< December 1	December 3 >

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: Rename. World records is currently a subcategory. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Records to Category:Records (superlatives)

Nominator's rationale: Records is ambiguous. This is not a category for sound recordings or documents. It is a category for things that set records for being the superlative of something. We can't merge to Category:World records (a subcategory) because some of the contents are records for continents or countries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The current title is super vague. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:World records. If as it seems this is covering the idea contained in our article World record? If so, I would think it should be renamed to Category:World records. That would also reflect the common usage as found in such works as the Guiness Book of World Records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, we already have that category, and some categories like Category:World record holders are under both. What does this category cover that could not go in that category? We do not even have an article records (superlatives). I have to admit when I first saw this category I thought it was going to be on vynyls, but it I had just departed BYU special collections or any of hundreds of government archives its name would have pulled up written documents. Clearly this name does not work, I am unsure what this is supposed to be grouping that does not fall under the World Records name. If there is a real concept here distinct from world records, maybe we should create an article on it, and a clear link from the disambiguation page, both of which seem to be lacking at the moment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, as well as world records, the nominated category contains subcategories and articles for records by subject (eg, Category:Weather records [includes 1950 Australian rainfall records, which is not a world record], Category:Architecture records [contains List of the oldest schools in Sri Lanka, which is not a world record], Category:Auto racing records), country-wide records (eg Category:Japanese records, Category:Swiss records), and continent-wide records (eg, Category:North American athletics (track and field) records, Category:African athletics records). If you examine the contents of the nominated category, you can see how these are contained in the subcategories.
  Practically speaking, I don't see how we could have an article Records (superlatives). We can't have a single article list all of the records that exist in the world. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would not be the purpose of the article. The article would go over the concept, not list where these alleged records had been achieved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It still wouldn't be feasible IMO. There are so many different types of record in the world. If you think it's doable, you could draft it out. It's not something I would attempt. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to reduce ambiguity. In the discussion it became sufficiently clear that Category:World records is not a proper target. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 28 December 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 result of the discussion was: rename to Category:The Rockettes The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Radio City Music Hall Rockettes to Category:Radio City Rockettes

Nominator's rationale: I've never once heard them referred to as "The Radio City Music Hall Rockettes". They're either called the "Radio City Rockettes" or just "the Rockettes". The main article is located at The Rockettes. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:The Rockettes to match the article. Plus they existed for 7 years before they went to Radio City Music Hall, and there is no reason to split the category into pre and post Radio City Music Hall locating groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:13, 14 December 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 result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Anthropornis to Category:Extinct penguins

Nominator's rationale: This category can only ever house 1 article, Anthropornis, because extinct species normally don't get their own articles and are redirected to the genus article (except when each species is well researched independently of the other species, which is most certainly not the case here). User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge per WP:C2F. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The category has no scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 23:45, 6 December 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anti-LGBT politicians who were outed to Category:LGBT politicians with anti-LGBT history

