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: manually merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly only one article or one subcategory in a category. Note that from a practical perspective by far most of these categories can plainly be deleted because the content is already somewhere else in the tree of both merge targets, for example in Category:1009 in Europe and Category:11th-century papal bulls. However this has to be checked manually. If desired I will volunteer to sort this out. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nevertheless, I would be unhappy if you started merging separate articles on Christian and Islamic matters together into religion, which ought primarily to be a container. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That will certainly not happen because all centuries in religion categories mentioned above are diffused into Christianity and Islam. That is exactly the reason why a manual merge is needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 19 January 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:Harzer Wandernadel
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. While I acknowledge that the category has a well-defined scope, the arguments to delete are more convincing (per WP:NONDEF) and supported by precedent. The discussion below did not establish, and nor could I by sampling the category, that this meets the threshold of a "defining characteristic" as described at WP:NONDEF. While most articles do mention that the subject is a checkpoint on the Harzer Wandernadel, that fact is usually presented as incidental to whatever else the subject is primarily. -- Black Falcon(talk)21:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a random list of places on a hiking trail network (which I agree would be "non-defining"); it is a defined and published set of exactly 222 checkpoints that hikers have to visit in order to achieve the top hiking award in the Harz Mountains. --Bermicourt (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have habitually not allowed "places on roads/paths" categories. They represent the same kind of category clutter, which means that we do not usually allow performance and venue categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to understand the difference here. Of course, listing random objects on a path is pointless, I agree. But that's not what this is. It's a set of 222 geographical and historical landmarks selected by the authorities to promote the Harz Mountains. And they're not on a road or path; they're a finite set of places with a specific status like Category:World Heritage Sites in Denmark. No doubt the latter are all on roads, but that's not the point! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the main point here - for things like the Brocken mountain that it's on this trail is very non-defining - that's fine for a list, but not for a category (partly because categorization like that could put some articles in hundreds of categories). Another way to look at this is that if there was an article about Brocken House (the location on the mountain where the checkpoint is) you'd probably want to move the category tag to that article - i.e. you're attempting to use category tags to create a list rather than to categorize articles. Regarding categories for WHS sites etc - that's WP:OSE and as it happens I think many such categories (grouping together churches, glaciers etc) should be deleted - another example previous CFD. DexDor(talk)21:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the main point clearly: "being on a hiking trail is non-defining". There are two issues with that: first, the Harzer Wandernadel is not a trail, and, second, "X is non-defining" is simply a point of view; it needs substantiating. To be fair, I'm suspect that's possible, but will leave that to others. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:55, 7 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:Female geologists
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.
Procedural comment. If the intention is also to rename the subcats, they should be tagged and listed. I suggest that the best way to proceed is to relist this discussion on today's CfD, and add the subcats. I would be happy to do both if that's OK with @Courcelles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry, it's been years since I've been active with CFD and I just plain forgot. Yeah, if you're willing, feel free, the subcats need to be renamed as well. Courcelles (talk) 14:53, 17 January 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:White Alumni of South Africa
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.
Category:Fantastic film festivals
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.
Upmerge per Peterkingiron and Oculi. There are certainly enough notable people associated with this firm to justify one category for them, but it's far from clear that we would need to use the category system to segregate the partners from the associates. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 20 January 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.
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.
Upmerge per Peterkingiron and Oculi. There are certainly enough notable people associated with this firm to justify one category for them, but it's far from clear that we would need to use the category system to segregate the partners from the associates. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 20 January 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:People associated with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
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.
Category:Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
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.
Category:Arnold & Porter partners
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.
Category:Arnold & Porter associates
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.
Category:Arnold & Porter
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.
Category:Arnold & Porter people
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 this and merge all the related categories into it. The article on the firm will make a good main article; not sure what to do about the law case. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 19 January 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:The Good 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 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:Terms claimed to be racist despite non-racist origins
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.
Propose deletingCategory:Terms claimed to be racist despite non-racist origins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Malformed category. This cat is not NPOV. It is a statement that makes a judgement without consensus, and the creator of the cat has added it to pages that do not fit the definition of this POV statement. Same user added this cat to racial slur pages a few months ago. It was promptly and rightfully removed. The cat should have been deleted then. As it sat around, now the user is attempting to add it again. Delete and salt. CorbieV☊☼02:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We base categories on what things are, not on what some people incorrectly think they might be. This category could end up being a grab-bag of unconnected words and phrases ranging from "denigration" through to "hoary" by way of "krautrock". Grutness...wha?14:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retain The nominator said that I "added this cat to racial slur pages". Of course I added it to pages that are seen as racial slurs. That is exactly what the category purports to include. Such terms as Tarbaby have origins that were clearly not racist, as seen in Espinosa's article "A new classification of the fundamental elements of the tar-baby story on the basis of two hundred and sixty-seven versions" in Journal of American Folklore. "Niggardly", a term from another article marked for this category, has a long Germanic origin meaning "stingy", cf. Swedish nygg. The word has now become controversial, but it has an etymology that is free of racial tinge. The category should be retained. There may be disputes about whether certain articles should be marked as belonging to the category, but the category is solidly legitimate. As a sociolinguist, I find it useful to find lists of words that have changed connotations, such as those in this category. Pete unseth (talk) 20:30, 17 January 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:Chronicles regarding Lithuania
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.
Comment. That completely changes the scope of the category. It would not be a simple renaming. The category now has chronicles that talk about Lithuania, but are not Lithuanian. Renata (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- The content is more wide-ranging than would fit in the target. Some are clearly in Latin, so that this does not concern the language. If renamed, it would have to be purged, which may be destructive. Perhaps some of the siblings need moving to this format. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 19 January 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.