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.
Merge even after the merger the parent caegory will only have three entries. Categories are meant to aid navigation, single entries ones do not do this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
'Oppose/Keep East Asia is IMHO a comprehensive grouping based on geography and not at all excluding Indian philosophy. The proposal 'Eastern' is so vague that it doesnt exclude Near East. So all that muslim religious doctrines and sects could be misunderstood to be 'Eastern philosophy' too? No good! --Just N. (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Speedy close - Wikipedia categories are based on the defining characteristics of an article's topic, not on the structure of the article itself. The proposed category would imply that every article is about a biography, but the articles are in fact about people. Ibadibam (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm open to suggestions here. The problem is that the cat "Palestinian refugees" ought really to be used for Palestinian refugees in general not just the individuals that happen to have an article about them. Currently, all those articles about Palestinian refugees in general are sitting in the cat History of Palestinian refugees (I don't even know what that means tbh). So what is the easiest way to do that? Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so if we do that, then each article in Category:History of the Palestinian refugees can be examined to see if it is mainly about refugees or mainly about the history of what happened to refugees and move any that are necessary? Although I'm pretty sure that people looking to categorize an article won't actually try to make a distinction between the two things.UNWRA - is it an article about Palestinian refugees or the history of what happened to Palestinian refugees or both? Note it is not in either atm.Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The history category mainly contains articles about historical events, and I think the few inclusions that aren't should be removed, such as Palestinian Brazilian. It might also be helpful to understand that Marcocapelle originally created the history cat as Category:Palestinian exodus, and the relationship between the categories wasn't comprehensively altered when that category was renamed/rescoped. Ibadibam (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add that it would help to understand the distinction between a topic category, which is what "Category:History of the Palestinian refugees" is (i.e. every member of topic category X is about X), and a set category, which is what "Category:Palestinian refugees" currently is (i.e. every member of set category "Xes" is an X). Ibadibam (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. Just so I am totally clear, if a cat has a subcat, are the members of the subcat "in" the cat (ie if I ask for a list of members of the cat will it include those that are in the subcat?).Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my obtuseness, but I don't understand what you mean by "ask for a list of members of the cat". Are you referring to a specific tool or interface? Ibadibam (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now (maybe). Well, we might need to repeat that exercise because if we have Category:Nakba and we have Category:Palestinian refugees(with History of... being added there as a subcat per above suggestion) then there is no longer any need for Category:1948 Palestinian exodus because any article that might go in there would go better in one of the others. eg the article 1948 Palestinian exodus is about refugees and also part of the Nakba. So should it be Nakba with all the others as subcats? (To take the UNWRA example I mentioned above, I would put that in both of refugees and history of.. but I would not put it in Nakba because it is a consequence of Nakba rather than about it).Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Nakba category currently covers all events, documents, places and other topics related to "the destruction of Palestinian society and homeland in 1948". On the other hand, the 1948 exodus category concerns only the movement of people arising from these events. "History of Palestinian refugees" concerns refugees from all time periods. So it's appropriate, for example, that the 1948 exodus category be a subcategory both of "Nakba" and of "History of refugees" (the inclusion in the former is the result of the discussion of April 4 in which you participated. But if there were consesnsus to take Nakba in its broader sense, referring to "the ongoing persecution, displacement, and occupation of the Palestinians", then perhaps Nakba could be expanded to be a parent category for all of them. Ibadibam (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- articles on people are inevitably bios, so that adding bios to the title is a waste of space. The more general article that User:Ibadibam wants can be included by making it a main article for the category, something that is frequently done in other contexts. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
You know what, it's up to you. Delete it, merge it, I'll go with the flow. I thought I helped by further classifying these Filipino composers, but I suppose to someone who isn't Filipino it isn't relevant. There are many more articles I intend to write for wiki, such as one for Lirio Salvador (deceased), a Filipino bassist and sculptor, who would categorize in experimental music. His band, Elemento, had something really unique ... none of their instruments were traditional. Lirio's "bass" for example, was a metal sculptor made of bicycle parts.
