgenres are also in the parent root. Now that would be a rationale for merging only that we'd replace one mess with another. Marco's suggestion could improve both structure and item categorization. gidonb (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because I don't know what would be Christian about a musical genre. I would not know what to place in a renamed cat. Cantata, hymn, oratorio, you name it: they can all be Christian and also secular, and "cat:Christian music" would be enough to mark that. How about Category:Christian church music, for those pieces primarily performed in a liturgy, which could be subdivided by denomination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the present subcategories, and none of them is a genre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Thinking again: the German Wikipedia differentiates the two, and Church music - music for the liturgy - is a subcat of Christian music which included concert works with Christian topics. Brahms Ein deutsches Requiem is Christian - with a text of all biblical quotations - but nothing intended to be part of church service. Der 100. Psalm, same thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, "liturgical" means things like Mass, but do hymns go. Luther's hymns were in the beginning not even meant for the church, but education. Brahms' Requiem and Reger's Psalm are to my knowledge never performed in church services, often in concert halls rather than in churches. It seems pretty misleading to put them in church music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit lost how this hinders the proposed nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order of Al-Said[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
When foreign leaders visit Oman, or vice versa, one of these awards is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Japanese Emeperor Akihito, Malaysian Sultan Perak, and Queen Elizabeth all have received two of these awards while none of the recipients are from Oman. If you want to see the clutter this type of category creates at the article level, take a look the train wreck at the bottom of this article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Oman. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who consider themselves participants in many WikiProjects[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless trivia, with broad/vague inclusion criteria ("many" may mean 150 to you, but 10 to me). Doesn't serve a purpose. The Category:Wikipedians who consider themselves participants in all wikiprojects‎ (which has been made a subcat of the nominated one) is a "wikipolitical" or "wikiphilosophical" position (like inclusionism, eventualism, etc., which we do tolerate user categories for), specifically in favor of WP:5P / WP:EDITING / WP:CONLEVEL and against misinterpretation of wikiprojects as "membership organizations" that can do anything exclusionary. Someone seems to have misinterpreted that cat as part of a "how many wikiprojects are you in?" hat-collecting continuum and has starting fleshing it out with "missing" categories like Category:Wikipedians who consider themselves participants in many WikiProjects; we just have no use for that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a user category built around an utterly uninformative (broadly/vaguely defined) characteristic, whcih does not facilitate collaboration in any way. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - like other recent deletions - no use to anything or anybody JarrahTree 05:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very trivial category that doesn't help the encyclopedia in any way Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who wish a lot of users would come back[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At this recent discussion, several editors argued that categories wishing for the return of specific editors serve a positive purpose. This category, however, expresses a similar sentiment for an unspecified "lot of users", and is therefore overcategorization on the basis of a characteristic that is too broadly defined. There is no value in a grouping of users who share an undefined nostalgia for departed users (and possibly not even the same users). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless trivia with no real inclusion criteria.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I want to have that category bright red and hurting on my userpage. It's more than 30 specific people I'd like to return. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, what a list... If I had a glass right now, I'd raise it. As for a "bright red" category, may I suggest using {{fmbox}} in lieu of the actual category code (so as not to hurt those of us at Special:WantedCategories? I'd be happy to supply the necessary wikicode. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel understood, please supply the code. See also the talk, where the missing is pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt: Thanks, the code would be:
{{fmbox
| image = none
| textstyle = text-align:left; margin:1em 0em; font:#FF0000
| text  = {{flatlist|
* Wikipedians who wish a lot of users would come back
}}
}}

or, if you prefer to link to the deleted category: 

{{fmbox
| image = none
| textstyle = text-align:left; margin:1em 0em;
| text  = {{flatlist|
* [[:Category:Wikipedians who wish a lot of users would come back|Wikipedians who wish a lot of users would come back]]
}}
}}

