Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 8 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_8

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 16:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Adventurer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Adventurer by nationality‎ - added later
• Propose deleting Category:American adventurer‎ - added later
• Propose deleting Category:British adventurers‎ - added later

Nominator's rationale: Very subjective category. Only 9 actual articles, mostly about people better categorised as climbers, rowers, explorers etc. Rathfelder (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have taken the liberty to add the three subcats to the nomination, because without them the nomination would be entirely pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs)
• Support amended nomination per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srleffler (talk • contribs)

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 result of the discussion was: delete. I have made a list at Help talk:Using colours in case it is useful to check and tick off the current members of the category. – Fayenatic London 17:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There are several problems with this category:

1. Articles must be added directly to this category, so it is impossible to tell which image is claimed to have the accessibility problem.
2. This is more of a problem with the files themselves, rather than the articles that use those images. Category:Images with accessibility problems attempts to address this.
3. Many of the images on these pages are hosted at Commons, a project that is outside of our scope.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The problem is with the images, not the articles, and there's already a category to identify images which pose accessibility problems. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now until an alternative strategy is put forward. While I take the proposer's point that the problem is the images rather than the articles, the fact is editors fix articles rather than images. There are several reasons for retaining the category:
  1. Highlighting the article can lead to a more effective solution because it gives editors the option to either fix the image or perhaps find an alternative solution for the article. This is especially useful if the images are hosted on the Commons and thus outside of Wikipedia's jurisdiction.
  2. The category has the potential to be far more embracing than it currently is. For example, the biggest offender is actually tables that use background highlighting. You can't categorize a table but you can categorize an article containing a table. I would actually take this opportunity to generalize the category to Category:Articles with color schemes not understandable by color blind users. Perhaps a tag could be created to complement this approach.
  3. The category actually contains an extremely useful bit of advice that I have referred editors to in the past. That is the color combinations that are typically accessible: Category:Articles_with_images_not_understandable_by_color_blind_users#Tips_for_editors. Admittedly this could be just transferred to the MOS, but it needs to be somewhere.

IMO simply deleting this category without putting something else in its place would be a step backwards for Wikipedia's accessibility ambitions. Betty Logan (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Betty Logan: How does this category help when you have to manually tag the page with the file that has an image? In other words, wouldn't the person that found this issue be the most likely to fix it rather than tagging it and moving on? (I'm not being rhetorical; I really want to understand how this would help. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the category exists and contains articles suggests this is not always the case. It may not always be possible to fix the problem straight away if another image has to be created or sourced. If there was never any use for the category then it would be perpetually empty. Color blindness is a fairly common affliction and we need a coherent strategy for tackling the issue. As I said I am not opposed to replacing the category with an alternative system but I think simply removing a mechanism that helps us deal with the issue is a step backwards. Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, same reasons as Betty Logan. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 01:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless changes are made so that this category is populated by a template (which would be placed in the article code next to the offending image). This category should work in the same way as other maintenance categories. DexDor ^(talk) 06:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• REQUEST If this discussion results in deleting the category could the closing admin first please copy over the "Tips for Editors" and "Useful utilities" sections over to Help:Using colours. Persuading editors to use color schemes compatible with color-blindness will be far more difficult if there is no advice to guide this process. Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You can move that material now; category pages aren't the appropriate place for info like that. DexDor ^(talk) 18:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done - Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless changes are made per DexDor. While I support the goal here, the category seems so manual as to be of limited benefit to the Encyclopedia in practice. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 12 May 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 result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Prison administrators. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Prison governors to Category:Prison officials‎

