Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 14 December 16 >

December 15[edit]

Category:Politicians stubs[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty, mistitled ("Politican stubs" category exists with members and child categories) PamD 22:54, 15 December 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.

Category:Maya writing[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, unclear and redundant category layer. Literature and script are better off when they are directly placed in the languages category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I understand that all Maya writing comes from inscriptions, so that there is no need for multiple layers. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:49, 20 December 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.

Category:Media experts[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm afraid this is a completely subjective & undefined category, which was created for a single article. That article is otherwise properly categorized. Anomalous+0 (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "expert" is too subjective and the article is already in the journalists tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 15 December 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.

Category:Sultan Qaboos Prize for Environmental Preservation laureates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 23#Category:Sultan Qaboos Prize for Environmental Preservation laureates

Category:Japanese villan actors[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. Not merging due to explanation by Marcocapelle (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT "Avoid categories which categorise performers by their portrayal of a role. This includes...portraying a "type" of character (such as wealthy, poor, religious, homeless, gay, female, politician, Scottish, dead, etc.)" Le Deluge (talk) 19:15, 15 December 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.

Category:Lists of works by Agatha Christie[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. MER-C 08:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are the only two person-specific Lists of works by ... categories on en.wiki, and they impede navigation by adding an unnecessary step between the Works by ... category and the categorized articles/lists. Lists of works can be categorized directly in the main Works by... category, and there is no need to split out a subcategory for just 1–3 pages. (Courtesy pinging the categories' creators, User:Salarabdolmohamadian and User:Slivicon) -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot see what you mean by "they impede navigation." That aside, I think there could be many more people like Christie and Beyzai who might have various lists of works. (Beyzai, for example, has 4 very long lists in the Persian Wikipedia, and the 5th is also underway.) I can think of at least 10 world famous people right now who can keep company to Agatha Christie and Bahram Beyzai in having numerous lists of works. All that said, if the "impede navigation" is a really serious problem, I agree with the deletion of the categories.Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 15 December 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.

Category:Canadian film directors of Pakistani descent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 26#Category:Canadian film directors of Pakistani descent

Category:Biting insects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 26#Category:Biting insects

Category:Heavily tattooed people[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 to Category:People known for being heavily tattooed. MER-C 08:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No specified inclusion criteraia, and any attempt to define criteria would unavoidably breach either WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Inevitably, this category gets applied to people for who it is not WP:DEFINING, e.g. newly-elected Irish parliamentarian Mark Ward (politician), who is known for a surprise by-election win, not for this tattoos.
Note previous discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 5#Category:Heavily_tattooed_people, closed as no consensus. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Mark Ward (politician) was added to the category in this good faith edit[1] by Sheila1988. I removed him in this edit[2], per WP:COPDEF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This category was for people specifically famous for their heavy tattooing not for those editors subjectively feel have a lot of them. Abyssal (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the intention then I suggest the category is renamed to Category:People notable for being tattooed or similar to make it clear it is not to include other notable people who just happen to be 'heavily' tattooed. Thoughts @BrownHairedGirl, Abyssal, and Marcocapelle:? GiantSnowman 08:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: I like the idea of some such clarification. However, the proposed title is a bit of a self-reference to the internal Wikipedia concept of WP:Notability, which I am not comfortable with. I tried a search for other categories with "notable" in their title, and didn't find any other content categories; the results are all various forms of administrative categories. So I could support this only if there was some other form of wording ... but I can't think of one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm open to a rename, but I cannot think of a better name myself. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People known for being heavily tattooed ? DexDor (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notes on category pages dont have much effect. Rathfelder (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:14, 15 December 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.

