Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
link |
||
| (33 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 15:
==== Category:Vaccine controversies ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''keep'''. No prejudice against re-nominating the category to rename to [[:Category:Vaccination controversies]]. I simply saw '''no consensus''' for that rename ''at this time''. <small>[[Wikipedia:NACD|(non-admin closure)]]</small> ―<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MattLongCT|<span style="color:black">MattLongCT</span>]] <b>-[[User talk:MattLongCT|Talk]]-</b><sup style="font-size:75%">[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 18:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Vaccine controversies]] to [[:Category:Vaccine hesitancy]]
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' To match main parent article [[vaccine hesitancy]], recently renamed in line with WHO and other sources. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Line 22 ⟶ 26:
* '''Keep'''. Not all of the articles are directly related to vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine controversies covers other forms of vaccine quackery. [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk:Natureium|talk]]) 21:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
:: And most of them are not related in any way to controversies. Plus, the parent article has now moved. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep or Rename to [[:Category:Vaccination controversies]]''' - The fact of the matter, like it or not, is that '''there have been vaccine/vaccination controversies'''. That is ''indisputable'', regardless of how one feels about it. These controversies have played out in the public sphere, largely outside the purview of the medical community. It's pretty clear from the rather vituperative discussions at [[Talk:Vaccine hesitancy]] that the nominator has very strong feelings on the subject. I think it's fair to say that he takes offense at the ''very existence'' of such controversies.
*'''Keep or rename''' 'Vaccine hesitancy' doesn't cover anything at all. Made up for PR flash cards to show pubic health docs. [[User:Dallas66|Dallas66]] ([[User talk:Dallas66|talk]]) 19:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
:In short, this proposal (and the recent renaming of the ''article'') strike me as '''''an effort to rename those controversies out of existence''''' here on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the term "Vaccine hesitancy" is so new/obscure and unfamiliar as to leave the average reader bewildered if they come across it as the name of the article and/or category. Very unhelpful. [[User:Anomalous+0|Anomalous+0]] ([[User talk:Anomalous+0|talk]]) 13:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
:: No, it's a reflection of the current terminology in the field. The WHO does not discuss "vaccine controversies", it discusses vaccine hesitancy. Many of the subjects i the category are not controversies. Some are perfectly routine, others are hoaxes or propaganda. Is [[Melanie's Marvellous Measles]] a vaccine controversy, or a subject in the sphere of vaccine hesitancy? I would argue very firmly the latter. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 00:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Line 29 ⟶ 33:
*'''Keep''' Someone like [[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]] is not just hesitant about vaccination, he goes around actively promoting the false narrative that it leads to Autism. I understand why some view this whole campaign as problematic, but this is people stirring up controversy, not hesitancy. We should rename the main article back as well.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 05:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This idea of vaccine hesitancy is one of many attempts to influence and control narratives by changing the debate. The problem is that people who believe vaccines cause any number of horrid side effects are not "hesitant" they are all out seeking to make controversies. This adds up to an attempt to rewrite language to steer debate. Like much of the rhetoric in these debates it seems to miss what is really going on. There are deep philosophical ideas at play here, as much about struggles for family autonomy verses an ever encroching state that exist.