Nominator's rationale: Only 4 actual articles, sub categorised as Gulag governors‎. The Prison officials‎ hierarchy is better populated, and there doesnt seem a good reason to separate prison governors from other prison officials. Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternate merge: Merge to Category:Prison administrators--Srleffler (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt merge, prison governors and prison administrators are too similar to separate. Note that I have meanwhile populated Category:Prison governors by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Very happy to merge administrators in as well. Rathfelder (talk) 21:22, 19 May 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 result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 16:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American pornographers of Italian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Jewish American pornographers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Classic WP:OCEGRS. These combinations of nationality, occupation and ethnicity are not recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right, and substantial and encyclopedic head articles cannot be written for these categories. As far as I know only two categories of this type exist, both created on the same day by the same editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Triple intersection of no defining relevance. Categories like this, which intersect nationality and occupation with ethnicity, are proliferating like kudzu, but they're not very often relevant or defining. The porn doesn't change just because somebody involved in it was Italian. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• How do you know? Rathfelder (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to know a damn thing. Reliable sources have to show us that there's a difference. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is a textbook WP:OCEGRS case. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator as confirmed by Marcocapelle. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish American pornographers as a notable intersection, delete American pornographers of Italian descent as trivial. Has any of you actually done any, you know, research? The fact that from the 1970s through the 1990s (at least), American Jews predominated in the American pornographic industry has been the subject of serious scholarly research. (You might want to start with Jews & Sex (2008), ed. Nathan Abrams, and Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (2014), Josh Lambert.) Italian American pornographers, not that I know of. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, WP:OCEGRS states that If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. We have no such article, and I'm still not sure there would be enough content to make one. Most importantly, after looking at a few articles in this category, I see than none of them develop any specific content to this would-be connection between American Jews and early pornography, they are just there because they are, at the same time, Jew (or have a Jewish parent) and a pornographer (see Nina Hartley, Ron Jeremy, Jamie Gillis, James Deen, Abella Danger, Alain Siritzky, Jenna Jameson, Raylene etc.) Of notice, in the article about Ralph Ginzburg, an early pornographer condemned for obscenity, § Contributing factors to Ginzburg's conviction mentions part of an international communist plot and makes no mention at all about Judaism, while citing Justice Felix Frankfurter, a Jew, among those who condemned him. Place Clichy (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for proving my point. There is no requirement that such an article exist, merely that one could be written. And I have cited sources with which one could write such an article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Proving which point exactly? There are plenty of people who are at the same time Jewish and a pornographer (and probably plenty of Hindus and Anglicans as well), but articles in this category never mention any link that would go beyond pure coincidence, so they would not belong anyway in a category which topic would be the fact that from the 1970s through the 1990s (at least), American Jews predominated in the American pornographic industry. Place Clichy (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Place Clichy (talk) 18:23, 22 May 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 result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fashion executives to Category:Businesspeople in fashion

Nominator's rationale: Small and unnecessary sub category. Not well differentiated from the parent category. Most of the Businesspeople are executives. Rathfelder (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Note that out of parent Category:Corporate executives, all other subcategories are sorted by position (e.g. Chief marketing officers) rather than by industry, which is what Businesspeople by industry seems to be made for. Place Clichy (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 22 May 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 result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Identity theft reporters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for a non-defining characteristic. The one person filed here is certainly a technology reporter, which means that identity-theft stories will sometimes come up on his beat, but "identity theft" is not his exclusive specialty -- and, in fact, "identity theft journalism" is not even its own unique species of journalism specialty at all, but is just regular news reported by regular journalists rather than by a dedicated "identity theft reporter". So just having reported an identity theft story is not a defining characteristic of a journalist per se, because he's reported lots of other kinds of stories too, and even if it were its own dedicated journalism beat there would still have to be a lot more than just one person to file in it before a category for it was justified. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Categories are for organizing groups of related, definable items, this doesn't do either. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:NONDEFINING--Srleffler (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Another category from the same (long-gone) problematic editor who created Category:Correspondents. Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The one article is well categorised so no need to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and above. WP:NONDEFINING certainly applies here, unless journalists and reporters exclusivity operate in a field than they should not be categorized by subject. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:55, 15 May 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 result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:State University of New York reporters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is not a category for journalists who report about the State University of New York as a topic, it is a category for journalists who attended the State University of New York as an alma mater (and not even necessarily in an actual journalism program at all, but sometimes just people who got a BA from SUNY in some other field before going on to graduate studies in journalism at some other university.) Which means this is not a defining intersection for the purposes of justifying a dedicated category for them. Upmerging not needed, as everybody here is already appropriately subcategorized as an alum of their specific SUNY campus. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wow, now there's an intersection I'd never thought of: alma mater X occupation. Yikes. Let's nip that one in the bud! Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless, narrow overlap category.--Srleffler (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- As far as I can make out this is an alumni category by occupation. I had a job working that out as none of the articles that I sampled explained it. I would have called for a merge but for Bearcat assuring us that is unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 12 May 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 result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 16:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Ebebiyín to Category:Ebebiyín

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles in this category. Ebebiyín is a town in Equatorial Guinea of some 37.000 people. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Two buildings is not enough to need a dedicated "Buildings and structures in [Town]" category. Both of the structures here are already in other appropriate subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures in Equatorial Guinea, so upmerging in that direction is not needed. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.--Srleffler (talk) 20:17, 11 May 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 result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 16:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ambeļi Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Biķernieki Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Demene Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Dubna Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Kalkūne Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Kalupe Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Laucesa Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Līksna Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Maļinova Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Medumi Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Naujene Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Nīcgale Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Saliena Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Skrudaliena Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Svente Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Tabore Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Vabole Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Vecsaliena Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Višķi Parish to Category:Daugavpils Municipality and add main article to Category:Parishes of Latvia

