Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 18 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< July 6 July 8 >

July 7

[edit]

Category:Canadian Christian priests

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. The religious leaders/clergy/priests hierarchy has too many layers already, and no other countries in Category:Priests by nationality have this particular intersection. Category:Christian priests does not have any other national sub-cats; nationalities are analysed in the parents, Category:Christian clergy by nationality and Category:Christian religious leaders by nationality. This one only holds two sub-cats, which are already within the Anglican and RC parts of its third parent Category:Christian priests, so it does not need to be merged there. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 7 July 2014 (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 articles incorporating text from the Columbia Encyclopedia

[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. – Fayenatic London 10:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only member was a talk page of an article that used the Columbia Encyclopedia as a general reference, not incorporating text, and there is no template to populate this as a tracking category. Reventtalk 21:24, 7 July 2014 (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.

Actors from Greater Sudbury categories

[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: upmerge. – Fayenatic London 10:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Actors from Greater Sudbury and Merge to Category:People from Greater Sudbury and Actresses from and Male actors from Ontario, respectively per WP:SMALLCAT. I check on all the articles on actors born in Greater Sudbury, in the actresses category there a 3 articles and the male actors category they we're only two articles. And that's the only five on each category and that's not enough for it's population of articles and it's growth per WP:SMALLCAT. One category will be deleted and the remaining two categories will be split into two existing categories. I nominate the Greater Sudbury categories for nomination per WP:SMALLCAT. Steam5 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I need your help Fayenatic, Could you fix the categories from a split into a merge and change the word split into merge in order to go to both parents, please? Steam5 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I fix it from a split into a merge. Steam5 (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2014 (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 articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter

[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 discussion linked to below looks like it's resolved or at least is potentially stagnate (last edit over a month ago). I'll drop a note there. - jc37 16:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a currently empty tracking category (yes, I see the emptycat) with a scope that is duplicated by the target. Other {{EB1911}} deprecated parameter errors aim at the target, no reason for this one not to also. Minor edit to {{EB1911}} needed. Reventtalk 17:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not the place to discuss this. The place to discuss it is on the talk page of the templates that populate the category. As the category is now empty, when it is discussed on the talk page of the template that populates it, I will propose that rather than altering the code to redirect the output to some other category that the parameter is deleted from the code (and then and only then can the category can be deleted). -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2014 (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 articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with a wikisource parameter

[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 following this edit to the template on 21 July. – Fayenatic London 10:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a currently empty tracking category (yes, I see the emptycat) with a scope that is duplicated by the target. Other {{EB1911}} deprecated parameter errors aim at the target, no reason for this one not to also. Minor edit to {{EB1911}} needed. Reventtalk 17:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not the place to discuss this. The place to discuss it is on the talk page of the templates that populate the category. As the category is now empty, when it is discussed on the talk page of the template that populates it, I will propose that rather than altering the code to redirect the output to some other category that the parameter is deleted from the code (and then and only then can the category can be deleted). -- PBS (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2014 (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:Group of 88

[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 per nomination. No prejudice against a well-sourced list. --John (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is not and never will be a "defining" property. A list may be more appropriate for this. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not even sure that Group of 88 is notable (although, given that it is sports-related, I may be in a minority position here). In any case, as the nom says, this is not a defining property. --Randykitty (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These enemies of due process need continued exposure for their racism. It is not sports related, it is related to a bunch of people presuming guilt and undermining the due process that all criminal defendants should be given. To make matters worse they were rewarded for their attacks and presumptions of guilt, although their hero, Nifong, did have his license revoked. They should not get to remove their badge of infamy. Multiple books have been written focusing on their misdeads, books written by respected writers and academics and well sourced. They are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a defining property for these educators. Their most public act was a willingness to condemn students before a fair hearing had been reached, to denounce students on the grounds that they were white, "privileged" and so forth, and to spew hatred at these students. These people made it a defining link by publicly signing a letter that was the antithesis of due process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I think an article and a list is notable and sourced, but as a category this doesn't work - it's sort of like a club that they inadvertently joined and that was given a name, but we have deleted categories for clubs which are even more defining than this one - this one fails the defining test for most of its members. JPL I think your comments need to be toned down. That said, anyone is free to populate the category while it is under discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has come to my attention that some of the members of this group have proactively attempoted to surpress all mention of it from their Wikipedia talk pages. Here is a quote from the discussion of this issue on the page of Cathy Davidson. " Conflict of interest violations[edit]

I thought it was suspicious how there was no mention of Davidson's role in the Group of 88 in this article so decided to examine the various IPs who have all been so firmly against such inclusion.

