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 category is a subcategory of other video game categories. It seems to me that the trading card game doesn't belong there and should be moved to the base category.ZXCVBNM (TALK)11:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 text of this category includes "This category collects birds called "buntings" and/or traditionally placed in the Emberizidae, regardless of their actual relationships. Its contents do not form a natural group ...". It thus fails SHAREDNAME and OVERLAPCAT (with Category:Emberizidae). DexDor(talk)20:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a credible search term, covering a group of birds, mostly of one family: would it not be better to make this a dab-category or category-redirect rather than deleting? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:NBA players' association current and former members
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 NBA and NBPA have a collective bargaining agreement that covers all NBA players. This is how all of the major sport unions work (in North America at least). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The VPs I looked at seemed defined by being players but not by their union involvement. (The Executive Directors generally do seem definined by the players association and there are MLB and NFL categories for ED.) RevelationDirect (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Depending on the state's labor laws where the team is based, either all or (in practice) most of the players would be in the union for each team.RevelationDirect (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
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.
Keep - 2 articles, 2 files and 2 redirect categories. Plenty enough to navigate to and from. Are you on a crusade lately Koavf to make navigation harder for content you don't care for? --Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, only two articles in the category. The files and redirect categories do not add any substantive information to the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Gonnym. I looked at several of the redirects and they were all useful targeted redirects. A redirect can be just as useful as an article. Oculi (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 categories for redirects shouldn't even be placed in articles (content) categories. Most categories for redirects show a notice stating that. DexDor(talk)19:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, only one article in the category. The file and redirect categories do not add any substantive information to the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't share the aversion to redirects, which IMO should be treated as articles (as they used to be). Oculi (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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, only one article in the category. The file and redirect categories do not add any substantive information to the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The redirects lead to the main article which already contains the image file in the infobox. There is no navigational benefit here of going directly from redirect to image file. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't share the aversion to redirects, which IMO should be treated as articles (as they used to be). Oculi (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Terrorist incidents attributed to the Incel subculture
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 was evidently created in a bit of a rush. Many of the articles that were put under this category (but have since been removed), particularly the 2009 Collier Township shooting and the 2014 Isla Vista killings, have not been officially, retroactively recognized as terrorist attacks by authorities and/or WP:RS, even after years. The only one that would qualify for such a categorization at this time would be the 2020 Toronto machete attack, which is being prosecuted as a terrorist attack. At this point, the success of the category is highly dependent on the incel ideology being recognized as a terrorist ideology, which has yet to happen. Love of Corey (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I understand what is meant by incel subculture, but it seems ephemeral compared to a terrorist organization who claims responsibility for an act. How do we determine the true motivations of the person causing the act? What makes sexual frustration the primary factor versus other reasons for homicidal action? A list allows for these nuances along with sources, while categorization does not. Senator2029“Talk”12:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The whole set of "Terrorist incidents" categories is a horrible POV mess, in which the term "terrorism" is repeatedly used as if it was an objectively-assessed fact, rather than a value-laden pejorative term. I don't see this particular category as being significantly more problematic than the rest of that category tree. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A renaming would be just as problematic, considering the Collier Township and Isla Vista attacks occurred before the incel subculture became prominent. I highly doubt either of the perpetrators were aware of it, judging by the WP:RS on their articles. Love of Corey (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why the word attributed is used. While the Collier Township and Isla Vista perpetrators might not have associated themselves with the incel subculture per se, they are still highly idealized by members of this subculture and shared similar sentiments. Almost every news article about the incel movement mentions the either the Collier Township and especially the Isla Vista attacks. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, "attributed" means to be linked to something, essentially. How can these guys be linked to something that didn't exist at the time? Love of Corey (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so that is apparently one of the reasons that the articles in the category do not prominently discuss incel. So this is more reason to delete the category per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The articles I checked were already well categorized by location, year, type of attack etc. If not deleted then rename to something like "Violent incidents ..." or "Murders ...". DexDor(talk)19:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Celibacy can be attributed to be involuntary for so many people that there is a serious problem in definition here. I vividly remember that the 2016 Nice truck attack perpetrator's recent separation from his wife was widely cited among the chief factors leading to this terrible event, and I therefore guess that it must not be hard to find someone from the "incel culture" ready to recognize him as one of them, and maybe they did. That's how grey this notion gets. Also, to talk about terrorism one would expect a minima the intention to use terror in the general population for a political gain, and I do not see the will to reach either terror or political gain in these incidents. Anger and misanthropy do not equal terrorism. Place Clichy (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 - This is an unnecessary layer as the single subcategory is adequately categorised. I am not sure that Place Clichy is correct. This is (or was) an imperial (now Commonwealth) award, which would be awarded by the Queen (or rather the Governor-General on her behalf) on the recommendation of the Canadian Prime Minister. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.