Category:Flora of the Sahara[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. MER-C 08:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category (which was created by an editor who is now blocked) is a flora category that does not follow the relevant wikiproject's categorization scheme. Example similar previous CFD. Note: I don't propose to upmerge to Category:Desert flora because some of the articles (example) probably don't belong in that category. Note: I suggest adding a note at Category:Sahara referring to Category:Biota of North Africa. Note: The main way in which articles about species are categorized is by tree-of-life categories (they are much more complete than most of-region categories). DexDor (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is an agreed system for categorizing plants by distribution. Random creations of extra categories by the now banned user Look2See1 had no consensus and disrupt the system to no good purpose. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentially keep -- Biota occur by region. In this case it will be strongly related to drought tolerance. Desert flora ought to be a container, because the flora of the Australian outback; Arizona and New Mexico; Gobi desert, and Sahara will be quite different. It may be that this category should be purged (into a broader category) of plants that occur both in the Sahara and elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are not talking vaguely about "biota" but about plants. There is an internationally agreed system for recording the distribution of plants, the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions that is used by many reliable sources (see the article). Supercategories of the lowest WGSRPD units make sense, but categories that cut across them do not because they will not be supported by reliable sources with the result that any such category will not be remotely complete. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What possibly can be seen here is that there are two different categorizations in play. If all one cares about is the WGSRPD then one doesn't care that the biota of the Mediterranean coast is rather different from that of the desert itself; but there are other schemes in which the Saharan biota is a thing unto itself, e.g. as I see in Armen Takhtajan's regionalization. Mangoe (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The editor time to create/maintain regional categorization (as well as, for example, Category:Plants by habitat) is limited so it's better to use one regional categorization system that may have a chance of being reasonably complete rather than have multiple systems that are likely to cause confusion and be very incomplete. DexDor (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless we create a list of plants found in the Sahara as readers might want to know about the plants found in the Sahara as deserts have more plants then people often think Dq209 (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is welcome to create such a list. According to the Sahara article the Saharan flora comprises around 2800 species of vascular plants so anyone creating such a list wouldn't be helped much by the category which currently contains about 30 articles about plants some of which might (depending on how "Sahara" is defined) not belong in the list. DexDor (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:14, 15 December 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.

Category:Personal finance websites[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 30#Category:Personal finance websites

Category:Classic television networks[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. MER-C 03:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Changing to something without the non-neutral descriptor "classic". Trivialist (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While it would be non-neutral for us to describe certain films or television programs as "classic", the term is an accepted (self-)label for this type of programming. Most of the articles mention classic television, films, and/or programming in the first two paragraphs. In addition, a rerun is a "rebroadcast of an episode of a radio or television program", and most television networks show reruns. Plus, at least some of these networks focus largely (or primarily) on films. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either name (and the entire purpose of the category) are not very discriminating. Should we keep the category at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 15 December 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.

Category:Star Trek planets[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. MER-C 20:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Populated fully by redirects, so no need to upmerge. TTN (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - What is the reason for deleting? Why is it not useful to categorize these redirects? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category consists of redirects only. JIP | Talk 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects should be categorised, categories consisting entirely of redirects are perfectly OK, no valid reason given for deletion. Oculi (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a useful case of WP:Categorizing redirects. – Fayenatic London 23:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can come up with a plausible way for a reader to use a category like this (there are other categories for editors that are specifically for redirects). An articles category should be a list of articles (perhaps with an occasional redirect where there's a good reason); If we don't have any articles about a topic we shouldn't have an articles category for that topic. DexDor (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none of these planets even have an own section of an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bajor, Qo'noS, and Vulcan currently do (though it's questionable whether they need to be distinct sections); the rest do not. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buddhist behaviour and experience[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. MER-C 20:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was renamed from "Buddhist practices" to "Buddhist behaviour and experience". Apart from the British spelling which some might object to, the new name is too vague to be useful, and "practices" sounds much more like the terminology used in Buddhist and religious studies. I have yet to read a book or article about Buddhism mentioning Buddhist behavior. (If the old name is too limited for some articles in this category, splitting may also be a solution.) Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that most other religions use the same "behaviour and experience" naming convention. While I am not against a rename, it should at least be done consistently for all. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted, but then is this the right venue, Marcocapelle? I would like to hear what the community thinks about the usefulness of terms like Hindu behaviour and Christian behaviour. At least, it is worth some discussion IMHO.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Farang Rak Tham: - I like the idea of renaming it as "practices", since I am personally more used to hearing "religious practice" rather than "religious behavior and experience". It would be interesting to read about why it was originally changed from "practice" to "behavior and experience" though; was that discussion held on a Wikipedia talk page? Omanlured (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Omanlured: it was nominated on the Speedy page to be renamed for consistency with others. – Fayenatic London 23:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Religious behavior and experience' seems to be a term primarily used in behavioral psychology. 'Practice' is more conventional in the study of religion and in English-language Buddhist literature. I don't think we necessarily have to widen the discussion to the other categories, but I would support making the change proposed as a starting point to that discussion if it's necessary. --Spasemunki (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Spasemunki: that makes sense. I didn't realize that it was a formal academic term. I'm not sure if it would cause problems if this category was different from others in the same group. Omanlured (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Religious_behaviour_and_experience_by_religion currently contains Category:Sikh practices and Category:Bahá'í practices, so I don't see any reason why it would be problematic. Looking at the contents of the category, it seems to me that most of the articles are talking about the history, motivation, and interpretation of intentional behaviors that are aspects of a religious tradition, rather than investigating reactive behavior from a psychological or anthropological perspective. --Spasemunki (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category splitting may not be a bad idea. Consistency is really my biggest concern here. As Spasemunki pointed out, if "practices" is a more acceptable term when applied to religion, perhaps that should become the norm for all religion categories. –-InvokingvajrasInvokingvajras 12:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think that splitting is meaningful. These categories contain nothing (or hardly anything) written from a psychology point of view, so renaming to "practices" for all religions is probably the most practical solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reflection, I'd agree that splitting will probably be difficult to do, so I have crossed off that solution from the proposal I made. Buddhist practices should cover most articles.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:11, 29 December 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.