For other colors besides red, just change "#FF0000" to some other code—see Web colors for more information. To add additional categories, just add more bullets on new lines. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom and despite the sentiment - pointless category JarrahTree 05:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague and there's no discernible encyclopedic value Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Atheistic/humanistic "scientific" preachers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is either an advocacy user category or an unnecessary intersection of Category:Atheist Wikipedians and Category:Humanist Wikipedians. There is no need to merge, since the sole user in the category is already in both of the potential merge targets. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and because it doesn't make any sense (preaching isn't part of atheism or humanism, and "scare quotes" around scientific seem to imply some kind of sarcasm). If spiritualist but irreligious, yet also anti-scientific, humanist/atheist ministry is a real thing, there has to be a better way to express that (but it may not even be the intent here; the purpose of this category is entirely unclear, and can surely be gotten at by just adding several extant categories to one's user page).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, weird conflation of dichomotous terms JarrahTree 05:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- This is a user category in main category space. It adds nothing to Category:Atheist Wikipedians and Category:Humanist Wikipedians. IN any event, athiests are as incapable of using science to prove there is no God, as I am to prove there is one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Admins who are semi-retired and aren't really good for much anymore, but who will very occasionally still use the mop[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While knowing an individual editor's activity status may be helpful, there is no value in browsing through a category of inactive or partially active users. Therefore, this is suitable for a userpage notice but not for a category. Note: there is extensive precedent to delete all categories of Wikipedians by activity status. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another essentially unmaintainable and no-real-purpose usercat along "by activity level" lines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - and absurdly long title with no practical usage JarrahTree 05:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs controversys[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:Overcategorization; in addition to this being misspelled (should be "controversies"), we already have Category:Music controversies that can surely cover any music articles that sparked heavy controversy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This category will talk about music that caused polemicas and controversy over history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardEnrique15 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of what it is intended for, but again, Category:Music controversies already does the same thing. There's no good reason for redundancy here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; redundant and poorly named. Trivialist (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant, even if the spelling were corrected.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant and misspelled. Binksternet (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - miss spelled alone enough to go JarrahTree 05:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and misspelled. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Badly spelled, and redundant with another category that we already have. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Stanislaus (Ukrainian)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
I'm having trouble confirming that this award exists. There is no main article and the redirect in the category points to a different Russian award. I can find similarly named awards for Poland and Austria online but not Ukraine and I have the same problem at Order of Saint Stanislaus (disambiguation). None of the three biographies in the category even mention the award, let alone have a citation. Let's assume good faith here and say this is an obscure award automatically given to Ukrainian prime ministers: that would hardly be defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unverifiable so far, and it's not mentioned in any articles, so we should not have a cat. for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've found a Ukrainian-language source in [1] that includes lists of people who received the Knights Grand Cross, but given the lack of third-party sources to support the award's notability I doubt a category would be necessary. There's nothing on the Ukrainian wiki as far as I can tell. The Ukranian branch of the order itself might be notable though, I've found a fair few Ukrainian- and Russian-language news sources from c. 2003 about how many Ukrainian political figures had become part of the Order of Saint Stanislaus and this rumoured to be part of a Masonic conspiracy. Alcherin (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be sourced, that might make an interesting article.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2017 (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.
Oh, damn, if it's part of a Masonic conspiracy, we'd better restore it immediately! Ha ha.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Philippine Defense Medal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Philippine Defense Medal is a WWII medal issued across-the-board to every Filipino and American soldiers present during the Japanese invasion in 1941-2. We traditionally haven't kept categories for campaign medals because career soldiers, like Douglas MacArthur receive many of these automatic participation awards. I just listified the contents of the category here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We've deleted similar categories for campaign medals from other countries here, here, here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We have no need to categorize by something that every single person in a huge population segment auto-qualifies for. A bit like "WWII Pacific Theater soldiers with mouths".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe the subcat of WWII Pacific Theater soldiers without mouths would be interesting :) I concur with the main point, this is not a useful navigation aid nor a useful way of distinguishing between people. Dysklyver 08:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically a campaign/service award. EricSerge (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a service medal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a practical matter, especially for ground forces, it often implies a visit to Cabanatuan or Camp O'Donnell, possibly after the Bataan Death March, to say nothing of the fighting before it. The ribbon was a matter of routine, but the campaign, and its aftermath, generally was not. It was also not widely awarded, relatively speaking. Anmccaff (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anmccaff: Thanks for the feedback. We have a Category:Bataan Death March prisoners and, since Camp O'Donnell was the destination of that march, I don't know if it makes sense to create a separate category for the camp as well. Maybe we should create a Cabanatuan subcategory for Category:World War II prisoners of war held by Japan though? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete receiving the medal itself is non-defining. As was pointed out by others, if a part of their participation in Wolrd War II was defining, we can put them in a clearly named category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_23&oldid=1075705015"