Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 27

October 27

Harrow School

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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging the following to Category:People educated at Harrow School

Category:Barristers educated at Harrow School
Category:Bishops educated at Harrow School
Category:British MPs educated at Harrow School
Category:Clergy educated at Harrow School
Category:Diplomats educated at Harrow School
Category:Government ministers educated at Harrow School
Category:Judges educated at Harrow School (upmerge also to Category:Judges educated at British public schools)
Category:Lord Lieutenants educated at Harrow School
Category:Members of the British Royal Household educated at Harrow School

Nominator's rationale: - there has been as yet no consensus expressed for the existence of this type of category ('occupation/status' intersected by 'secondary school'). Moreover there is already an impressive List of Old Harrovians organised by occupation/status (not the case for Eton) which serves a similar function more clearly amd more comprehensively. These have all been created and populated in the last few days by Rathfelder. It may be that a 2nd upmerge is needed in some of these: eg in this edit Rathfelder has removed both school and barrister categories on the (false) assumption that barristers educated at Harrow are English (Harrow is an international school). Oculi (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom. Oculi (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back, I can see that the parent category is too large but a by-century split would be far more natural than a split by a later occupation that people did not have yet when they were at this school. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back per both. We don't want a whole group of these. Do lists if you must. Wikidata queries are also available. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The links between public school education and these prestigious occupations is well documented. This education is far more significant and defining than where they were born.Bigwig7 (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2022 (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:NATO member countries and the Russo-Ukrainian war

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 5#Category:NATO member countries and the Russo-Ukrainian war

Wildfire seasons

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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2020 wildfire seasons to Category:Lists of wildfires in 2020
Propose renaming Category:2021 wildfire seasons to Category:Lists of wildfires in 2021
Propose renaming Category:2022 wildfire seasons to Category:Lists of wildfires in 2022

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with surrounding categories. The member articles do not use "season" in their titles. The North American wildfire sub-categories should be removed as they do not only contain lists. – Fayenatic London 11:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no existing scheme (eg Category:Lists of wildfires in 2019) and the articles contained (such as 2020 California wildfires) are already adequately categorised. Oculi (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but these are now part of Category:Lists of wildfires by year within Category:Lists of disasters by year. The contents are list pages rather than articles on individual fires. In many other hierarchies we do build list categories rather than only allowing lists to be categorised with the event articles. – Fayenatic London 07:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while the articles contain a list, they aren't lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Example pages like 2022 California wildfires often have their own category Category:2022 California wildfires as a sub-subcategory of Category:2022 wildfires 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 04:09, 1 November 2022 (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 of United Empire Loyalist descent

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 (again). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People of United Empire Loyalist descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination following User talk:Qwerfjkl#Deletion of Category: People of United Empire Loyalist descent. Qwerfjkl talk 21:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, StarTrekker, Marcocapelle, Peterkingiron, Mugtheboss, and RevelationDirect: pinging editors involved in this earlier CfD discussion. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. "It was the defining characteristic of the politics of two provinces which did not exist prior to the arrival of ..." is a very weak argument. The concept of definingness refers to the articles in the category, i.e. the question is whether it is consistently attributed to the people of these biographies. If there were a category with articles about the politics of the people of United Empire Loyalist descent then the argument would make sense, but that is not what this category is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I'm a little unclear on the process here since it seems to already be deleted.) Not only is it unclear and not necessarily defining of people as mentioned before but it is the kind of vague claim to descent that is sometimes claimed without any basis. There are many historically interesting waves of immigration into Canada which are nonetheless not defining or even well-documented as having any significance among the descendants. Dan Carkner (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being descended from someone who held a specific political leaning is not defining.★Trekker (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The category is intentionally left deleted. It would be undeleted and repopulated if this discussion had consensus to delete. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I do not know enough of the politics of Upper Canada (now Ontario) to know how important UEL descent was in the 19th century. The person who asked for a review cited sons/daughters of the American Revolution as a US equivalent. I would suggest that after a certain date (say, 1850/1867/1900) UEL descent should be regarded as non-defining, but before that it might be permissible. I am not formally voting as I do not know enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, any response?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:57, 27 October 2022 (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:Tumblr

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 5#Category:Tumblr

Category:Buildings where murder took place

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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Buildings where murder took place (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This seems like a trivial category. I know some buildings may be famous for being the site of a murder, but the way this is worded seems a little vague to me. QueenofBithynia (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the rationale seems to imply that a rename instead of a deletion might be an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to a rename, but I can't think of a better term for this category, which is why I'm proposing deletion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories have utility. What is the utility here? Seems more trivial and slippery-slope ish. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2022 (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 involved in ongoing legal cases

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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People involved in ongoing legal cases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I created this article, but I don't think its very good (and probably too vague re 'involvement'). Can't think of a good way to rename this so I'm proposing deletion, unless someone has a good way of renaming this. QueenofBithynia (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree it's not an appropriate use of Wikipedia's categories - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news service - and the inclusion is so vague to be of any use, could included anyone from alleged murderers on trial to people disputing a parking ticket. Sionk (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is never a good idea to categorize by something "ongoing" because it will end at some point of time (unless I oversee legal specificities) and is thus not very defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: How do you feel about Category:Ongoing events and all its subcategories? Do you think they should all be deleted too? QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just wanted to mention that this category was created by a sockpuppet who is also the nominator here. However, categories that are being used can not be tagged CSD G5 for speedy deletion. They could have removed the pages from it and tagged it was CSD G7 but for some reason, they wanted to come here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 3 November 2022 (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:Poets of the early Islamic period

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 5#Category:Poets of the early Islamic period

Category:Female Sahabah

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 5#Category:Female Sahabah

Template:1993s-feature-film-stub

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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Template:1993s-feature-film-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1993s feature film stubs (added 2 Nov)

Nominator's rationale: Nonsense template. Firstly, we stubsort films by decade, not by individual year; secondly, even if we did stubsort films by individual year it would be "1993", not "1993s"; and thirdly, we don't stubsort films for "feature" status at all, and a feature film just gets "film" stub tags, not "feature-film" stub tags. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above logic. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2022 (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.