Nominator's rationale: This would allow categorization of those who were "outed" yet have not self-identified as part of LGBT. Larry Craig is categorized as such as of date. If deleting this category is out of question, how about narrowing down the scope of and renaming this category? What are other alternatives besides deletion or my proposal here? George Ho (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move as proposed per WP:NPOV, or delete altogether. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete There's longstanding consensus against categorising people by their [alleged] biases (see here and the guidance at Category:Homophobia). There's also consensus against adding living people to LGBT categories if they haven't self-identified as such. WP:EGRS#Sexuality states "Categories that make allegations about sexuality—such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected of being gay"—are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted". Cheers, gnu 57 19:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable concept with much attention (in Hungary, recently). I dislike the proposed category name because many of these folks were not simultaneously openly gay and a politician; usually their political careers went down in flames due to the public disclosure of their sexual orientations. Moreover, the proposed category name would sweep in many current LGBT politicians who were members (in youth or without realizing their orientation, perhaps) of anti-LGBT groups (e.g., scouting in the US, many religious organizations, etc.) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EGRS#Sexuality cited by "gnu57", allegation-based categories are discouraged or disallowed. How about "LGBT politicians with anti-LGBT rhetoric" instead? George Ho (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least move. The current title is a WP:NPOV violation, as what constitutes an "Anti-LGBT" politician is up to debate and is a loaded term. Just a few decades ago very few politicians or political parties in any country (including the west) prioritized LGBT rights, so where closeted politicians at this time "Anti-LGBT"? Edits like this have me worried of WP:ADVOCACY regarding this category. George Ho's proposed title is an improvement, but I would personally recommend deleting altogether. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates categorization rules: this category is based on a non-defining criterion. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the category creator. I proposed Anti-LGBT LGBT politicians on the talk page, but not with confidence. It shouldn't depend on self-identification for obvious reasons. It should be reasonably NPOV. I'm a bit hesitant about your proposal because I think that calling them LGBT directly, is more likely to be viewed as dependent on self-identification than the current one, which just says that they were outed. That implies some amount of credibility to the outing (possibly but rarely voluntary), but doesn't imply anything about self-identification — which I think is what the best name of this category should do. Also, your proposed rename seems more to imply that they stayed politicians after they were outed. That's only true for a minority of them (mainly the ones who did a 180° change post-outing). For most, the entirety of their political career was anti-LGBT, so it's not really "history". In any case, I think a better name could probably be thought of, and would support a rename that's consistent with the intent and the concerns I just expressed. Sai ¿?✍ 21:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not rename, per Genericusername57 and Inter&anthro. Categorizing people (or even people's history) as "anti-LGBT" is an inherently POV statement that is completely inappropriate for a category. I also agree with saizai that the proposed rename actually makes things worse by creating new NPOV and accuracy issues beyond the (big) existing one. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It may be a "notable concept", but it is a combination of 2 non-defining characteristics. It also seems to imply that an LGBT person opposing any LGBT "right" is being hypocritical (which is debateable). Categorization like this could lead to "Law and order politicians later convicted of a crime", "Family values politicians who committed adultery" etc. WP:DNWAUC. DexDor^(talk) 07:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or listify. While this characteristic cannot be the topic of a category esp. per WP:ATTACK, the topic is still a notable one. A list would be a way to treat it with all the nuances, context and sources that the black-or-white category inclusion system cannot provide. Place Clichy (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I'd be on board with listification. Sai ¿?✍

Delete - BLP and POV nightmare. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to keep it out of spite, but that's not a good reason, huh? Bearian (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Internalized self hatred is notable topic but doesn't warrant a category that clearly runs afoul of WP:OCEGRS, WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:BLPGOSSIP. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a typical politician's hypocrisy. We don't want to have a category for each type of hypocrisy, do we? Lembit Staan (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going to remove anyone who hasn't self-identified as LGBT from the category. gnu 57 05:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing so would be vandalism, since it violates the definition of the category. It does not depend on self-identification. Please don't. Sai ¿?✍

How would excluding those not self-identified be vandalism? And why do you think it including those people does not violate WP:BLP? George Ho (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC); amended, 17:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No other category seems to cover outing as a topic. There is no category tree on outed people. Dimadick (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another alternative to consider: Men who have sex with men (MSM) is the standard term used in many neutral contexts (academia, epidemiology, etc) to refer to someone based on their behavior, rather than their expressed or self-perceived orientation. I believe that is the correct basis here. This would entirely avoid the issue of LGBT identification, or indeed of claiming anything about their orientation per se, and thereby avoid the issues that @George Ho and Genericusername57: mentioned. Also, this category is limited to people with power, i.e. public figures, for whom this fact is extremely relevant to their public perception, and usually either career-ending or marking a drastic turning-point. (I would not support using it for others.) I can also note, from a decade of experience tracking these things (as I clearly disclosed, I run [1]), that it is in fact a category made up exclusively of men. In all that time, I received exactly 2 tips about a woman — 1 who had been charged with pedophilic exploitation (who is not listed on the site, because pedo ≠ homo), and 1 (Kathryn Lehman) who came out voluntarily in order to oppose an anti-LGBT law that she previously helped to pass. I've had 0 about trans people. So, using "MSM", perhaps plus Women who have sex with women (WSW) to cover that rare exception, should not cause underinclusion. Sai ¿?✍ 13:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, what would you do if this category gets deleted? Honestly, the MSM-identity doesn't improve but rather worsens situations. George Ho (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify as much as I like this category, it's can't stay. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 10 December 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 result of the discussion was: merge to Category:New Zealand fascists. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:New Zealand neo-Nazis to Category:New Zealand fascists