Category:Wikipedia Hebrew script templates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 26#Category:Wikipedia Hebrew script templates

Mathematical functions[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. The most coherent case for "keep" seems to be MatthiasPaul's unindented "Comment" at 23:00 on 18 December, but not everyone was convinced by it. I can see both sides of the arguments, and do not find policy reasons for giving one side more weight than the other. Therefore the categories will be kept for now. I will also add {{math banner}} to the talk pages, which might usefully have been done earlier in order to attract more participation via Article Alerts. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we need a category only owning redirects? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional categories for deletion:
  • Additional category for possible deletion:

Additional categories listed by Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, by all means, we do. The category system is to systematically categorize a field of knowledge, not to be an index of existing articles. For the category system it is completely irrelevant if the entries in a category happen to be full blown articles or redirects into articles, discussing the topic at hands. Article or redirect is a question of contents organization (and this may change over time), whereas the category system is about the organization of an area of related themes by characteristics. It spans over a more or less broad topic in a more abstract manner, and thus is much more static in nature. What counts is that the entries are relevant for the category (f.e. characteristic keywords recognized by a reader who browses the category system in order to quickly find the info s/he's interested in), and also that the category fits in nicely and logically in the hierarchy of categories, conditions which are both true for the category at hands. The category follows the same orthogonal scheme as f.e. categories Category:Inverse trigonometric functions‎ or Category:Inverse hyperbolic functions. Not having this category would leave an unsystematic gap in the category system, and would be a disservice to readers searching for inverse functions or trying to mind-map elliptic functions. For a further readup on categories, please see WP:CAT.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the purpose of the category system is to easily navigate between related articles. Since all redirects in this category link to the same article, the navigational benefit is zero. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If, for you, the navigational benefit is zero, then you are missing out some of the most powerful ways to use the category system to find relevant information (in areas where it is properly defined such as this one). You seem to be looking at this from article context backwards through "What links here?" etc., not from the perspective of a user in the context of the category system remembering (or only guessing) some defining characteristics or keywords trying to find the relevant information by walking down (and up) through category hierarchies (or moving sideways to parallel categories through crosslinks). The user cannot (and "by design" should not) know how contents is organized in a target article, as this is subject to change with the addition or rearrangement of contents any time, whereas the category system is defined by characteristics and therefore remains for the most part static. See WP:CAT.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People are primarily looking for articles. In this case they will search for, and find, the article Jacobi elliptic functions. And categories aren't more stable than articles, see the discussions on all these CfD pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People using the category systems are primarily looking for keywords or for combinations/relations of characteristics. Some users are actually interested in reading up the contents behind those keywords (regardless if through redirects or directly), others are really interested into the arrangements of keywords grouped together in a category in order to find useful anchors to mind-map a topic area, perhaps switching back- and forth between several such connected categories to compare the keywords (if they are similar). They are browsing the category system, not just searching for a particular term. Per our guidelines, these different approaches are not mutually exclusive and should be supported in parallel. This is possible only if the actually encyclopedically relevant terms show up in the category system rather then only some broad-concept articles.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re "People using the category systems are primarily looking for keywords or for combinations/relations of characteristics." - (1) the meaning is unclear, (2) that appears to be an opinion with no facts behind it and (3) it doesn't align with categories being (mainly) a means to navigate between articles (see, for example, H:CAT and H:CATS). DexDor (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While H:CAT and H:CATS are help pages, not guidelines (on which all deletion discussions should be based), I can't find anything in them which would be in contradiction with my statements. In fact, I find statements discussing redirects in categories such as H:CATS:
"If an entry in a category is shown in italics it is a redirect to an article of a different name or a section of an article that contains information about that particular subject."
Or in H:CAT:
"Redirect pages can be categorized and there are conventions how to do it. [...] On a category page, redirects are listed in italics."
See also our guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for a description of how different people use different methods to find information in Wikipedia, and that they should be supported in parallel:
"The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems. Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others."