152.3.43.222 made quite a few Davidson related edits accords Wikipedia. While some were uncontroversial, at least 6 significant edits were made opposing the Duke Lacrosse scandal material in 2013, either posting here and on noticeboards or simply removing engaging in wholesale removal of the content. While the initial version of text added did have some minor sourcing issues it's extremely clear that the material in question is highly notable and not UNDUE in the slights as was incorrectly being argued. Perhaps most worrying of all was that the IP also opposed inclusion of any such mention of the 88 for any of Davidson's colleagues either, some of whom played even more significant roles in the Group of 88 than she did. A WHOIS check of the IP shows it to be from Duke University, who were Davidson's employer at the time.

On 1st of July 2014 a second IP started editing the page, their very first contribution being the removal of the Duke lacrosse material (despite the sourcing now being improved). The IP is question belongs to Graduate Center of the City University of New York and Davidson started work there on the 1st July 2014. The CUNY edits, reasoning, style and knowledge of the issues appear remarkably similar to the Duke IP, therefore suggesting it may be the same editor who used both IPs.

As far as I'm aware, neither of these two IPs disclosed their COI on any of the issues at any time. I've now tagged the IPs and reminded them about our policies on this matter. The various comments above and elsewhere by the IP should therefore be viewed in the context of the conflict of interest of the author, and I'd ask them to be a little more honest about this in future please.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)"

