< August 16 August 18 >

August 17

Category:Centre for International Governance Innovation

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) 02:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A useless category containing only one article, which is itself basically advertorial. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is a container for four media files. I have no objection to deleting the category, but we should remove the category from the four files to prevent the category from reappearing on wiki/Special:WantedCategories Gjs238 (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2016 (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:Lesbian novels

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: renamed. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Lesbian novels to Category:Novels with lesbian themes
  • Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual novels to Category:Novels with transgender and transsexual themes
Nominator's rationale: These categories should conform with sister category Category:Novels with gay themes, which was renamed from Category:Gay novels with this CfD in 2009 on the basic grounds that people are gay, not novels. — TAnthonyTalk 22:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For now I was concerned with the consistency of these three subcategories of Category:LGBT novels, but yes, that is a much larger discussion I think may be necessary once I've done a little research on past CfDs. The other categories under LGBT novels are mostly novels by country, but at the way top of this hierarchy is Category:LGBT culture. In the many descendant branches we have a mix of "LGBT-related (insert your noun here)" or just "LGBT (noun)", as in Category:LGBT-related magazines or Category:LGBT literature.— TAnthonyTalk 00:12, 18 August 2016 (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 sportspeople at the 2016 Summer Olympics

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) SSTflyer 15:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:LGBT Olympians was previously deleted Joeykai (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Consensus for the previously deleted category nominator mentioned was to listify. I would support that here, but I don't feel strongly about deleting this category. Funcrunch (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every single other subcategory in that category is grouping athletes by the specific sport in which they competed — a distinction which is defining and encyclopedic as it has a direct bearing on what they're doing at the Olympics. None of the others is grouping athletes on a personal characteristic comparable to sexual orientation, such as their race, religion or ethnic background, that's tangential to their participation in the Olympics. That's why this category and not others: it's not grouping people on an equivalent basis to any of the others, but on a non-defining intersection of two distinct and unrelated traits. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2016 (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:Anti-abortion violence in fiction

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: there's consensus that WP:SMALLCAT no longer applies here. However, due to it also being part of a separate nomination here, its ultimate fate is still up in the air. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Anti-abortion violence in fiction into Category:Anti-abortion violence in media
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. The parent category currently only has two redirects in it (i.e, no articles directly) and there isn't too much potential for growth. Graham (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Fictional violence is fundamentally different than actual violence. --Zfish118⋉talk 20:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, are you arguing for a new non-fiction subcategory of Category:Anti-abortion violence in media? Because when there are so few articles in either category, it seems odd to separate out fiction but not non-fiction. Graham (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And bear in mind that Category:Anti-abortion violence in media is essentially empty right now. Graham (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just given a somewhat different opinion in that discussion than I did here, because the proposed action and rationale is completely different. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2016 (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:Our Lady of the Hens

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 30#Category:Our Lady of the Hens