Deleting these categories will inhibit some ways to find information. You don't seem to understand this because you obviously use WP in different ways than me (and others).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"interested into the arrangements of keywords grouped together in a category in order to find useful anchors to mind-map a topic area": excuse me??? This just goes entirely against the purpose of Wikipedia, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but this applies to non-encyclopedic topics and non-notable trivia, not to the entries discussed here.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY is also about the potential problems with open-ended and not well defined lists, not against our aim to systematically (not arbitrarily) and comprehensively cover a topic area encyclopedically, which is actually the very core idea of the project.
Well-known mathematical functions are encyclopedically relevant, including their standard names in English and Latin and their symbolic names as found in the mathematical and technical literature. This is why they are discussed in WP and need to be found in the category system under these very names (different editors may know them under different names).
Regarding my "interested into the arrangements of keywords grouped together in a category in order to find useful anchors to mind-map a topic area", per WP:CAT and WP:CLN it is the very purpose of the category system to provide such views by grouping the entries alongside what the guideline calls essential defining characteristics, so that readers can find f.e. all hyperbolic or trigonometric or Jacobi functions (or their inverses) grouped in context in order to easily memorize and compare their names, read up about them, or browse to other related cats. The names of categories up for discussion are named after such objective characteristics, thus are perfectly in line with what the guidelines recommend.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I fully concur with Marcocapelle on this issue. Categories like this serve no purpose -- especially given that the article on the subject is clearly named and easily found. Anomalous+0 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, you are missing out some of the ways the category system is used for navigation and exploration purposes. See reply below.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And lastly, Category:Trigonometric functions - 65/69; which may need to be dealt with separately/differently from the others.
I strongly suspect that there are even more <shudder> of these categories out there. Perhaps Matthiaspaul would be kind enough to point them out for us? In the mean time, I am going to add the above categories to this CFD, since it is still new and the basic issue is the same for all of them. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This view seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the category system (and redirects): The primary purpose of the category system is not to be an index of existing articles per se (although there are similarities and it can often be used as partial index); it is a hierarchical meta-structure alongside essential characteristics WP:DEFINING a topic area in order to logically/semantically group entries and allow navigation and exploration alongside those characteristics. For the purpose of being entries in a category, there is no difference between full blown articles and redirects. In fact, redirects are often used to let articles with otherwise misleading titles (from the viewpoint of a category) match the particular semantics of the category. This is a deliberate feature of redirects, not a defect. See WP:REDIR and WP:RCAT, in particular WP:RPURPOSE and WP:RCAT#Article categories:
"Alternative names become a redirect and get categorized the same way as their target. Another example is when a single article covers things known by multiple names [...] It is sometimes helpful for redirects from common alternative names to appear in the index list [...] Some subtopics of articles have well-known names and, over time, may expand to become separate articles. Many articles cover several topics that have been combined. This can happen following a merge of several related articles. Often there are redirects pointing to these subtopics. These redirects can be categorized."
Another feature of redirects is to abstract encyclopedic relevant entries from the actual contents órganization inside articles, so that the contents can be arranged differently from the relevant titles and can easily grow and be rearranged (f.e. split off into new articles or be merged) later on without having to rework the whole infrastructure. This is also why articles can (and should) have multiple incoming redirects catching all the encyclopedic relevant keywords. Just like an article (or redirect) can be in multiple categories, a category can have multiple relevant keywords pointing to the same article. What's relevant for inclusion in a category is the relevance of an entry's title in a category, not the organization of contents in target articles. See WP:CAT:
"The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics."
That is, not all subtle capitalization or spelling variants of a name which might be covered by redirects should appear in the category system, but those which have defining characteristics certainly should. In our case, this includes the symbolic mathematical function names as well as their expanded function names (and, where applicable, also the Latin or other name variants which are historical relevant and found in the literature), because we don't know which keywords are known or recognized by the reader.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - arccn say is a useful targeted redirect. Redirects should be categorised as if they were articles, by defining characteristics. Oculi (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oculi, afaics no-one has said that arccn etc aren't useful (targeted) redirects. The question is whether a content (articles) category should exist for a topic about which we have no articles. If there was (and there isn't) a general rule to categorise redirects "as if they were articles" it would lead to many categories consisting mostly of redirects for alternative names for some topics (thus making the categories less useful). DexDor (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do have articles, but under a different title. And we have redirects (named after encyclopedically relevant keywords) pointing there. And we do have guidelines (like WP:RCAT, and also sections in other guidelines) describing in details how and why these redirects can be categorized just as if they were articles. This is a feature, which is used in many places in this project (not just here), there is nothing unusual about it.
