Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 9 July 11 >

July 10[edit]

Category:Non-orphaned talk pages tagged with G8-exempt[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 to delete, so rename. – Fayenatic London 22:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category isn't exclusive to talk pages. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also on a few user subpages, but does that make sense at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a process (workflow) is identified that uses this category (neither the category text nor what-links-here gives any clue as to the purpose of the category). The pages in the category are a mix of all sorts of different things (e.g. some are redirects). Maybe the template should be changed to only categorize talk pages, but who knows? DexDor (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a maintenance category to list pages tagged with {{G8-exempt}} when they aren't orphaned so not eligible for deletion anyway. The rename is fine IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a description of what the category is, but there's still no indication of what (if any) purpose it has. DexDor (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's to recognize when people are applying the G8-exempt tag unnecessarily (i.e when the main article was not deleted). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a description of what the category is, but there's still no indication of what (if any) purpose it has. DexDor (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I checked a number of pages in this category and can't make any sense of what these pages might have in common. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. It's a maintenance cat for the G8-exempt template. If it's not all talk pages, then just rename it per nom. bibliomaniac15 05:49, 23 July 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:Venomous spiders[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) 08:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category text says "Aggregate of articles pertaining to spiders whose venom is dangerous to humans.", but the category for Dangerous spiders was deleted at CFD. DexDor (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Spider bite and List of medically significant spider bites articles could be moved up to Category:Spiders and humans. DexDor (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the previous discussion I understand that nearly all spiders are venomous to some degree. If that is correct, the category is not meaningful. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 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:Bathurst Street, Hobart[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) 08:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only one article. The head article Bathurst Street, Hobart is not in the category, but it's only stub. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 10 July 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:Edinburgh Comedy Awards[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. bibliomaniac15 05:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only two articles (Edinburgh Comedy Awards, List of Edinburgh Comedy Award winners) plus one redirect to the head article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 10 July 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:Emet[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. bibliomaniac15 05:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only the head article Emet (a stub), and Emet mine. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The district has about a dozen villages per the Turkish WP, so it could be expanded; it just hasn't been yet. Most districts in Turkey have categories (so do most second-level administrative units in other countries), which may be the exception to WP:SMALLCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 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:Embriaco family[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only 3 pages: the head article Embriaco family and two others. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 10 July 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:Eskimo bowline[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 19:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only the head article Eskimo bowline and the image File:Eskimo-bowline.jpg. The category appears to have been created solely for the image; I added the head article. However, I have now moved the image to Commons, so the category no longer serves any purpose. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 10 July 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:Etiology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 1#Category:Etiology