"Pro-life" categories

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: There is consensus to rename all categories except for the American ones, which I find no consensus to rename. There were some valid concerns regarding moving the American categories away from the main article title, which is United States pro-life movement. While others still wanted those categories renamed for consistency reasons, it seems like that issue stems from inconsistencies within the article titles. If someone wants, this closure is without prejudice against a(n) WP:RM discussion on the matter. If the American article were to be moved from "pro-life" to "anti-abortion", then the categories could be moved via WP:C2D. However, unless that happens, the American categories will remain as-is. One last bit of housekeeping: since all but the American categories have been moved, I'm also accepting Graham's proposal that "Category:Anti-abortion violence in the United States and Category:Victims of anti-abortion violence in the United States (is) moved to Category:Pro-life violence in the United States and Category:Victims of pro-life violence in the United States, respectively, to remain consistent". -- Tavix (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: As a topic category, Category:Pro-life movement should be sharing a name with the article about its topic (Anti-abortion movements) and its subcategories should be following suit. As well, naming conventions in the category tree are currently inconsistent as part of the tree (Category:Anti-abortion violence and its subcategories) is already using terminology in line with the parent's main article.
To be clear, the primary issue here is not whether the term "pro-life" is neutral when used in Wikipedia's voice. That is a matter more appropriately handled at Talk:Anti-abortion movements (and it should be noted that the most recent requested move was not successful). Rather, this is about consistency of naming conventions both within the category tree and with the main article.
Additionally, I changed the spelling of the word "organizations" to "organisations" in the Austrian and Norwegian categories to conform to the Category:Organisations based in Austria tree and the Category:Organisations based in Norway tree, respectively. Graham (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham11: Are you user:Graham? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
@Ottawahitech: Nope – different Graham. I'm User:Graham11. Graham (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Presidentman: If we were to move all but the American categories, would you also want Category:Anti-abortion violence in the United States and Category:Victims of anti-abortion violence in the United States moved to Category:Pro-life violence in the United States and Category:Victims of pro-life violence in the United States, respectively, to remain consistent? Graham (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that, yes. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support that change. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the clarification (for the sake of the closer). Graham (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In practice, when to defer to regional variation and when to seek commonality seems to be a matter of judgment. "Anti-abortion" is not incomprehensible in American English so my vote is a preference for clarity but I respect your perspective too. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: I read MOS:ENGVAR quite differently. It doesn't seem to suggest that MOS:COMMONALITY is an optional component and you don't seem to be arguing that there is an exceptional reason why MOS:COMMONALITY would not apply here.
As well, I'm curious as to what you mean by "my vote is a preference for clarity". In what way is "anti-abortion" less clear than "pro-life"? Given Carlos's comment below, which misinterprets the usual scope of the term "pro-life" in American English, I would argue that "pro-life" is significantly less clear. Graham (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the terminology in an American context is pretty consistently "pro-life" and I think that's clearer. We routinely give deference to regional English, even when forcing a global term would still be comprehensible like we recently did here. Your goal of standardization is reasonable but, for me, it's outweighed by other considerations. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect:

Yes, the terminology in an American context is pretty consistently "pro-life" and I think that's clearer.

You're wrongly equating common usage and clarity. A term can be infrequently used (though, as an aside, this term is frequently used, as established in past RfCs) without suffering any loss of clarity, so it's disingenuous to suggest that your "vote is a preference for clarity".
Additionally, that doesn't address the issue of clarity with respect to the term "pro-life". The fact that it's been misunderstood in this very conversation by a long-time contributor speaks volumes, does it not? And if you believe "anti-abortion" to be unclear, in what way do you foresee it being misunderstood? Graham (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging RevelationDirect in case my question slipped under the radar. Graham (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham11: Since you already believe my comments here are "disingenuous", any response from me is unlikely to sway your opinion. I look forward to finding more common ground with you in a future nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: If I'm wrong about that – and I would sincerely love to be – you're welcome to explain how it's "a preference for clarity" and in what way you foresee the term being misunderstood. Graham (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Wiki content guidelines, unless it's a fringe position, it ought to be covered. Given that the US's oldest and largest right-to-life organization (http://www.nrlc.org/) under issues has euthanasia and assisted suicide, makes it clear that it's not a fringe position; given that the largest religious pro-life organization in the US, the Roman Catholic Church states "As a gift from God, every human life is sacred from conception to natural death. The life and dignity of every person must be respected and protected at every stage and in every condition. The right to life is the first and most fundamental principle of human rights that leads Catholics to actively work for a world of greater respect for human life and greater commitment to justice and peace." [1] Now, Wikipedia may consider NRLC and the Catholic Church fringe groups, but few people in the real world do so. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlos: If we're going to change what it is we mean by "pro-life", isn't that a decision to be made at Talk:Pro-life and/or the page to which Pro-life redirects? Surely you're not advocating that we contradict ourselves. Graham (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham11: I'm not the one trying to change what "pro-life" means; by limiting to abortion only, the nominator is. Perhaps this ought to be withdrawn and discussed at the talk page you refer to? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlos: This nomination was made merely to enforce the consensus-supported status quo. This matter has been discussed in the past. See, eg, the RfC referenced below. Merely enforcing a decision that has been made shouldn't require re-litigation of the broader issue, but if you're unhappy with the status quo, it would be your place to raise that in the appropriate forum. Graham (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham11: it's not the status quo, see, e.g., Helen Prejean in the category; I don't know what as an "activist" she's done for abortion, but she's been noted as pro-life for her anti-death-penalty stance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlos: The categorisation of one article does not make a "status quo" when a broader consensus has been reached. "Consensus among a limited group of editors [or one editor who added the category], at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." And a quick google search of that name with the term pro-life indicates that she is indeed anti-abortion as well. Graham (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, every Roman Catholic religious is, but she's not noted for that. And this status quo to which you are referring is a figment of your imagination. If these are re-named, are you going to purge anyone (especially WP:BLPs) who are not of the narrower definition you claim for the terminology? If not, this is a defamation magnet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlos:

Presumably, every Roman Catholic religious is, but she's not noted for that.