Wikipedia is not censored. These people clearly pass notability, their participation in this group has clearly been noted in multiple sources, and I see no well reasoned argument to end the category. Especially in light of COI editing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JPL you know categories too well to make the 'not censored' argument. Deleting a category is not censorship. The argument to delete this category is it is essentially membership in a club and such membership is not defining for these people.if there are issues with this being erased in articles take it up at the BLP boards, don't bring that into a category discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a BLP disaster and editors involved in pushing this category should familiarize themselves with BLP practice and policies before they edit further articles regarding living individuals and use those articles to push a POV. Gamaliel (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This was a temporary ad-hoc group. This category stands more of a chance to bias an article than it does to do anything. I agree there may be BLP issues. The level of conversation that would be required to add this category to a page seems to me to be less than what's required to add this as text into the article. I'd hate to think that anyone is trying to game the consensus with this category, but that thought does come to mind. To me if it's important enough to be on the page it should be in the article. While I do agree with the deletion I also see the possibility of a COI. I do ask those with a possible COI to exercise caution.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons given above. In addition, I'd like to see less detective work with IPs and buildings and more policy. I'm not sure how Johnpacklambert came to be convinced that categories are acceptable tools in "exposing racism" or whatever, but it should stop. Drmies (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP issues, not a defining category, maybe being used to make a point, etc. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The removal from articles where the person clearly falls into the group while the category is still under discussion is a clear violation of policy. The fact that people who presumed guilt of rape are defended on BLP grounds is a sad comment on allowing public individuals to attack private ones, and then have their careers advanced for it, but not be exposed for such reprehensible things to the general public.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it didn't appear in the article I removed the category from the Article. It sounds like you are trying to Righting the Great Wrongs. Using a category as a Scarlet Letter really brings to mind to me a BLP issue. I notice that on Lee D. Baker this information was removed from the article. Why should the Scarlet Letter stand if the information can't even be posted in the article?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think people misunderstand what is meant by the "Group of 88" and are approaching this issue with too narrow a focus. I've seen ridiculous arguments along the lines of "they just signed their name" or "it was just one document" etc but this misses the point quite spectacularly. The 88 were a group of staff who turned against their own students, young people they were paid to support and teach. The topic "group of 88" includes not just the first letter that was signed but also the second document which was pretty awful in its own way too. The topic includes the malpractice that occurred on campus, with stunning correlation between acts against the students and membership of the 88. These acts included horrific insults aimed at the victim's mothers, failing students who had actually passed courses and racially abusing the victims. The 88 thanked "protestors making collective noise" but this "noise" consisted of protestors going to the victim's houses early in the morning, calling one them to confess to a crime they hadn't committed whilst demanding their castration. The victims were also assaulted. Perhaps most significant of all is just how united the 88 are, as seen by the second document and the comments of the members in the years following the scandal, even after the person they supported so wholehearetdly went on to commit murder. To my knowledge only one out of the whole 88 distanced themselves from the group and offered to apologise, and even they failed to do so in the end, and others actually seem rather proud of their actions. The 88 hounded victims of a crime out of their own university, now I can understand some fell this might not be best served by a cat in some people's opinions, but whatever the case, there's no doubt that it certainly is very defining, not least for any who still stand by what they did.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's my understanding the second letter was signed by only 87, not all of whom where a part of the original 88. They expressly state that they firmly stand behind the principle of presumption of innocence and reject all attempts to try the case outside of court. They also claim the intent of their original was misunderstood. You can cherry pick which ever part of the letter you like but I see no reason to ignore that. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its certainly true that the second letter completely contradicts the first.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The so-called "Group of 88" does not exist and never has existed. Instead, 88 people signed a newspaper ad, and that was ill-advised in retrospect. There is nothing "defining" about signing a newspaper ad, except in the imaginations of POV pushers. This categorization is part of an aggressive, BLP violating campaign to demonize people, and is utterly inappropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am sorry that my above comments have been too emotional. I still believe that this is a cohesive group, well defined by their open, public statement of intent, and their willingness to hold to it in spite of overwhelming evidence. The fact that there are concerted attempts to surprssed well-sourced mentions of involvement from some articles should also be taken into account.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining, and the overwhelming evidence is that such a category does not belong at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There was no actual "group" to which these people joined - it's a term coined to cover those who put their names to the ad. It seems to be used in order to denigrate these people as a whole (including, as we have so sadly seen here, for Wikipedia editors to use to denounce them all as racists - we do not know whether any individual is actually in any way racist, and making such allegations is a gross BLP violation). Anyway, group or no group, it's certainly not a defining characteristic. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Stipulating that the sources do identify people as being a member of this group, what is the problem with having the category?Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
because it's not a defining characteristic. It's just a petition they signed - we don't build categories of 'senators who voted for bill #892' even if such a vote garnered a ton of press - simarly we rarely categorize people by membership in a club, and most aware categories are deleted for the same reason. When a biography is written of most of these professors, the fact they signed this ad will not be in the first paragraph. The number of true things about a person is vastly larger than the number if things we allow categories to be build around.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those really aren't the most convincing arguments TBH. It's true that in the overwhelming majority of cases "the fact they signed this ad will not be in the first paragraph" but nor will material relating to plenty of other categories. Almost every bio is categorised by a person's alma mata, yet it's not so often we see that mentioned in the lede. Their place of birth often isn't found there, nor their religion, ethnicity, ancestry or sexuality, yet all those things get categorised as and even the school a person attended does too in many articles. In most cases, membership of the group of 88 is significantly more defining than say aspects of a person's childhood, their skin colour, where their grandparents were born or details simply relating to their personal life. It's an extremely controversial group and one they, as adults, chose to be a part of. Perhaps this is just making a case here for much less categorisation throughout Wikipedia, but whatever the case, your argument doesn't really work here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
many of those other standard biographical details are more or less considered as exceptions to the defining rule.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a defining characteristic if the sources state it as such?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sources state it is a defining characteristic ? I'd question the reliability of such a source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2014 (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:Tornidae 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: upmerge category, keep stub template. Remove "parent-only" from Category:Hypsogastropoda stubs. – Fayenatic London 11:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Exhaustive search of permanent category did not turn up enough new members to justify a stub category. Propose deleting category and upmerging template to Category:Hypsogastropoda stubs. Dawynn (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mishehu. Steam5 (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2014 (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:Staszów County geography 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: upmerge category, keep stub template. – Fayenatic London 11:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very underpopulated for a stub category, yet CatScan turns up no more hits. Propose deleting this category and upmerging template to Category:Świętokrzyskie geography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2014 (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:People by ethnic or national descent by continent

