< February 8 February 10 >

February 9

Category:Factions of the Democratic Party (United States)

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: keep, but purge.
There was no discussion of @Marcocapelle's proposal to rename from "of" to "in". Feel free to open a new discussion on that idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I can understand why this was created, we already have Factions in the Democratic Party (United States) which does not seem to relate to this category. I'm also unclear about the criteria. Perhaps a rename with clearer criteria? Why is the DNC in this category? Or Democratic and liberal support for John McCain in 2008? Doug Weller talk 19:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, rename to Category:Factions in the Democratic Party (United States) per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Years in Japan (1000-1800)

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 before the year 1500. Keep thereafter.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT to decades. The large amount of year categories contain only one article, but there is sufficient content to keep decade categories. Only by the end of 16th century there is a sudden increase in the amount of articles, but not to the extent that merging would make the decade categories excessively large. In the 17th and 18th century the amount of articles drops back to the 'normal' level. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Colemak users

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: speedy delete per WP:G7. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U - narrow. —swpbT go beyond 15:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as creator of the category - I didn't read the rules! Clearly I'm in the wrong -NottNott|talk 16:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Twin musicians

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: no consensus, but there are some pointers here to suggest future nominations for specific parts of this hierarchy. When nominating them, please ensure that all affected sub-categories are also nominated. – Fayenatic London 17:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also including Category:twin performers, Category:twin actresses, Category:fraternal twin actresses, Category:fraternal twin male actors, Category:twin male actors, Category:fraternal twin actors, Category:twin models, Category:twin sportspeople, Category:twin sportspeople from England
Nominator's rationale: Categorization by non-notable intersection. TM 01:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. Category:Twin musicians is a subcat of Category:Twin performers and Category:Sibling musical duos. Deletion would remove articles from Category:Twin people and Category:Sibling musical duos.
Similarly, Category:Twin sportspeople from England should be merged to Category:Twin people from England; and Category:Fraternal twin actors should be merged to Category:Fraternal twins. I have not examined the other nominated categories, but they should all be checked.
@TM, do you want to amend the nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose upmerging where appropriate.--TM 21:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be closed or relisted?--TM 11:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are an extreme minority of cases. Sabrina Ionescu also has a twin and it is almost never mentioned. Moreover, simply being a twin is not "the reason(s) for the person's notability;" in the vast majority of cases. For example, Tiki Barber is notable for being a professional athlete, not for being a twin.--TM 11:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the extreme minority. It is the vast majority when both twins play the sport. Paris twins, Burge twins, Wear twins, the Collins twins, etc. - their status as a twin dominates press coverage of tehm. And this is true of Barber too. It is defining for these individuals. Yes, Tiki Barber is known for being a football player. He is also widely known as a football player whose twin brother also played the sport - they've written a whole series of children's books about it post-playing career. Rikster2 (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Tiki Barber did not have a twin, he would still be notable. However, if he had never played professional football, he probably would not be notable. Per Wikipedia guidelines, he and all of the others should be categorized for what makes him notable, not by every attribute of his biography.--TM 12:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in WP:Categorization that indicates there is only one thing notable about a person. If this were the case we wouldn’t have “people from City foo” categories or most college alumni categories. In his case, It is DEFINING that Barber is a twin sportsperson, as evidenced by sources. Rikster2 (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually quite a bit in Wikipedia's guidelines on that very topic. Re-read WP:COP#N. It states that "biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability". Some twins are notable for being twins, but the vast majority of people with a twin are notable for something else. It is trivial that they have a twin. Sources regularly talk about a person's siblings and parents, but we do not categorize by that, even when reliable sources state it. Would Category:Sportspeople with three brothers be considered acceptable?--TM 13:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I read all that. What this comes down to is your narrow view of the guideline vs. my view. It is not trivial that a sportsperson has a twin if it consistently is a major point in objective, reliable sources, as it is in all the cases I have highlighted. I.E. it is “defining” it is noted for more athletes than not and pretty much all of them if their twin plays the sport as well. I understand your point. I understand the guideline. I just disagree with you. Rikster2 (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not currently.--TM 13:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone relist or close this debate? It seems as though there is a consensus to delete at least some of these categories and prune others.--TM 12:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More