Perhaps in theory (if you ask the Vatican), but I'm sure that a number of women religious in the National Coalition of American Nuns and Catholics for Choice would beg to differ, as those articles clearly indicate.

And this status quo to which you are referring is a figment of your imagination.

Did you not read the RfC linked below (WP:RFC/AAMC) in which that issue is discussed?

If these are re-named, are you going to purge anyone (especially WP:BLPs) who are not of the narrower definition you claim for the terminology?

If you believe there to be anti-death-penalty activists who are not anti-abortion, yes, they should be removed if renamed (and possibly irrespective of renaming, as the category tree has always – since the category's creation – made clear that it is intended for anti-abortion activists). Graham (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Please ping me.[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.

Seattle

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: renamed according to Option A, meaning that "Washington" is removed. A clear majority supported Option A (my count was 15-6) and the majority had strong arguments to back up their claim. These include the fact that "Seattle" is a unique city name, and that the article is located at Seattle (C2D), backed up by WP:USPLACE. -- Tavix (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming according to one of the following options:
Rationale: All categories referring to this city should use the same name; prefer Option A per the articles about this city, i.e Seattle. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following are previous discussions related to this issue:

I have notified the participants of the 3 most recent discussions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Agreed. Category names don't follow WP:PRIMARYTOPIC... except when they do. See the penultimate discussion in the list above for the cases of "ambiguous" titles like "People from London" or "People from Moscow" that no one is likely to propose renaming. I accept that sometimes categories will need longer titles, but we should only resort to this when there's a real likelihood of miscategorization. That won't be a concern here. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only one in the US, perhaps. See my reply to pbp above. This is an odd application of American exceptionalism. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree with your argument about WP:USPLACE, but the fact that long-standing consensus linked to by the OP disregards that policy prevents me from supporting this specific case. I would welcome, and support, an en masse proposal to change categories of all cities exempted from USPLACE. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about renaming the Seattle article? RevelationDirect (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with that. New York City, Los Angeles, and maybe Chicago are the only U.S. cities I feel like I could support an exception to the "City, State" convention. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be okay with renaming Seattle to "Seattle, Washington," with a redirect from its current page. But that's not really the purpose of a CfD nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with changing all the articles per WP:COMMONNAME since states are usually given even with large American cities. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency between category and parent article is more important than between catagories. Categories exist in support of articles. If the categorisation of other AP listed articles are wrong, fix them. Subcategories should not be available for hidden or grass root naming convention battles. If something is wrong with the AP city list exceptions, CfD is not the venue to discuss it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any basis for disregarding the main article here. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And nothing is ever settled on Wikipedia unless nearly everyone agrees - we only have a moratorium for a while. This hasn't been discussed for over 3 years, and it was a "no consensus", not a consensus to do nothing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Mike Selinker, there are multiple Romes, Manchesters, Parises, and Londons. Would you support renaming Category:People from Rome, Category:People from Manchester, Category:People from Paris, and Category:People from London, then? If those titles are not problematic, how would "People from Seattle" be? --BDD (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have made this argument so many times without it being refuted that I really can't tell if it's that good of an argument or if supporters of the status quo find it somehow so ridiculous as to not merit a response... --BDD (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would think supporting renaming Seattle would indicate I'm ok with those renames as well (at least for me), but since that's not clear, I would support those renames as well, yes. Kbdank71 17:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support renaming Category:People from Rome to Category:People from Rome, Italy if that came up. But that's not the issue on the table. The issue on the table is that there are multiple Romes in the United States, and they need a state disambiguator. Maybe there's only one Seattle, but Las Vegas definitely needs a disambiguator, as there is Las Vegas, New Mexico in addition to Las Vegas, Nevada. So we shouldn't leave it up to individual editors to decide which get a disambiguator and which don't. It is much better to have a simple naming scheme, and hey, we have one for many hundreds of categories! City, then state.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We also have a naming scheme in mainspace: state name appended unless in the AP Stylebook. And we have a speedy renaming principle that categories should match their articles. A separate—and, as far as I can tell, unwritten—naming scheme layered on top of that only adds unnecessary complication and misunderstandings at CFDS. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix, Arizona and Washington, D.C. are exceptions to the exceptions.
Generally speaking, these cities are notable without reference to their state. The styling of these articles is long since and firmly established. Categorisation should follow suit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is selectively applying this to the articles but not the categories. Let's use AP for both or neither to allow for consistency with navigation for readers. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The categorization of Birmingham is often mentioned as an example in CFD discussions but I don't think that categorization makes any sense. Either "Birmingham" is ambiguous or it isn't. (It is.) RevelationDirect (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But one could easily see the status quo as an anomaly, the fixing of which would save us headaches down the road. CFDS sees perennial requests for renaming of such categories under criterion C2D. Perhaps they don't need to match article names, but that's a solid enough principle to merit speedy renaming. How many times do we have to explain to an editor "No, these are exceptions"? On the other hand, if we made the change, how often would we encounter requests for longer category titles? --BDD (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CfD is already a venue for silly titling proxy battles. It is important to stop that. If these categories continue to misnamed, they will continue to confuse editors concerning category titling convention, which is to follow the parent article. Category renaming tools are quite sophisticated and efficient, the work required to fix should not be a concern. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C2D Disregarding WP:C2D actually presents a real problem: it opens up the CFD discussion boards to start second guessing article names instead of just starting a RM on the article talk page. And the mismatches that result from this approach between article and category names hinder navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having reflected on C2D (which does favor article-category agreement), I'm willing to support option A, though I still have to hold my nose to do it. I dislike the idea of changing a huge number of stable category names to square with a single outlier, but at the same time I do like having all items within a class consistent, and agree that if the articles are titled x then it probably is better for the matching categories to be titled x as well. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "forcing a consensus"? --BDD (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jc37, could you clarify? --BDD (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The actual facts on the ground are that the articles about certain US cities don't use the state names, and this should be fixed - either by moving the articles or by renaming the categories. Personally, I support the latter, so I support Option A. I would also like to point out the immediate cause for this nomination (the category listed in Option B, where a speedy renaming request was rejected). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:16, 25 August 2016 (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:Christianity in Pagani