Please don't confuse this with redirects for minor spelling variants or such - they should not be categorized as if they were articles, but by using special "rcat" templates (also discussed in the guidelines) - however, the redirects at question here are not about spelling variants etc. but about encyclopedically relevant keywords - and this why they should be categorized like articles.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RCAT doesn't support your interpretation - e.g. it says nothing about "encyclopedically relevant keywords". DexDor (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does support what I wrote. WP:CAT states:
"The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics."
Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category. (However, there is no need to categorize talk pages, redirects, or user pages, though these may be placed in categories where appropriate.) In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs.
As already stated, not all redirects must be be placed in categories, but it is fine to include them where this is appropriate. And in contrast to your comment above WP:RCAT#Article categories knows quite a bit about what is appropriate here:
"Here are some situations where placing a redirect in an article category is acceptable and can be helpful to users browsing through categories [...]
This is often a way to satisfy disagreements over renaming an article when more than one name seems equally valid. The alternative name(s) becomes a redirect and gets categorized the same way as its target. Another example is when a single article covers things known by multiple names, such as a person who is known in multiple fields of endeavour under different names, a merged article about three different newspapers [...]
It is sometimes helpful for redirects from common alternative names to appear in the index list. Editors should consider whether alternative names should be mixed in with other names, or not. Sometimes an entirely new category is more appropriate [...]
Some subtopics of articles have well-known names and, over time, may expand to become separate articles. Many articles cover several topics that have been combined. This can happen following a merge of several related articles. Often there are redirects pointing to these subtopics. These redirects can be categorized. In some cases, the categories for the redirects that point to the subtopics will be different than the categories for the entire article."
So, what I called "encyclopedically relevant keywords" is variously named "alternative names", "well-known names", "topics", or "subtopics" in the guidelines. The entries at question in this discussion are of this very nature.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects dont have defining characteristics. Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Your statement is in fundamental disagreement with relevant guidelines like WP:RCAT or WP:CAT (already cited further above). While certainly not all redirects need to carry categories, it is perfectly okay for those redirects which are relevant entries (by their very title) to be included in categories. This is a deliberate feature of redirects, not a defect. In this context, there is zero difference between redirects and articles.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By definition a redirect has no characteristics. Characteristics come from the content of the article. And I cannot see how Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects can bear your interpretation. Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the characteristics are implied by what the redirect is about, even if the content is physically located in another article. An encyclopedically relevant redirect like "Hacoversine" has the essential defining characteristics "elementary function", "special function", "trigonometric function", that's why it is listed in Category:Trigonometric functions (which is a sub-cat of Category:Special functions). Redirects often have categories similar to those of the target articles, but they also could be completely different - it very much depends on what the redirect is about. Please read the various sub-sections of WP:RCAT#Article categories, including WP:INCOMPATIBLE:
There are some situations where placing a redirect in an article category is acceptable and can be helpful to users browsing through categories. The following are examples of some of these situations:
Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category: Alternative names should not look out of place on a category page. This is often a way to satisfy disagreements over renaming an article when more than one name seems equally valid. The alternative name(s) becomes a redirect and gets categorized the same way as its target. Another example is when a single article covers things known by multiple names, such as a person who is known in multiple fields of endeavour under different names, a merged article about three different newspapers, or a sketch comedy television show whose name exists on Wikipedia as a redirect to the comedy troupe that created it.
Alternative names for articles: [...] It is sometimes helpful for redirects from common alternative names to appear in the index list.
Subtopic categorization: Some subtopics of articles have well-known names and, over time, may expand to become separate articles. Many articles cover several topics that have been combined. This can happen following a merge of several related articles. Often there are redirects pointing to these subtopics. These redirects can be categorized. In some cases, the categories for the redirects that point to the subtopics will be different than the categories for the entire article.