Category:European Association of Archaeologists[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 19:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT, and per WP:NONDEF.
The Category:European Association of Archaeologists contains only the three items: head article European Association of Archaeologists, the biog of its founder, plus the members subcat. That's too small to be any use.
The subcat Category:Members of the European Association of Archaeologists contains only one page, but could be expanded to two if the founder was moved there. But however many pages it contains, its a WP:NONDEF category. This is not a learned society where membership is distinction awarded to high-achievers. Its website says EAA MEMBERSHIP is open to all professional archaeologists, students of archaeology and retired archaeologists, as well as interested public. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 10 July 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:European Geoparks Network[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. bibliomaniac15 05:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only two pages: the head article Geoparks in Europe and a list. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 10 July 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:Japhetic 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 as nominated; revisit the wider tree if necessary Consistency has been invoked; the broader tree issues are best handled separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is for things related to the Japheth son of Noah. The other two sons also have categories and are simply named Category:Ham (son of Noah)‎ after Ham (son of Noah) (and not Hamites) and Category:Shem‎ after Shem (and not after Semitic people). This naming should be WP:CONSISTENT for all 3 brothers. Also, there is no article Japhetic people, only a redirect. Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a very narrow interpretation, bypassing the fact that the brothers were on the Ark and played an important role in Genesis 9. Yes, a genealogy are given in Genesis 10, but it is neither unique nor the first genealogy in Genesis. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The genealogy in question is the Generations of Noah/Table of Nations and it indeed unique. "The list of 70 names introduces for the first time a number of well known ethnonyms and toponyms important to biblical geography". Dimadick (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is not about geography but about descendants. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 14 July 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:Fang[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 15:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: disambiguation. The bare title Fang is about a type of tooth, but this category is for Fang people, an ethnic group in Africa (predominantly in Equatorial Guinea). By convention, the title Category:Fang people is used for individual people of that group, so we need another disambiguator. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 10 July 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:Ethiopian male cross-country runners[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: Merged as speedy SFB 00:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other categories it should be named without '-'. Simeon (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The non-hyphenated category was created two months before the hyphenated one, so it looks like it was just a boo boo. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:38, 11 July 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:Coconut Records (musician) albums[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 15:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That's the name of the bio. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:37, 10 July 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:Kickboxer films[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 15:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. ★Trekker (talk) 09:24, 10 July 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:15th-century Christian religious leaders[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. bibliomaniac15 05:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this category (surprisingly) is not part of a series by century, but even if it were it would probably not make too much sense to start the series this early. The frequent appearance of Christian religious leaders beyond clergy and abbots takes off in the 16th century at earliest. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sure, @Marcocapelle is right that Christian religious leaders outside the clergy and monasteries emerged in large quantities only the 16th century, as the Reformation took hold.
But there were exceptions in previous centuries, so the category should exist to accommodate them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even in the 16th century there is not much beyond clergy, abbots and Category:Protestant Reformers. Besides the exceptions are still part of the x-th century Christians category so it is not like the information is completely lost. As we need to determine a subjective starting point for this tree anyway, why not start with a century that we can decently populate. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment religious leaders is ambiguous; are these limited to leaders of groups, leaders of thought, leaders of actions? One could well classify Joan of Arc in this category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this category tree they are intended as leaders of religious groups. Joan of Arc does not belong, she (sort of) led an army, not a religious group. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this category and hierarchy could be expanded with more bios of abbesses and other non-clergy Category:Women Christian religious leaders. – Fayenatic London 09:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- because there is no other obvious way in which to categorise abbesses, who held a position equivalent to clergy, but were not ordained. Categorising them merely as nuns would not reflect their prominence. We seem to have abbesses categorised by order, but not date. The list under Thorn Abbey implies that there is at least one other abbess who belongs here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 19 July 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.

Tamil-language television series by genre[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 all. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: rename per parent Category:Tamil-language television series by genre as well as everything else in the Tamil-language category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 10 July 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:Pastors[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. bibliomaniac15 05:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 10 July 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:Pages using infobox body of water without convert template[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 19#Category:Pages using infobox body of water without convert template

Category:Places of Pokhara[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 26#Category:Places of Pokhara

Category:Ward of Pokhara[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 26#Category:Ward of Pokhara