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think two "by's" are not good. -- CN1 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've realised my problem is with "national descent". The phrase "People by continent of ethnic descent" makes perfect sense. Personally, I don't think "national descent" (birthplace of parents/grandparents) is a defining characteristic. By that logic Prince William, Duke of Cambridge should be put under Category:English people of Greek descent! I think this part of the tree should be proposed for deletion leaving just the ethnicity ones. SFB 22:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
⁂ What about simply Category:People by continent of descent? Doesn't the sole word "descent" already incorporate the meaning "ethnic or national descent"? <br\> And why not put Prince William in the category "..of greek descent"? There have to be some wikipedians who use this category, otherwise they wouldn't have created it. Personally I cannot get enough categories, if they are clearly defined, they never cause any problems and I'd argue they always bring a higher degree of clarity to the existing amount of pages and categories. -- CN1 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the simpler Category:People by continent of descent. As far as I am aware, there are no other types of descent that people have that aren't included here. On the other point, I specifically mentioned the case of Prince William because the Greek descent category would be misleading and distracting for him. Such a definition actually oversimplifies – he is neither culturally or ethnically Greek, and neither were his forebears. Grouping him and Marina Sirtis together clearly does not fulfil the purpose of the category structure (to help readers find similar articles on a given topic). SFB 16:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How far back do we go? For Latinos, do we go all the way back to Spain? Likewise, for US folks and Canadians, do we go back to Britain, France, Germany, Scandinavia, etc.? The descent category breaks down if we're going to assume that white Americans come from America while black Americans are traced back to Africa even though most black US families were already in the States well before the Irish, Italian, and Eastern European migrations. How many generations back to white folks get before they aren't traced back to Europe? Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposer here, had a namechange. I don't have the slightest idea, more wikipedians from the anthropology group would be needed but they are not answering, even though I posted on their talk page. I do know however, that this is an important, but at the same time sidetracking discussion, as it doesn't matter for this Cfd one bit, as it is about the syntax of the title, and for this problem, one does only need grammar and logic. -- CN1 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2014 (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:Former provinces of the Republic of China

[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:Provinces of the Republic of China (1912–49). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with main article Republic of China (1912–49). Although there is a history page at History of the Republic of China, these former provinces relate to the years stated. Note that this category has a new parent Category:Republic of China (1912–49). – Fayenatic London 08:50, 7 July 2014 (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:LGBT nobility

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete.With the exception of perhaps one or two people, virtually no one on this list can be verified as someone who identified as homosexual--this list is almost entirely retroactive speculation. For example, Pope Benedict IX is listed under this category, despite there no concrete evidence of there ever being an LGBT pope. Besides, 'Gay Royalty' already covers the aforementioned category in my view. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and Keep This category is a natural head to the descending categories and has a well-defined scope. Non-relevant categorisations should be removed per normal process when the existence of the category is not inherently problematic (e.g. Category:Stupid popes). Gay royalty does not cover the same scope as Gay is not the same as LGBT, and royalty is not the same as nobility. SFB 17:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As poorly regulated magnet for unsourced, ahistorical attempts to impose modern understanding on historical figures, who did not see the world in the same terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A potential magnet for ahistorical POV pushing. Gamaliel (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Trim And Delete Gay Royalty. Nobility can imply Royalty, But Royalty doesn't seem to necessarily imply Nobility. LGBT also has a broader scope than gay. Fixing and retaining this category seems to be the better option.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be delete. I ask of an administrator that the proper actions be taken at this point. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2014 (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/2014_July_7&oldid=1140185703"