So, the relevant guidelines are quite clear about it - and they contradict your statement in any possible way.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (upmerging any articles if necessary). The statement above that "The category system is to systematically categorize a field of knowledge, not to be an index of existing articles." is a complete misunderstanding of WP:CAT etc which say things like "Opera is a topic category (containing all articles relating to the topic), while Operas is a set category (containing articles about specific operas).". I would probably be in favour of having a simple rule of no redirects in article categories as their misuse probably outweighs any use. See also WikiData. DexDor (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC) DexDor (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of misuse?!? There is no misuse here - the use of redirects as entries in categories is a feature explicitly described in our guidelines, see f.e. WP:RCAT (already cited above).
Describing a usage which is explicitly supported by our guidelines as "misuse" is an assumption of bad faith I take issue with, because when I carefully set this up, I specifically followed the guidelines.
In your quoted text above the guideline uses the word "article" and from this you seem to derive that this would not apply to redirects as well. However, this is just a relaxed usage of vocabulary (in other parts of the guideline they use the word "page" in order to avoid this misconception). A bit further down the guidelines states:
Categorizing pages: Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category. (However, there is no need to categorize talk pages, redirects, or user pages, though these may be placed in categories where appropriate.) In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs.
This is exactly what I wrote above: Certainly not all minor spelling variants need to be categorized, but encyclopedically relevant names (like function names) for sure should.
You are entitled to your opinion, but deletion discussions must be policy-/guideline-based - personal opinions are irrelevant. So, if you want to have a rule not allowing redirects in page categories (which does not exist at present), you will first have to overturn the existing community consensus in an RFC or on the talk page of the respective guideline WP:RCAT, which however currently states the exact opposite and explicitly encourages the usage of redirects as entries in categories (as already cited further above).
Also, in order to convince people (or me), it would be helpful to state what actual problem you run into using redirects. Otherwise it boils down to IDONTLIKE, which is very unhelpful in a deletion discussion. Your link to Wikidata is also not very helpful, because Wikidata is not Wikipedia, but a different project mostly out of our control (f.e. I can't even log in there any more for technical reasons). Our category system existed before Wikidata and is (and has to be) independent of it. Finally, our guidelines and the category FAQ describe that the different ways to find information (links in articles, list articles, category system, search box, nav boxes etc.) are not mutually exclusive and should exist in parallel, because different readers have different needs and preferences. Therefore, unless you have a (yet to be described) use case, which is inhibited by the very existence of the categories above, it is not particularly useful to propose the destruction of essential infrastruction which is useful to others (including me) when exploring this area of knowledge.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TLDR. "The category system is to systematically categorize a field of knowledge, not to be an index of existing articles." is just wrong. DexDor (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The key word here is "not to be". This does not mean that the category system could not be used as a partial index at all, it just means that being a simple index is not its primary purpose (also per WP:CAT). Apparently, you are only using it simply as an index, and that's fine. The point however is that other users are using it in more advanced ways (per guidelines), and deleting those categories would inhibit these uses.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAT does not support your statement (e.g. it doesn't use terms such as "field of knowledge"; it's all about categorization of wp pages). I think you should (for the moment) clear your brain of how you think categorization should/could/might work and read what the relevant wp pages actually say. DexDor (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A strawman. I am familiar with the relevant guidelines and have cited from them. Also, I am aware of many areas in WP in diverse topic areas such as photography, computer science, electronics, biology, politics, arts, mathematics, which take advantage of redirects in categories in exactly the same way as discussed here - this is real-world usage fully backed up by the guideline, not my personal idea (it's only that because I actually use this as well I can see the damage that would be created if we delete those categories, whereas people who obviously don't use them also don't see the damage). The guidelines don't need to use exactly my wording "field of knowledge" to support my statements. They variously call it (from WP:CAT and H:CAT) a "subject area", "pages on similar subjects", "group pages on similar subjects", "sets of related pages", "set of pages on topics that are defined by [essential defining] characteristics", "group of related titles" etc. And this is the intended purpose of the category system:
"Categories help readers to find, and navigate around, a subject area, to see pages sorted by title, and to thus find article relationships."
