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 is for microprocessors that implement an ISA called the Power ISA, and describes itself as such, but it's title is missing "ISA", which could lead to it being confused with the earlier POWER ISA. 99Electrons (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - please clarify more. Aren't processors branded as "POWER processors", POWER processors, regardless of the ISA tweaks that might be present (perhaps because of evolving generations)? I don't see the distinction you are making, nor why it is useful to make that distinction, so as it stands, my vote would be to oppose. A really paranoid android (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The category is incorrectly titled. As stated in the category's introductory text, the category is for processors that implement the Power ISA, but the category's title does not reflect this. I don't understand why IBM's POWER processors are relevant to this discussion. 99Electrons (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Power Architecture is not a instruction set architecture, but an obsolete marketing term promoted by IBM during the mid- and late-2000s. That there is a Power Architecture article to which Power ISA redirects to is disappointing. Renaming the category as such will only serve to confuse and render Wikipedia more inaccurate. 99Electrons (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Support- this seems like a fine idea to me. In fact, I'd even merge the country categories into this one since it's a few dozen articles at most. ReykYO!11:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Counter-argument: Mistresses and adulterers are not the same, far from it. Many mistresses were single, adulterers were obviously married. And while being adulterers was a highly punishable crime, being mistress was not. Adulterers were cheating wives, while mistresses were lovers of married men, thus they are almost the opposite. Go-Chlodio (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This category is not meant to be subjective, but objective. While we can't be certain who was an adulteress and who was simply accused of being one, the description highlights this: Married highborn women who had an affair or were accused of having an affair.Go-Chlodio (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: How? Even the ancient Romans divided their people into the patricians and plebeians. This concept was continued during the medieval period, for the highborn enjoyed many legal privileges while the lowborn did not. Even the clergy was divided by the status of birth. Furthermore, both terms are recognised by Oxford Dictionaries. Go-Chlodio (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go-Chlodio, plenty of subjective things are in dictionaries. Tall, short, fat, thin, hot, cold: all subjective, all in dictionaries. How exactly do you define who is highborn, and who isn't? Where exactly is the cutoff? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might be on stronger ground if this was entitled "noble-born". The concept of nobility has very fuzzy edges, but it does at certain pints in history have some key markers. But "high born" just raises the question "how high"? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that noble is more subjective than highborn. As I explained, the highborn were always highborn even if they were tonsured. While the definition of noble varied by country, in England only the peers were considered noble, their children were not. Go-Chlodio (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go-Chlodio, that just confirms the severity of the definitional problems. In en.wp, categories appear on the bottom of the page as statements of fact, without any qualification or nuance beyond their title. So the titles need to be precise, and the category must do exactly what it says on the tin. Everything you have written here shows that the current title falls well short of that precision, and that alternative formulations are no better. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The creator's explanations clarify my initial impression that this is pure cruft.
The title consists of two words. The first "highborn" is irredeemably subjective. The second, "adultresses", is misleading because the creator explicitly states that it includes hose who were merely accused. There is long-standing guidance against categorising people by allegations, at WP:OPINIONCAT, for the simple reason that it's a vehicle for smears. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective. A category based on nobility might not be so bad, but we don't usually categorize people for being married, having a child out of wedlock etc. See also WP:DNWAUC. Those articles I checked didn't explicitly mention adultery in the lede. DexDor(talk)07:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is "adulteress" dubious in many of these cases, but "highborn" (not a word commonly used in British English these days) is entirely subjective. Deb (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we are willing to have Category:Highborn adulterers. We have never agreed that violating marriage vows is a defining characteristic of someone. Is this meant to take in the gentry as well as the notability? Does it default exclude all Americans, or are we going to try to work out highborn there to. Are we going to try to apply it to socieities from Hawaii to Tonga, to Madagascar, or just admit a limited scope? This is just a horrible, horrible plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Support, while there is no objection against the category per se (after all, research organizations is broader than research institutes), the way the category has been populated now does not make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2018 (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.
Nominator's rationale: There are many hundreds of wp articles about annelids (and thousands of species), but this by-location tree of 4 categories contains just 10 articles; even where the articles describe the distribution (e.g. at Glyphidrilus) the article creators have not chosen/bothered to categorize by location. One of the articles in this structure says it's "widely distributed around the world". It would be better to not pretend that we are categorizing annelids by location. Note: There are other forms of life (e.g. bacteria) that we don't categorize by location.
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.
Comment Right now, this category is empty but the category creator has created quite a few similar celebrity categories that might be nominated as well. LizRead!Talk!02:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for this. It reflects an opinion that is very debatable, for example many people don't consider Twin Snakes a "main series" game due to the liberties it takes. Also the name is very incorrect. ZXCVBNM (TALK)01:48, 29 December 2018 (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.