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 19:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose nom''' -- '''Rename''' [[:Category:Vaccination controversies]]. The most obvious case is MMR, which was the result of bad science getting past the academic refereeing process (where it should have been stopped), with the result that what should have been fake news received publicity that it did not deserve. However that happened, so that we have to have articles (and a category). It is certainly true that occasionally vaccines produce an adverse reaction, but non-vaccination also carries a risk, that of getting the disease and suffering disabling complications. For a vaccination programme to be effective, a large proportion of the population needs to be immunised. Where they are not, there is a severe risk of an epidemic. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 14:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support/Correct Venue''' The oppose votes above indicate that the article is misnamed. OK, submit a requested move on [[Vaccine hesitancy]] and reach a consensus for a better name. I'll gladly support renaming this category to match the outcome (whether I agree with it or not). Having different main article and category names hinders navigation. [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 03:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
* I do not have a clear opinion about this but I note that a few opposers are actually opposing the rename of the article. {{ping|JzG}} it might be helpful if you could give a link to the discussion about the article rename so that perhaps we get a better understanding of the article name change. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
*Much as I sympathise with efforts to redefine this territory I think renaming the article and the category is premature political correctness. Certainly in the UK vaccine hesitancy is not a term commonly used, even in discussion in healthcare circles. We cannot rely on medical usage if it makes it harder for readers to find the articles. If we want to undermine the idea that vaccination is controversial we might do better by dividing the articles in different ways. Perhaps there should be categories for vaccination policy by country? [[User:Rathfelder|Rathfelder]] ([[User talk:Rathfelder|talk]]) 10:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Biodiversity hotspots ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''Delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] ([[User talk:Timrollpickering|Talk]]) 14:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|Biodiversity hotspots}}<br />
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Being a biodiversity hotspot is non-defining for many of the articles in this category (e.g. [[Andes]] or [[Caucasus]]). Being a biodiversity hotspot is either subjective or is based on a published list in which case it's much better stored in wp as a list ([[Biodiversity_hotspot#Distribution_by_region|example]]) than as a category.
:See CFD for a somewhat similar category [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_27#Category:Endemic_regions]]. <b>[[User:DexDor|DexDor]]</b><sup> [[User talk:DexDor|(talk)]]</sup> 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Per [[WP:SUBJECTIVECAT]]. [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 03:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
{{ping|Timrollpickering|DexDor}}
This case was closed pretty quickly and with very few editors involved. It is also based on two main claims that are unexplained. These claims requires at least a rudimentary explanation:
* Why is the designation as a Biodiversy Hotspot subjective?
* Why is it better to present Biodiversity Hotspots as a wiki-list than a category?
I have no idea where to post this comment other than here. The suggestions in the box above just links to general Wikipages and are useless. [[User:RhinoMind|RhinoMind]] ([[User talk:RhinoMind|talk]]) 19:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:This CFD was closed after it had been open for more than 3 times the minimum. If you don't think it's subjective then how would you decide which mountain ranges (for example) are biodiversity hotspots and which are not? A list can have reference(s) (and notes) with each entry to justify its inclusion. <b>[[User:DexDor|DexDor]]</b><sup> [[User talk:DexDor|(talk)]]</sup> 19:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|DexDor}} Hi. I don't know what the minimum time is really, but there doesn't seem to have been any discussion about the speedy deletion whatsoever. I myself, do not have any opinion on the matter, I just ask relevant questions.
::To answer your question: I would guess that whatever defines a "biodiversity hotspot" would settle the matter in an objective way? If not, it would at least require some sort of basic documentation that it doesn't.