Yes, it is about categorization of pages (articles and redirects): As specified in WP:CAT and WP:RCAT (I already gave exact quotes further above), the redirects discussed here define encyclopedically relevant keywords (for alternative wordings for this also see further above) and, if the contents would be organized differently, they could just as well be articles about their topics instead of pointers to contents in other articles, and thus they are appropriate to be listed in the category system. If we wouldn't have the categories discussed here, these redirects would have to be included in categories further up in the hierarchy, where they would be much more difficult to browse because they would be mixed with many other entries. This is exacty when subcategories alongside essential defining characteristics such as those you want to delete should be created.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making statements such as "If we wouldn't have the categories discussed here, these redirects would have to be included in categories further up in the hierarchy" which don't appear to align with the principles of wp categorization. If you think such statements are correct please briefly explain why you think so. DexDor (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm a bit shocked about some users' misconception regarding the purpose of the category system. Above, I have cited the relevant guidelines regarding purpose and usage, and they explicitly describe the usage of redirects as in the example at hands.
But for a constructive discussion, let's become specific:
Per WP:CAT, the essential defining characteristics of the group of so called special functions discussed here are either (some of them are also elementary):
The elliptic functions can be further grouped into:
All of these functions happen to have inverse functions:
The entries actually listed in these categories are encyclopedically relevant and follow one of these patterns:
  • Symbolic function names (sin, sinh, etc.)
  • English function names (Sine, Cosine, etc.)
  • Latin function names (sinus, cosinus, etc.)
  • (In some cases other common major naming variants found in the contemporary or historic literature, but not every possible spelling variant, only the major forms)
The essential defining characteristics as well as the names of entries listed in categories are common usage and can be found in the relevant mathematical literature. Therefore, they are in perfect agreement with WP:CAT, WP:RCAT and WP:RPURPOSE.
What is a bit unusual here is that some of the target articles discuss many functions in context instead of having separate articles for each of these functions. However, per WP:CAT, the category system is following essential defining characteristics, not how contents is actually organized in articles. Otherwise, the category system would have to look completely different depending on if the functions happen to be discussed in separate articles or in huge combining articles - this would render the whole idea of having categories ad absurdum.
Also, if we would remove these categories, this would create considerable damage to the infrastructure: Users browsing the category system would no longer be able to switch back and forth between, say, trigonometric and hyperbolic functions, or Jacobi and Lemniscatic functions and recognize symmetries and differences almost visually. They would no longer be able to easily find the inverses of functions. They would not find out by exploration what is specific about elementary special functions, that f.e. Hacoversine is a trigonometric function, cosinus amplitudinis is a Jacobi elliptic function rather than a trigonometric function (and therefore not find the relevant information in this encyclopedia except for by using the search box - however, search box and category system should exist in parallel), and so on. However, browsing the category system and exporing relations between groups of relevant entries is one of the very purposes of categories as described in WP:CAT. What should be the advantage of keeping readers for using the category system to its full extent? What is the actual problem some seem to be seeing? So far, nobody stated an actual issue they run into except for that they "don't like it". That's not helpful.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, users browsing the category system would be able to switch back and forth between types of functions, we have Category:Types of functions for that.
Second, I thought I was clear about the problem earlier on. The existence of a category suggests that Wikipedia has a lot of different articles about the topic. In this case readers who click every redirect in the category in the expectation of finding new content are only to arrive at the same article time and again. That is just frustrating and feels like deception. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a category suggests that Wikipedia has various distinguishable contents about topics which need to be listed under encyclopedically relevant keywords.
Most of the categories we talk about have more than enough entries (and the one with two entries can be warranted by WP:SMALLCAT in order to cover the whole topic area in a uniform way with orthogonally named categories. The alternative would be to list these entries in a higher cat, where they would look out of place.)
I don't think people are confused by redirects in a category, because redirects are rendered in italics (see footnote in guideline), so it is clear for a user that s/he is following a redirect which might bring him/her (to a different location) in an article he/she already visited.
In general, you seem to think of the category system more like a "table of contents" (as found in the front of a book) with chapters represented like articles. However, the category system is much more like an index of keywords (as often found in the back of a book). They serve different needs and ways to access information. If you think about the book analogy, perhaps it becomes clearer, why our category system does not only list book chapters (articles) but also other keywords (redirects).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are the only pages that contain content, that is what readers of Wikipedia are looking for. The analogy with a book is entirely wrong, readers are not here to read a book, they are here to read articles about topics they are interested in. A better analogy is thinking of articles as single sheets of paper in a huge library, where each sheet contains clues about where to find related sheets in that library. Redirects are useful because they are a clue leading readers to the right article. Redirects to the same article in a category are a nuisance because it leads them to the same article again and again. