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. MER-C 20:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Defunct ex-gay organizations to Category:Ex-gay organizations
Nominator's rationale:merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one and two articles respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Oculi (talk) 10:11, 14 February 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.
Category:LGBT clergy in Judaism
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. Note: We don't have hierarchies for Category:LGBT religious workers or Category:LGBT religious leaders, but there is Category:LGBT clergy; and the category name matches its lead article. Presumably there is scope for further growth other than rabbis. There is nothing against a split to a new sub-cat for LGBT rabbis. – FayenaticLondon 09:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:rename, except for one article this category only consists of rabbis. That one article Jalda Rebling (who is a hazzan) should be moved to Category:LGBT Jews. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not only for rabbis, but for cantors and other officials as well. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Query What is the collective term for such officials ("rabbis, but for cantors and other officials") in Judaism? Clergy? Really? Shouldn't it be "Religious workers" or "Religious leaders"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:08, 15 February 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.
Category:Warlock films
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. MER-C 17:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was created because there are various other Horror and Action film franchises which aren't linked together. It was created to be useful. I think we should be thinking about what makes something redundant instead of playing a game of "favorites" (ex: the Jurassic Park and Star Wars films get a category but some cult or direct to video franchise gets ignored). It's all helpful at the end of the day and just helps organize it among the other subcategories. Justbecause5 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only three articles in this category so they can easily be interlinked in the article texts. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 21 February 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.
Category:Birds of Kazakhstan
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: Attempting to categorize species by individual countries (in which the species is found) tends to lead to both overcategorization (e.g. see Goitered gazelle in 16 geographic categories or Aelurillus dubatolovi categorized for several countries that are not mentioned in the text) and to very incomplete categories (e.g. Category:Birds of Uzbekistan contains articles about just 6 species whereas the list article gives a figure of 368 and links to hundreds of articles). Example previous similar CFD. DexDor(talk) 21:10, 13 February 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.
Category:Rabbis in London
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:Timrollpickering reverted my manual merge so we'll go here. Both categories are too similar in scope and the merge target should be in line with the other subcats in Category:Clergy from LondonミラP 18:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Manual merge and Delete. This category may refer to rabbis who worked in London, which is probably not a defining characteristic. Or it may refer to those who are from London, in which case it should be merged. buidhe 19:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather expect "worked in London" to be a more defining characteristic, see also my comment below, so this is the one option that I really oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have recently merged or renamed some other categories of Clergy in Foo. Rathfelder (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the subcategories of Category:Christian clergy by country use "in", because Christian clergy usually have a certain territory, e.g. a diocese or a parish. I do not know if this is also the case for rabbis though. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator.Debresser (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The two fulfill different functions: one is a "from foo" tree while the other is a "serves in an official capacity as rabbi in geographic territory foo" tree. Just because a rabbi is from London, doesn't mean that his rabbinical career was in London. It's analogous to the Category:Bishops in Ireland / Category:Bishops from Ireland tree structures. Many Irish people emigrated in the 19th century and became bishops in their adoptive countries. I'm sure the same is true for rabbis. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be too sure that making a distinction between "in" and "from" is really needed in this case. User:Debresser has first hand experience according to his user page. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)no longer applicable - Marcocapelle (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that in the context of wp it mainly applies to bishops. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One can be from London, while not being in London. My acquaintance Levi Brackman would be both, e.g. Likewise we should create Category:Clergy in London, next to the already existing Category:Clergy from London. If anything, we should discuss the usefulness of the "from" categories, since being "from" a place is often only incidental to the occupation, as opposed to the "in" categories. I see that User:Marcocapelle has sated something along these same lines in his first comment on this proposal. Debresser (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs a wider discussion. The same issues arise in many biographical categories. Three issues - first which word we use, as both are pretty ambiguous, and second, what exactly we might mean. Territories as used by the various churches do not coincide, even with each other, and are quite different in other fields of work. And thirdly, can we manage both place or origin and place of operation without people mixing them up? Rathfelder (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the current situation (mostly mixing up places of birth and places of occupationm with the exception of clergy) has been a compromise between editors who found place of birth (or place of growing up) much more important and other editors who found place of occupation much more important. I clearly belong to the latter group. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The standard format is people from foo, which is broad enough to cover both rabbis born in London (perhaps ministering elsewhere) and those born elsewhere, but serving in a London synagogue. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think on balance ambiguity is helpful. Many biographical articles say little or nothing about where people are born or grow up, and even when they do, for people who move about, as rabbis clearly do, it may not be very defining. So I think merging into the "from" categories is the best option. People can be from more than one place. Rathfelder (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The "people from" categories refer to where people were born or grew up, not where they lived or worked. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, nearly all "from" categories mix them up (except when it concerns an occupation with a territory, such as bishops and mayors). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the British categories they don't. In categories from other countries maybe, but the British categories have been used almost exclusively as I outlined, and should remain so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is the first time I hear that the United Kingdom would be an exception in this respect. Perhaps User:Fayenatic london, who has been active on CfD much longer than me, can confirm this. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But not actually as long as me! And I'm confirming it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just worked through 3000 articles in People from London and I can report that the category related to where people were born, grew up, lived, worked and died pretty much equally, just like all the similar categories. To say a person is "from" somewhere is completely ambiguous. Any effort to standardise the meaning is doomed to failure unless it uses different words. And actually I think it's fine the way it is. Different sorts of people are defined as "from" somewhere in a variety of ways. Rathfelder (talk) 19:05, 23 February 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.
Category:Wikipedia investigations
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 (WP:NAC). DexDor(talk) 09:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was created contemporaneously with Wikipedia:Pageview investigation board. Really, most Wikipedia processes are investigations of some kind, and therefore this category is too broad to be useful. Bsherr (talk) 18:16, 13 February 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.
Category:North Korea–United States proxy conflict
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 deleted as requested by the author. kingboyk (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:North Korea–United States proxy conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This editor has created this category, while trying to imply that the Houthis are proxies of North Korea, something that is not supported by reliable sources. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as soon as possible per nom and creator request. Just because the Houthis received weapons from North Korea, it does not mean they are proxy group of North Korea (and I agree with Sharab). There are not a lot of proxy wars between North Korea and the United States. The creation of this category is the result of my huge misunderstanding about the Houthis being a North Korean proxy. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SpinnerLaserz: to get it speedily deleted you'd better blank the category page, then type ((Db-self)) and save the page. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry User:SpinnerLaserz; I declined your speedy deletion request yesterday as you did not provide a valid reason. I failed to notice that you were the sole author of the page. I have now deleted it. Thank you Marcocapelle for pointing this out. --kingboyk (talk) 13:09, 14 February 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.
Category:Gondor
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: Only the parent article is not a redirect. The subcategory is already in Category:Middle-earth rulers, where it likely belongs. This category isn't going to get any larger, either. Hog Farm (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. buidhe 02:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update Since all the articles are already in that category, for all practical purposes we could delete, just that formally, I'd prefer to close this as "upmerge". Debresser (talk) 15:00, 16 February 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.
Category:Cancer angiogensis inhibitors
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. Deleted per creator's request LizRead!Talk! 04:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mistakenly created Lfstevens (talk) 00:55, 13 February 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.