Category:Chowks of Pokhara[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:Neighbourhoods in Pokhara. bibliomaniac15 05:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clear definition of "Chowk" other than its use as part of a place name here. No parent categories. Created by enthusiastic but new editor. Does not seem to be a useful category. PamD 07:17, 10 July 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:Films about hebephilia[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 19:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. There have been a lot of discussions about this category before. But the main reason why it should be deleted is that there appears to simply not be very many films that are about hebephilia. ★Trekker (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, the Are All Men Pedophiles? title is misleading. The film is more so about hebephilia, or rather sexual attraction to adolescents/teenagers (since hebephilia is accurately defined as a sexual preference for those in the earlier stages of pubescence). But, as I've argued times before, we don't need a hebephilia category to cover one or two films. As for Lolita? I've seen discussions about whether the man is a pedophile or not...based on the strict definition of pedophilia (especially people saying that Lolita was pubescent). This source used in the Reception section for the article to categorize it as a hebepilia film states "the film was very controversial, due to the hebephilia-related content." But eh. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Ok, it goes too far to say that they aren't about hebephilia at all, but it does take quite a bit of WP:SYNTH to say they are. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not SYNTH since I looked and sources for both do mention the term. But all the other points against this category stand. Crossroads -talk- 21:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, see what Crossroads just stated above. And, above, I did cite one source from the Lolita film article. Regardless, to quote Crossroads, "all the other points against this category stand." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marcocapelle. Crossroads -talk- 06:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on the films about pederasty below. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my previous arguments about this category (seen on the talk page and in previous deletion discussions about it). But per the previous discussions, including the RfC that took place there, I feel that its talk page should be tagged with Template:G8-exempt (see WP:G8). That talk page should be preserved for future reference. For documentation of what was discussed with regard to this category and in case the category is created again. If that talk page is deleted, I will request that it is undeleted and tagged with Template:G8-exempt. But I am asking the administrator who deletes this category to do that so that I don't have to. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:24, 10 July 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:Pederastic poetry[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) 08:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is anarchronisticly added to ("pederasty" is an exclusivly Greco-Roman concept that was not widely used after) articles of random modern poets. This is a SMALLCAT without that agenda pushing nonsense. ★Trekker (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although Haiduc did not create this category, he clearly made use of it, and it was a part of his system of pederasty categories. Haiduc was banned by ArbCom in 2010 for reasons that are obvious based on the ANI discussion about him. The content he wrote was dishonest propaganda exaggerating the prevalence and social standing of practices that in today's world non-WP:Fringe sources call child sexual abuse, as explained here. Part of this effort involved purposely conflating relationships between grown males that really are part of gay history together with abusive relationships between a grown man and a young boy, and calling it all "pederasty". There is no need for this category; the articles in it can be in more appropriate categories based on what is actually discussed in each one. Crossroads -talk- 05:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above but then the article Sotades should be moved to Category:Pederastic literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A poetry category should focuse on individual poems, not poets. Dimadick (talk) 07:59, 10 July 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:Films about pederasty[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) 08:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was originally created by a banned pedophile and pro-pedophilia advocate on Wikipedia, once he was banned this category was deleted, but was then recreated by another user (who tried to make Commons accept child pornography images). The problem with this category is the same as most other "pederasty" categories, "pederasty" is a word that almost exclusivly refers to a Greco-Roman concept and today this is called child sexual abuse by non-fringe sources. Its also worth mentioning that almost none whatsoever of these articles even mention the word "pederasty". ★Trekker (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Haiduc, apparently the original creator, was banned by ArbCom in 2010 for reasons that are obvious based on the ANI discussion about him. The re-creator is globally banned. Haiduc's overuse of "pederasty" was dishonest propaganda exaggerating the prevalence and social standing of practices that in today's world non-WP:Fringe sources call child sexual abuse, as explained here. "Pederasty" normalization involves purposely conflating relationships between grown males that really are part of gay history together with abusive relationships between a grown man and a young boy, and calling it all "pederasty". This category is a legacy of that effort, and many of the articles in it do not even mention the term pederasty. There is no need for this category; the articles in it can be in more appropriate categories based on what is actually discussed in each one. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I checked a sample of articles and none of them was about ancient Greek pederasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another films "about" something; how, objectively do we define how much about the subject something must be to be categorized and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 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:American textile industry executives[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New name would a) allow for more people to be placed in the category, and b) be consistent with other countries' categories that take the form "______ textile industry businesspeople" pbp 03:53, 10 July 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:FemTechNet[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 15:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an administration category for Wikipedia:Meetup/FemTechNet. Its name should make clear that is not a content category for the article FemTechNet. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 10 July 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:Savernake, New South Wales[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. bibliomaniac15 05:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only the head article Savernake, New South Wales and one other. This place had a population in 2016 of only 94 people[1], so there is little chance of expanding the category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 10 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_10&oldid=1073192534"