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT; single subcategory is already in Category:Neo-Nazi politicians. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Dimadick (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. This will result in a 2 category structure with a total of 4 articles, as opposed to what we have now which is 3 categories and 4 articles. That is excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 10 December 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 result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Neo-Nazis. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Hungarian neo-Nazis to Category:Neo-Nazis

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If merged, also merge to Category:Hungarian fascists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Hungarian fascists instead. Neo-Nazism is a sub-topic of fascism. Dimadick (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the one person in this category is already in Category:Hungarian politicians, so the loss of Hungarian as a designator on this specific category will not disconnect him from being categorized as Hungarian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 10 December 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 result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Neo-Nazis. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Finnish neo-Nazis to Category:Neo-Nazis

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If merged, also merge to Category:Finnish fascists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Finnish fascists instead. Neo-Nazism is a sub-topic of fascism. Dimadick (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge we really should not keep such categories with under about 5 entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 10 December 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 result of the discussion was: merge per nom and to Category:Chilean fascists The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Chilean neo-Nazis to Category:Neo-Nazis

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If merged, also merge to Category:Chilean fascists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Chilean fascists instead. Neo-Nazism is a sub-topic of fascism. Dimadick (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is 1 article, he is already in the category Category:Chilean Nazis. Even that category has 4 entries, and the one subject here does not need to be categorized overly much. Just delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 10 December 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 result of the discussion was: reverse merge without prejudice to switch back if the article is renamed to the English name. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Hochschule für Musik und Tanz Köln alumni to Category:Cologne University of Music alumni

Nominator's rationale: These two are the same. Keep the older one. Seanetienne (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per article title Hochschule für Musik und Tanz Köln. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revers Merge Per WP:C2D. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. It is better to have category names in English. This conservatory may once have been independent but is now part of the university. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This is an English language Wikipedia, we should be using English language words in categories. Note that the article itself is odd because although it uses the German name as the title, it uses the English tanslation in the opening of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Be aware that the institute has always been independent, and that Hochschule is not equivalent to University/Universität. More hesitant on which to keep now, considering that the former is in a more established state even if it's the newer. Maybe we should keep the latter and then rename it to the "Hochschule" title? Seanetienne (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge as long as the article is at Hochschule für Musik und Tanz Köln. If it gets renamed to the English equivalent, then the category could be renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:37, 14 December 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 result of the discussion was: merge. Whether to categorize Bayume Mohamed Husen in the target category can be hashed out on the article talk page, if needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:German service people to Category:Restaurant staff