::About lists: This might perhaps be a good idea. But where is that list? I can't find any Wikipedia list of Biodiversity Hotspots. [[User:RhinoMind|RhinoMind]] ([[User talk:RhinoMind|talk]]) 17:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
==== Category:African-American supercentenarians ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' '''merge to both parents'''. I will soft-redirect the current category name to [[:Category:African-American centenarians]], as no appetite has been expressed for the deletion of that category (and the number of opinions for upmerging to it in part suggests a preference that it should exist). [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 03:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|African-American supercentenarians}}<br />
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' There is no good reason to single out african americans by age. We have a parent cat for Super old Americans that works just fine. This goes back to how the 110Club forum categorizes people into four big groups by color (one of which is Latios, which is not a color, but that is another story). [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 10:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Line 67 ⟶ 101:
*'''Merge''' to both parents per above. [[User:Rzvas|Rzvas]] ([[User talk:Rzvas|talk]]) 17:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to both parents per above. It would be better as the same category. Also it is too small for single category. [[User:Davidgoodheart|Davidgoodheart]] ([[User talk:Davidgoodheart|talk]]) 03:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' This is essenitally a by race category. Unless you are prepared to exclude Colin Powell when he reaches 111 years of age, I will not accept it is not. Beyond that, this is a
*'''Delete'''. Why do we need to split up American supercentenarians by race? If there are too many articles to fit in a single category, split them up by state. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 02:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to parents. Virtually by definition, there will be so few of these that splitting by ethnic/racial group under nationality/citizenship is unnecessary. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 08:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Dual Upmerge''' per [[WP:
* '''Procedural comment''', this discussion has been listed, quite a while ago, at the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#CFDs_(general)|administrators noticeboard]] with a request to close. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 16:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
Line 76 ⟶ 110:
* '''Delete''' random intersection of unrelated factors. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Trying to wrap up'''. There is almost unanimous agreement that this category should not stay in place. Besides there has not been any reason stated why it shouldn't be merged to [[:Category:American supercentenarians]]. The disagreement is just between single merge and double merge, i.e. whether or not it should also be merged to [[:Category:African-American centenarians]]. Probably the cause of this disagreement is procedural (because [[:Category:African-American centenarians]] hasn't been nominated as well) but that is not entirely clear. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 17:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Video games by island country of setting ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''relisted, [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_2#Category:Video_games_by_island_country_of_setting|see here]]''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose upmerging''' {{lc|Video games by island country of setting}} to [[:Category:Video games by country of setting]]<br />
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Given that we have [[:Category:Video games by country of setting]], this is a non-defining characteristic for the categories it contains. [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 14:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Upmerge''' to [[:Category:Video games by country of setting]] as non-defining and unnecessary diffusion. <span style="color:blue">Star</span><span style="color:orange">cheers</span><span style="color:green">peaks</span><span style="color:red">news</span>lost<span style="color:blue">wars</span><sup>[[User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars|Talk to me]]</sup> 15:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' as this is part of [[:Category:Island countries in fiction]]; this category should not be picked off without also discussing the siblings for novels, films and TV shows. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 09:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge.''' per nom. ―<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MattLongCT|<span style="color:black">MattLongCT</span>]] <b>-[[User talk:MattLongCT|Talk]]-</b><sup style="font-size:75%">[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 19:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Peerages with only two holders ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''no consensus''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 13:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose merging''' [[:Category:Marquesses of Willingdon]] to [[:Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom]], also:
:**[[:Category:Marquesses of Ripon]] to [[:Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom]]
Line 99 ⟶ 147:
:**[[:Category:Earls of Leicester (1784)]] to [[:Category:Earls of Leicester]]
:**[[:Category:Earls of Ulster (1928)]] to [[:Category:Earls of Ulster]]
:**[[:Category:Earls of Mountnorris]] to [[:Category:Earls in the Peerage of Ireland]]
:**[[:Category:Earls of Warrington (1690)]] to [[:Category:Earls in the Peerage of England]]
:**[[:Category:Earls of Yarmouth (1679)]] to [[:Category:Earls in the Peerage of England]]
:**[[:Category:Viscounts Wentworth (1762)]] to [[:Category:Viscounts in the Peerage of Great Britain]]
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' [[WP:SMALLCAT]]. Follows on from [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 11#Peerage titles with only one holder]]. [[User:Opera hat|Opera hat]] ([[User talk:Opera hat|talk]]) 14:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support generally but with some alternative outcomes''' -- This is not quite like the one-member categories, as we do not have an article on the peerage, only a bio of the one holder. All those I sampled were 2-member categories. We certainly do not need categories for each creation of a title. I have often needed to look for a person by his title. By far the best way of finding them is by going to the article on the title, and then clicking on the article in the list section of it. In the case of Edinburgh and Gloucester, I would prefer to merge to the two separate titles. For Yarmouth, I would prefer a rename to [[:Category:Earls of Yarmouth]], adding the 2nd creation (a countess) and the third creation, as a subsidiary title for the Marquess of Hertford, adding the peerage article to the category (not the sons who used it as a courtesy title. Similarly Warrington should be renamed to drop the date and have [[Earl of Stamford]] added. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 14:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
::So just to clarify, you'd prefer to merge
::*[[:Category:Dukes of Gloucester and Edinburgh]] to [[:Category:Dukes of Gloucester]] (and also add the articles to [[:Category:Dukes of Edinburgh]])
::*[[:Category:Earls of Warrington (1690)]] to [[:Category:Earls of Warrington]], and
::*[[:Category:Earls of Yarmouth (1679)]] to [[:Category:Earls of Yarmouth]]?