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: merged. -- Tavix (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT, too small town to have a separate Christianity category and there isn't even a Category:Pagani. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2016 (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:Wikibomb2014

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) SSTflyer 15:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Wikibomb2014 to Category:Articles created as part of Wikibomb2014
Nominator's rationale: From what I tell the other Category:Wikipedia edit-a-thons categories and pages are the actual meetup information and other materials, not the pages created by the edit-a-thons. Given the number of edit-a-thons that could potentially occur (especially 'improvement' ones rather than pure creation ones), I don't think we should categorize articles by how they were created. However, Category:Articles created as part of Punjab Editathon - 2016 has I think the right approach in that the category specifies it is for the articles created and is on the talk page not the mainspace page (even if not shown). Talk pages are an ugly mess of categories anyways so I propose a renaming of this category and a swap from mainspace to talk page for these pages. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages shouldnt be ugly mess if they have been tagged correctly. The problem with generic titles as such there is nothing about where who or what - I really think the location is as important as the date, as the whole edit events can be anywhere and confused if named with such universal names - so pointing to the punjab item is a good guide as to naming...qualificatory comments on mainspace should not be an issue - that is where most readers/users go first JarrahTree 10:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd actually prefer lists being created since most of the meetups include a list of editors and we can backtrack that easily. The advantage of that is that if these new editors start an article that is later deleted, I'd prefer keeping a red link around for later reference (or preferably, a draft). However, given the volume of these kinds of categories within Category:Wikipedia edit-a-thons (Category:Articles created or improved during ArtAndFeminism events alone is over 1400 pages across subcategories while Category:Cascadia Wikimedians User Group editathons is a bunch of small subcategories), maybe this is just an issue of first impression on this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do want to follow up and say I would also support a template on the talk page as a temporary measure during the actual creation so people don't just go around CSD similar things in volume without knowing what is going on (not as though they should anyways). The problematic pages then could either be WP:RM to draftspace rather than deleted. This one is from 2014 and perhaps just make it sort of a rule as part of the final cleanup to delete/TFD the template and listify the translucations into a list. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2016 (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 with strabismus

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) 03:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this condition defining for those included? Maybe (kind of) for Marty Feldman, but in general, I would suggest not. It's more like a physical quirk and generally does not dictate how the person is otherwise treated or thought of. Maybe a list could be produced, if entries could be cited to reliable sources. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2016 (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.
More