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1-4 articles per category, and on average only some 1500 people living in each of these parishes. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- These are too small entities to need their own category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom : SMALLCAT. Place Clichy (talk) 18:23, 22 May 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 result of the discussion was: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:UCUM units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:UCUM derived units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:UCUM base quantities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: These categories are inherently nondefining, since UCUM is "a code system intended to include all units of measures being contemporarily used in international science, engineering, and business."[1] None of the listed units are "defined" as UCUM units. The set of "UCUM Units" is the set of all units in current use. The set of "UCUM derived units" is the set of all units in current use, except for the seven UCUM base units. WP:NONDEFINING, WP:OVERLAPCAT

Category:UCUM derived units should be deleted without merging. The contents of Category:UCUM units could be merged into Category:Unified Code for Units of Measure.

Category:UCUM base quantities should also be deleted. It's nondefining, and also pointless because UCUM is a system for coding units, not physical quantities.

Srleffler (talk) 04:07, 8 May 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 result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Hypericum species named after a person

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME

Hypercium (aka "St. John's wort") is a widespread plant with many varieties: Hypericum canariense is named for the Canary Islands, Hypericum perforatum is named because small clear spots give it a perforated appearance, and this category groups varieties named after people, mostly botanists who didn't have any clear connection to the plants. We do have a whole tree of Category:Botanical taxa by author for the botanists who identified the plant but no similar sibling categories for plants named after people. All 4 articles are already in the Category:Hypericum parent category so no upmerge is needed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We subcategorize species for their discoverer, sometimes, but most certainly not for trivial characteristics of how they got their name. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 8 May 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 result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 16:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Buildings and structures named after companies

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:SHAREDNAME

I've created some subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures by company like Category:Coca-Cola buildings and structures to group related articles, in that case mostly bottling plants. But this category groups any building named after any company. While it only has 8 articles now it certainly doesn't suffer from WP:SMALLCAT and could grow dramatically. I'm trying to imagine a reader who would want a direct navigation path between an insurance building in London (Lloyd's building) and hockey stadium hosting a college team in Minnesota that Verizon previously had naming rights to (Mankato Civic Center, formerly Verizon Arena). - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- WP:SHAREDNAME is not a good basis for a category, particularly since the naming of sports stadiums is a brand of advertising. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 12 May 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 result of the discussion was: delete. I have added "see also" links between the contents. – Fayenatic London 19:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Greta Garbo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT; WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 15:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Such categories are useful containers. How else can one navigate from article about GG to Category:Cultural depictions of Greta Garbo? Or right now, this category lists movies she played in, until a category for such movies is created, there's no place to upmerge them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The real question is whether there should be a subcat for "Films starring Greta Garbo". AFAIK there are no such categories; there is a long-standing concensus against categories of that general sort. But perhaps a case can be made that some super-stars are so exceptional that their presence is defining for any movie they appear in. Just throwin' that out for possible discussion. In the likely event that we don't move in that direction, all of the films should be removed from this category. (Note: the bio article does include a complete filmography.) Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories such as Category:John Wayne films were all deleted at cfd long ago; eg this in 2007. I personally think the star of a film is defining; whether this extends to all 5 in Ocean's Eleven is moot. (One always says the early Bond movies starred Connery ... it would be in the first few words of any review of Dr. No (film). Yet the film is categorised by 1 director, 2 producers, 3 screenplays and no actors.) Oculi (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PERFCAT, there should be no category for films she starred in. --woodensuperman 16:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of WP:PERFCAT, which seems to contradict the fact that some films are defined by their star(s). Oculi (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question that comes up with actor's defining films/TV is who counts as a star? For instance, Humphrey Bogart defined the Maltese Falcon but not the Caine Mutiny according to me but others might have other perspectives. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as a useful container category plus it might make sense to spin-off a Garbo filmography article from the main article. Pichpich (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Purge if Kept The loose articles in this category would be fine to list in a filmography article, but the category should be purged if kept per WP:OCASSOC. I don't see the category as aiding navigation and favor outright deletion. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Down merge to Category:Cultural depictions of Greta Garbo‎. The Images cat can go in that too. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Piotrus. It's basically a meta category (the contents are two subcategories and the Greta Garbo article), and it would be rather absurd to say that Greta Garbo was an image of Greta Garbo or that Greta Garbo was a cultural depiction of Greta Garbo. Unless we delete the subcategories, we need somewhere to put them. Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all content has been interlinked already because is the article Greta Garbo is referred to in the header of Category:Cultural depictions of Greta Garbo‎, so there is no good reason to bypass WP:OCEPON. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it seems that any mention of Garbo gets an article into Category:Cultural depictions of Greta Garbo‎; how defining is a cultural depiction of Greta Garbo as merely a lyric in Vogue (Madonna)? These trivial references belong in an article rather than cluttering up categories on every article that references another article being a "cultural depiction" Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One subcategory of articles doesn't need an eponymous parent. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PERFCAT; WP:OCEPON. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 22 May 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 result of the discussion was: rename as Category:General Electric chief executive officers, etc. – Fayenatic London 06:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming: Category:CEOs of General Electric to Category:General Electric chief executives or Category:General Electric chief executive officers