But I digress as I let my passion get away from me. In the category of Filipino church music composers, which could also be Filipino chorale music composers, there are actually quite a few, one of whom is Maestro Ryan Cayabyab, a National Artist, although I still have to check if any of them already have articles on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I suppose I, or someone else, will do so. Thank you for your time, and I do appreciate the heads up. Slvrdlphn (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MergeWP:SMALLCAT does not apply as a reason, as there is scope for expansion. The problem is that we don't have parent categories for such music genres. When we can not define the genre, can we define the musician by it? Dimadick (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of those composers will work in several sub branches-> makes no sense to have 2-4 of those per artist. OTOH it is an interesting intention to make visible which dimensions the different sub divisions would have. But certainly musicologists would know the field without needing Wp categories like that. --Just N. (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. These articles in this category describe the individuals as songwriters more than composers and is more appropriate to the scheme under Category:Rock songwriters, which only has a subcat for American rock songwriters due to the large number of articles there. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me16:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not completely agree because not everyone who I intended to categorize as Filipino rock composers are songwriters also but I understand what you are trying to say. I feel there should be a distinction between lyricists (songwriters) and composers (those who write/compose the music). Slvrdlphn (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A songwriter is a lyricist, someone who writes the words to a song. A composer is someone who writes music. Some composers are also lyricists, just as not all lyricists are composers. Let us take as an example George Gershwin and Ira Gershwin. George Gershwin was a composer - he came up with the tune, the melody. Ira Gershwin was a songwriter/lyricist, he came up with the words of the songs. While the brothers are often credited together as they did many collaborations, individually, they accomplished different things. I cannot tell you which came first, the words or the music, but oftentimes, one inspired/inspires the other. Philippine National Artist for Music, Maestro Ryan Cayabyab is one musician who is both a songwriter and composer. That makes him extra talented, it isn't the norm. This means that Mr. C can be categorized under both. Not many see the distinction but anyone who is involved in the music industry can easily distinguish one from the other. That being said, when I created those categories, as I said, it was an attempt to better organize and categorize the different musicians, particularly Filipino musicians. I feel confident that those musicians, at least, would appreciate the distinction. However, I understand that this is a free encyclopedia and that anyone can (literally) edit it and I was prepared for someone to contest or question my edits and additions. :) If you, dear editors and wiki "powers that be" strongly feel that these categories are frivolous and should be deleted and merged with general categories I will accede to your superior WIKI wisdom. God bless! Slvrdlphn (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Nobody denied that the specific four articles in this category are about songwriters, so the general comment that a composer is not the same as a songwriter does not seem to be relevant in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Seems like a pointless category. Only three characters in it, of which one (Holly) is a stretch to call detransitioned. No updates in 20 months DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDetransition is at best an ill-defined and poorly understood phenomenon. Per the main article: "Formal studies of detransition have been few in number, of disputed quality, and politically controversial." I would question whether we should categorize anyone as having detransitioned. Dimadick (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians interested in roller coasters
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 category has remained empty, so I am C1 deleting it as an empty category, but this is without prejudice to creation and re-population. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Category:WikiProject Roller Coasters participants. I removed the category from User:UBX/coaster, on the basis that, as had been pointed out, people who have a favorite roller coaster are not necessarily interested in articles about roller coasters in general. I was not doing so to make a point, but simply because I did not think those who had this userbox on their page would necessarily want it. I'm a bit surprised that this was enough to empty the category: I would have guessed that some of the additions would have come from Template:User Roller Coaster TF member, the other template that adds users to this category, or from people adding the category directly. The fact that the category is now empty speaks to the fact that no one has actually signed up to have this category appear on their user page.