Nominator's rationale: There are probably not enough articles of notable waiting staff to have a nationality category tree. However Bayume Mohamed Husen's article clearly states that working as a waiter was the primary source of income for this East African-born former military officer who lived in Germany in the interwar period, in-between tutoring African languages in university and appearing in films. Note that we do not have Category:Waiters but that Category:Waitresses redirects to Category:Restaurant staff, which I believe is a better location to convey the notion than this misplaced, misnamed and depopulated category. Place Clichy (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would purge the biographies; what being a restaurant staff what defined John Lennon's mother, what it her claim to fame? Nope. Likely true of the others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this comment applies to the target category, not the one that is nominated here. I mentioned indeed that are probably not many articles about people notable for being waiters or waitresses. However in the case of the single article in the category nominated here, Bayume Mohamed Husen, the inclusion would probably be correct as his main occupation indeed seems to have been as a waiter on cruise ships and pleasure palaces. Place Clichy (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"service people" is pretty vague. Rathfelder (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure is. Place Clichy (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We have one article on a man from German East Africa (now Tanzania) who joined in propaganda for Nazi and return of German colonies making various films and acting in others. He worked for a time as a waiter, but was not notable as such, so that that stage of his life does not deserve any category. The article has plenty of categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have 1 person in this category, who is in 17 categories, at least 3 of which also tag him as German. We do not need to categorize people by every occupation they undertook. Those may be defining to them, but if they are not defining to their notability it is usually a case of overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 10 December 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:UK Lockdown Critics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Classic case of being non-defining to the individual. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Text-book WP:OPINIONCAT. Place Clichy (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the "lockdown critics" within the UK are an increasingly politically-important group, especially with the formation of the COVID Recovery Group and the rebranding of Farage's Reform UK outfit (see [2] and [3] for international coverage). I think this goes beyond WP:OPINIONCAT. --Bangalamania (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, narrow the scope and rename to something more defining, like Category:Leaders of British anti-lockdown organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've just created Category:COVID Recovery Group members, which may serve a similar purpose. --Bangalamania (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, just members is not a defining characteristic, it should be renamed to leaders or similar. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OPINIONCAT. We do allow "activists" categories if the articles make it clear that such activism is defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete opinioncat (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per increasing relevance in UK politics. However "Lockdown Critics" should be in all lower case. Alex (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This will in the long run be a passing fad. Its existence right now is an extreme case of presentism. Unless of course we have any anti-1918 lockdown critics included. I am not holding my breath.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 10 December 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 result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Currencies of Africa. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Currencies of the Kingdom of Wolaita to Category:Currencies of Africa

Nominator's rationale: We do not yet even have an article for Kingdom of Wolaita or Kingdom of Welayta (the closest we have is List of rulers of Welayta), so I doubt we need a category for its currency at this stage. WP:SMALLCAT would apply. I suggest upmerging. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. With two suggestions for follow-up. There is also a subcategory to be nominated. And I wonder if the target shouldn't be renamed to Category:Currencies in Africa. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support we lack an article on this kingdom. Which we probably should have. But even if we did it would be far too soon to create this category. Also, the multiple spellings involved here is a nighmar waiting to happen. Sort of like out articles related to Whydah/Ouida. That later is probably in part my fault.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the article Kingdom of Whydah in July of 2007. Ouidah on the city dates to 2005. That article also shows that the name was at times written Juda, much to the love of the extremists Black Hebrew Israelites and their racist vision of the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On this topic Kingdom of Welaytta is a redirect to a list. We really need to create a comprehensive article on the polity. Then someone needs to go to the troble of creating redirects between all the possible spellings so we about a mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 10 December 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the National Order of Chad

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)

When foreign leaders or other officials visit Chad, or vice versa, the National Order of Chad is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. French Admiral Bernard Rogel's article includes the award with list of other honours while none of the other articles even mention it so it's clearly not defining. There wasn't a list so I created one here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background In the past, we've deleted similar categories for high ranking visitors here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again an obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 2 December 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/"Listifying" Category:Recipients of the Order of Saemaeul Service Merit

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF (WP:OCAWARD & WP:SMALLCAT)

The Order of Saemaeul Service Merit was given out for supporting the New Community Movement, a 1970s rural development program in South Korea. The only article in the category is Kim Yong-ki which mentions the award in passing so it doesn't seem defining and the growth potential is limited. I don't know if I can say the category is "listified" since there is only 1 article but it is already linked here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, again an obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 2 December 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.

December 2

Category:Records

Category:Radio City Music Hall Rockettes

Category:Anthropornis

Category:Anti-LGBT politicians who were outed

Category:New Zealand neo-Nazis

Category:Hungarian neo-Nazis

Category:Finnish neo-Nazis

Category:Chilean neo-Nazis

Category:Chinese contemporary classical opera singers

Category:Hochschule für Musik und Tanz Köln alumni

Category:German service people

Category:UK Lockdown Critics

Category:The Downlink

Category:Currencies of the Kingdom of Wolaita

Category:Recipients of the National Order of Chad

Category:Recipients of the Order of Saemaeul Service Merit