• Category:CEOs of CBS to Category:CBS chief executives or Category:CBS chief executive officers, or merge Category:CBS executives and Category:American chief executives in the media industry
• Category:CEOs of NBC to Category:NBC chief executives or Category:NBC chief executive officers, or merge Category:NBC executives and Category:American chief executives in the media industry

Nominator's rationale: Per the Foo people convention of evident in Category:General Electric people, Category:CBS executives, and Category:NBC executives. In the case of CBS and NBC, I defer to others whether it is useful to separate CEOs from other executives. (Pinging the categories' creators, User:BornonJune8 and User:Domesticenginerd) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename GE/Lean Toward Merge for CBS & NBC GE is clearly defining to the articles, and "chief executive" seems the most common. The articles in the two network categories seems to be acting, or also President so a general executive category seems best. No objection to the other options laid out by the nominator; all the options here are better than the status quo. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting pings: @Black Falcon and @RevelationDirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename in order not to use unnecessary abbreviations in category names. No objection against merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 8 May 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 result of the discussion was: merge all apart from Category:Buildings and structures in Rason. MER-C 10:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Kovel to Category:Kovel and Category:Buildings and structures in Volyn Oblast
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Leek, Netherlands to Category:Leek, Netherlands and Category:Buildings and structures in Groningen (province)
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Leszno to Category:Leszno and Category:Buildings and structures in Greater Poland Voivodeship
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Mariana, Minas Gerais to Category:Mariana, Minas Gerais and Category:Buildings and structures in Minas Gerais
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Meycauayan to Category:Meycauayan and Category:Buildings and structures in Bulacan
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Miño de Medinaceli to Category:Miño de Medinaceli and Category:Buildings and structures in the Province of Soria
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Mysłowice to Category:Mysłowice and Category:Buildings and structures in Silesian Voivodeship
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Piekary Śląskie to Category:Piekary Śląskie and Category:Buildings and structures in Silesian Voivodeship
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Pinsk to Category:Pinsk and Category:Buildings and structures in Brest Region
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Prienai to Category:Prienai and Category:Buildings and structures in Kaunas County
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Quba to Baku Governorate and Category:Buildings and structures in Azerbaijan
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Rason to Category:Rason
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in San Fernando de Apure to Category:San Fernando de Apure and Category:Buildings and structures in Apure
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Siedlce to Category:Siedlce and Category:Buildings and structures in Masovian Voivodeship
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Sonsón to Category:Sonsón

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in each of the nominated categories and in most cases also very few articles in the parent category. Category:Mysłowice is the best populated parent category with 13 articles. For reference, this is about the following places with numbers of people: Kovel (69.000), Leek, Netherlands (20.000), Leszno (64.000), Mariana, Minas Gerais (58.000), Meycauayan (209.000), Miño de Medinaceli (99), Myslowice (75.000), Piekary Śląskie (58.000), Pinsk (138.000), Quba (38.000), Rason (197.000), San Fernando de Apure (165.000), Siedlce (76.500), Sonsón (39.000). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a funny detail: the municipality of Miño de Medinaceli (99 people in 2004, meanwhile decreased to 84 people) consists of four different villages that each have their own article on es.wp. The smallest village has 5 people. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why don't you propose merging the Rason buildings to some part of Category:Buildings and structures in North Korea or the Sonsón buildings to some part of Category:Buildings and structures in Colombia? I don't see why we'd want to get these two articles out of the buildings-and-structures tree. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Because the article in Category:Buildings and structures in Rason is already in Category:Railway stations in North Korea and the article in Category:Buildings and structures in Sonsón is already in Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Colombia. Just generally, a dual merge is only meaningful if there is a buildings and structures category at a subnational level. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar applies to Quba, by the way. I have striken the second merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I should have thought it was reasonable to keep these categories for any city with a population of more than 100,000. That's a big place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. leaving permission to re-create a category if sufficient additional articles are created to make the category useful. – Fayenatic London 07:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Buildings and structures in Rason, wihich I've populated with 8 articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, keep that one. But the rest still only hold one or two pages, so they should be merged for now. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the nom, with the exception Category:Buildings and structures in Rason, which has many more entries then before. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:26, 10 August 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.