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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sports venues in Bridgeport, Connecticut to Category:Sports venues in Fairfield County, Connecticut, Category:Sports in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Category:Buildings and structures in Bridgeport, Connecticut and Category:Tourist attractions in Bridgeport, Connecticut
• Propose merging Category:Sports venues in Billings, Montana to Category:Buildings and structures in Billings, Montana, Category:Sports in Billings, Montana and Category:Tourist attractions in Billings, Montana
• Propose merging Category:Sports venues in Salem, Virginia to Category:Buildings and structures in Salem, Virginia, Category:Sports in Salem, Virginia and Category:Tourist attractions in Salem, Virginia
• Propose merging Category:Sports venues in Kent, Washington to Category:Sports in Kent, Washington and Category:Buildings and structures in Kent, Washington

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Merge all as listed above. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't merge to tourist attractions. While a sports venue may be a tourist attraction, it is not so by default. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Read WP:SMALLCAT again...it says not to have small categories "with no potential for growth." As long as the city is standing, there is always potential for more venues and the category's growth. Tom Danson (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but manually to Tourist attractions with sufficient article support — growth potential is relative. We expect some indication that there is actual growth, such as census data.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, what kind of census data would be enough to satisfy you? Tom Danson (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for Now with no objection to recreating if I'm proved wrong and any ever get up to 5+ articles (not counting redirects). - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep these are mid-sized cities in the US context and I think a motivated editor could easily write articles on several sports venues. As such, I think there is real potential for growth in these instances.--User:Namiba 22:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nonsense. These are comparatively small US cities, primarily commuter suburbs. They are not going to suddenly reach a dozen sports venues, even adding in elementary and secondary school venues. Nobody is likely to start another university in any of them. They may have a few minor league sports, but are not likely to attract a new major sport.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American dissidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is far too vague to be meaningful (A dissident is any opponent of official policy) and it's not a categorization often used to describe Americans, so calling people it almost certainly violates WP:BLPCAT. JeffUK 22:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the 37 subcategories in Category:Dissidents by nationality might need to be considered as well (although maybe not with this discussion). As always on Wikipedia, it's easier to create a mess than to fix one. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point, we had the ridiculous situation of Arif_Ahmed_(philosopher) , an MBE and Cambridge University Lecturer (the definition of 'the establishment') being labelled an English Dissident. JeffUK 07:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it is not a term used in democratic states. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Comment. This appear to be valid category based on coverage in RS [1],[2], etc. Basically, there is dissent in America. Saying that, one should check if the individual entries belong to this category. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• One book title does not make it a defining term for individuals. "Activists" (in the subtitle of thd book) is a by far more common term. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it appears that defining descriptions of all people included to this category are different, i.e. "activist" or others. One can reasonably argue this category is redundant and promotes certain POV. Is it helpful for navigation? If these people have been described at least in some sources as "dissidents", it might be (one can be an activist and be described as a dissident at the same time). After looking at specific pages, it seems such assignment usually is at best questionable... My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a category that makes sense beyond simply "activists" for individuals whose political activity brings them into direct conflict with government power and therefore results in them being imprisoned, targeted in other various ways by organs of the state, or going into exile. This is just as coherent and valid a concept for democratic states as it is for non-democratic states. AbbotOfLeibowitz (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a discussion about the concept, the issue is whether people in this category are commonly labeled as dissidents. In democratic countries that label is hardly ever used. The content of the category boils down to WP:OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this category is either entirely irrelevant if you look for people actually labelled 'American Dissidents' by multiple reliable sources (as there are practically none) or far too vague to be useful; people "targeted in other various ways by organs of the state" includes, pretty much everyone who's ever been arrested or fined at any sort of protest (thousands of people) and the likes of e.g. 'First Amendment Auditors' on YouTube are 'dissidents' by this definition which is clearly not correct. JeffUK 08:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was initially leaning towards "keep", but when I checked the category, pretty much every one of the people in it don't really belong. I can't find any reasonable way to define dissident that includes Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky or Charles Lindbergh as "dissidents". --Jayron32 15:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — and after deletion, we'll nominate all the other dissident by country categories. As always on Wikipedia, it's easier to create a mess than to fix one.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think some '{nation} dissidents' are worth keeping on the basis there may be notable people who are reliably described as dissidents, for example there's no harm in those on the List of Chinese dissidents being categorised as such. JeffUK 16:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — It's a mess. Use of term easy to verify in totalitarian states, but impossible to adequately verify for somewhere like US, so ends up as highly subjective. There was probably RSs calling various individuals "cool" but we wouldn't want a category "American cool people", and that's basically the level here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2023 (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 Timrollpickering (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Special edition strike paper to Category:Strike paper

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT User:Namiba 21:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine for me. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2023 (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: Speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer-related introductions in the 1980s alredy exists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Solaris5296 (talk • contribs) 2023-01-16 19:21:01 (UTC)

• @Solaris5296: you can simply tag the category page with ((Db-self)). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2023 (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:Television shows filmed in Pakistan. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television series shot in Gilgit-Baltistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no Category:Television series by shooting location and I don't think this really even fits the parent category (note that I removed an irrelevant category before nominating). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Television shows filmed in Pakistan, WP:SMALLCAT whose name does not comply with category naming conventions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Obviously, there is a Category:Television series by shooting location.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2023 (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 & purge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cultural depictions of cannibals to Category:Works about cannibals
• Propose renaming and purging Category:Cultural depictions of Jeffrey Dahmer to Category:Works about Jeffrey Dahmer
• Propose renaming Category:Cultural depictions of Fritz Haarmann to Category:Works about Fritz Haarmann
• Propose renaming Category:Cultural depictions of Alferd Packer to Category:Works about Alferd Packer

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, in theory this should be a speedy rename per WP:C2C after this earlier discussion. But quite a few articles have been added to Category:Cultural depictions of Jeffrey Dahmer for which Jeffrey Dahmer is not defining at all, so this rename can't go without purging. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus and William Allen Simpson: pinging contributors to said discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle Support, of course. I thought we would automatically rename all subcategories of now-renamed Category:Works about criminals from cultural depictions to works about. Do we really have to discuss them one by one? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think we need to discuss them one by one, if this proposal goes ahead we can probably do a mass nomination. We do need to purge them one by one, however, and that will be an enormous job. Only renaming the categories and not checking the content would not solve the main problem: depictions categories contain many articles that are not defining for the subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with purge
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2023 (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: speedy rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ombudsmen in the Slovakia to Category:Ombudsmen in Slovakia

Nominator's rationale: Made a mistake while creating the category Newklear007 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per WP:C2A and WP:C2E. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2023 (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 Timrollpickering (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Twin people from Puerto Rico to Category:Puerto Rican twins

Nominator's rationale: This nomination was excluded from the previous discussion. Santiago Claudio (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this could be speedied. Oculi (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2023 (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 Timrollpickering (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pages with Wikisource text link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This might make sense if it were a tracking category populated by a template, but it is instead added manually to one article and hence server no useful function. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the category seems extraneous HelplessBystander (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — orphan small category.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2023 (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.