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy of single sheets of paper in a huge library does not reflect the actual situation well because it implies that each of these pages would be about a single topic only. If that would be true, we wouldn't have to have this discussion. However, in reality this only applies to a fraction of articles, and we also have articles combining many topics (like the link targets of the redirects discussed). Following your analogy, those redirects would be (most of) the sheets, and the target articles are more like boxes or binders, in which these sheets are stored - this is much closer to my book analogy. But, anyway, as I said, we obviously use WP in different ways. You don't need to follow redirects (as they are shown in italics it is easy to distinguish them from direct links to articles), so your argument is bogus. You can still easily find your desired information, but without these subcategories, other users won't be able to find sets of topics based on essential defining characteristics at all through category-browsing.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying things like "we ... use WP in different ways", but you are not telling us what it is about how you use WP that your categorization helps. Your categorization impedes navigation (e.g. by having subcats that look as if they contain lots of articles, but on closer inspection just contain multiple redirects to one article). If you really think that without your categorization "users won't be able to find" something (i.e. an article) then please provide an example of how that is so. DexDor (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that removing this categorization would "create considerable damage" is ridiculous. Redirects such as Arccosine have existed in wp for many years without being placed in any article categories; that is the norm in wp categorization. DexDor (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was because Wikipedia was lacking contents and was less refined in the distant past compared to now (and for years). It is in no way unusual (or new) to list redirects in article categories, this is used in many places in WP (where it is useful). We certainly don't need to put every redirect into an article category, but if the redirect is about an encyclopdically relevant topic and we have suitable categories, it certainly should in order to support readers to take maximum advantage of the category system (like they would use an index of keywords in a book, but even better). That's why we have guidelines describing why and how to do it.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't (afaics) provided any explanation of how your categories might help a reader.
The concept of an index is largely (if not completely) irrelevant in a system where the search bar and hyperlinks provide direct access to pages.
Every so often an editor tries to add their own categorization scheme to wp (e.g. last year we had this etc). Such people can get so disconnected from the concept of categorizing articles (and so convinced that their scheme is correct) that they start doing things like putting dab pages in their categories or creating "(synonym)" redirects in order to make their category/index complete. DexDor (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another strawman. The two links to previous discussions are misleading and completely irrelevant in regard to our discussion. These former categories neither followed our naming conventions for categories, nor have they been (AFAIS) defined alongside essential defining characteristics. Thus they were (rightfully) deleted. Our case is completely different, because the categories discussed here (as well as the entries they contain) are following our naming conventions and are defined alongside essential characteristics (per the relevant mathematical literature, not some single user's arbitrary concept), and the use of redirects is explicitly supported by our guidelines for the very purposes we use here.
Regarding the different methods to browse WP and take advantage of the category system see further above and WP:CLN (already cited above).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have now added over 20kb of material to this discussion including phrases (e.g. "defined alongside essential defining characteristics) which are probably unclear to anyone but yourself. However, you have still not (afaics) given any explanation/example of how a reader could benefit from this categorization (i.e. a way that this categorization might make it easier for a reader to reach an article they want to read). DexDor (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with that statement that categories are meant to index all related topic of a common subject. Whether those are currently redirects or articles is irrelevant. --Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Invited from WT:MATH. Even if Wikipedia guidelines were against it (which they aren't, per WP:RCAT), this would still be an appropriate use of redirects in categories. Now, the lead example has all redirects pointing to the same article, which suggests an upmerge (possibly to Category:Elliptic functions) might be appropriate. But outright deletion is not appropriate for any of the categories, and discussing individual upmerge targets is inappropriate except within individual nominations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Veritas (political party) politicians[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 26#Category:Veritas (political party) politicians

Category:Hans Baldung[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCEPON, and if I'm not mistaken this is an unneeded parent. Ewulp (talk) 00:50, 15 December 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.

Category:Adolph Menzel[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: fails WP:OCEPON. Ewulp (talk) 00:40, 15 December 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.

Category:Stefan Lochner[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCEPON; if I'm not mistaken this is an unneeded parent. Ewulp (talk) 00:37, 15 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_December_15&oldid=1073191981"