The roller coaster task force of WikiProject Amusement Parks appears to be inactive. The last post on its talk page was in 2019, not including the post from Buaidh advertising the new category. I see no consensus anywhere that the category is desirable. In other words, the contributors to the project do not appear to support, or indeed have any opinion whatsoever on, this category. Furthermore, all of the people in the category were there solely because a template they added, not intending to indicate anything more than a personal interest in one specific roller coaster, was changed without warning to them. Given these facts, I see no reason to believe that this category reflects a community of interest on this project. Tamwin (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians interested in English grammar
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category originally contained only Category:Wikipedians interested in number words, which was deleted per an earlier CfD, and thus became empty when that category was deleted. The creator responded to the C1 notification on their talk page by populating it with over 50 userboxes, including all of the userboxes that previously populated that category. While I didn't check every single one, none of the ones I looked at express an interest in editing articles related to the subject, which is what the term "interested in" in user categories means per Wikipedia:User categories#by interest* Pppery *it has begun...14:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the userboxes that populate category are Template:User serial comma:Yes and Template:User serial comma:No. I completely fail to see how expressing a preference on the use of a serial comma makes one part of a meaningful community of interest, or why that would make someone more suited than average to help others with their English skills. (And I, for what it's worth, am a native speaker of English and do understand grammar) * Pppery *it has begun...16:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that a userbox does not support this category, please remove the category link from that userbox template. Do not delete this category. (I am also a native speaker of the English language and I have a great interest English grammar as do thousands of Wikipedians.) Yours aye, Buaidh talkcontribs17:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this category when it popped up on my user page without me putting it there. I wouldn't oppose the existence of such a category on general principle, but it should be limited to users who specifically add a template solely dedicated to interest in English grammar. I would also suggest that the creator of this instance of the category might not be the best one to recreate it or add it to any userboxes in future. Tamwin (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously some of userbox template links to this category should be removed. However, this category serves a useful collaboration purpose and should not be removed. Yours aye, Buaidh talkcontribs21:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed miss that userbox when populating my collapsed list above, but removing code to populate this category from all other userboxes would leave you as the only member, and you have not actually shown any interest in editing articles related to English grammar (or, for that matter, any of the other subjects you claim to be "interested in" on your userpage except for Colorado). Even if that were not the case, single-user categories are do not generally facilitate collaboration, and the category would also be redundant to Category:Wikipedians interested in the English language, which is also populated by the same userbox. * Pppery *it has begun...15:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not appropriate to include the category to pages where it isn't quite explicit that the user is indeed "interested in English grammar". That leaves as far as I can tell only Template:User English grammar which would make it a one person category and quite useless anyway. To be honest I don't see it as a particularly useful category for collaboration even if it was populated. --Trialpears (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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 roads named after fictional characters
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.
Nominator's rationale: The category contained no lists; furthermore, there would be no reason to create more than one list of roads named after fictional characters. I just moved all the entries (two of them) to Category:Streets named after fictional characters. Misiek1997 (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both per WP:SHAREDNAME. The original category name seemed fine because we allow lists of places by shared name but don't categorize individual articles that way. The nominator is quite correct that neither article is a list. (For background, see earlier nominations here and here.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both -- a category for list articles would be viable, if such list articles existed. However the streets category is a SHAREDNAME category, which is not allowed and the other is now empty (emptied out of process?). Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete In the absence of an article on the family there is no reason to suppose that the fact these people were related in some way is defining enough to categorize by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is some reason to suppose it's viewed that way at least by some Latter Day Saints. There is an article about the family from the LDS Church here (October 1978 Ensign). There was a big reunion of the family in 2012 (Deseret News). There is a book about the family (Amazon). I see quite a bit online, certainly enough for a potential article. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete The term is not one that is clearly defined enough to say for sure what qualifies something for it. How much industry must be present, and what is the cut off date to be "early". Also we need to ask does it make sense to categorize places that still exist in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2021 (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:Cities with Free Land in the United States
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 Homestead Acts gave public lands in the United States that had been cleared of Native Americans in exchange for starting farms on them beginning in 1850. This category lists towns mostly in Kansas that were part of this program in the 1800s like Ellsworth, Kansas and Osborne, Kansas. (The offer is no longer open!) It's normal for city articles to mention their history and they can cover homesteading but this category is not defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that places were given out under the homesead act in a location is not defining to the place at present, and it was not really very defining to the place at the time in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2021 (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.