::I don't have a problem with any of that. [[User:Opera hat|Opera hat]] ([[User talk:Opera hat|talk]]) 05:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' I especially love the upmerging of the dukes of the united kingdom. Good suggestion. ―<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MattLongCT|<span style="color:black">MattLongCT</span>]] <b>-[[User talk:MattLongCT|Talk]]-</b><sup style="font-size:75%">[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 19:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose.'''
1. WP:SMALLCAT says 'Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, *unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country*.'
2. There are 5 'national' peerages in the British Isles peerage system - those of England, Scotland, Ireland, GB and the UK. Each of those has 5 levels - duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron. So there are 25 categories. I suggest that whatever system is worked out needs to be consistent across those 25 categories.
3. The biggest of the 25 seems to be 'Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom' with 11 subcats and 1335 entries. I suggest that this category is a candidate for diffusion, and that it illustrates 'the merits of categories like Category:Earls of Leicester', to quote a phrase used in the 2016 discussion.
4. There are many cases of successive creations of an earldom with the same name - e.g. [[Earl of Yarmouth]] is a title that has been created three times in British history, once in the Peerage of England and twice in the Peerage of Great Britain. IOW not all Earls of Y were Earls in the Peerage of E and not all Earls of Y were Earls in the Peerage of GB - so I suggest that it is incorrect that [[:Category:Earls of Yarmouth]] is a subcat of 'Earls in the Peerage of E' and 'Earls in the Peerage of GB'. Contrast [[:Category:Earls of Leicester]] which (I suggest correctly) is not a subcat of any of the 'Earls in the Peerage of X' categories, because it has been created in each of the Peerages of E, GB and the UK. If [[:Category:Earls of X (date)]] were simply merged to [[:Category:Earls of X]], then we would lose the categorisation of the members of the merged category into the various Peerages. I suggest that having [[:Category:Earls of Yarmouth (1679)]] (which is a subcat of both [[:Category|Earls in the Peerage of England]] and [[:Earls of Yarmouth]]) allows the reader to see at a glance (a) which individuals held peerages under which creation and (b) which were in e.g. the Peerage of England or the Peerage of GB.
5. As things stand, there are categories for peerages with two holders, but not for those with one holder. If this proposal is adopted, there will be categories for peerages with three holders but not for those with two holders. I feel that a line has to be drawn somewhere. The logic of the status quo is that [the article for the one holder] can be categorised in whatever way [the category with one article] would be categorised if it existed.
[[User:Alekksandr|Alekksandr]] ([[User talk:Alekksandr|talk]]) 22:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per [[WP:SMALLCAT]]. These categories are the thin-but-short tail of a huge and well-established series, and in several cases the provide useful distinctions been multiple creations of the same title. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 08:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Hebbar Iyengars ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''Delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] ([[User talk:Timrollpickering|Talk]]) 14:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|Hebbar Iyengars}}<br />
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' We do not categorise people by caste. See [[User:Sitush/Common#Castecats]] for some background on this. [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 09:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Revival movements ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''Delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] ([[User talk:Timrollpickering|Talk]]) 14:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|Revival movements}}<br />
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' This category has now become ill- and broadly-defined. It has a parent category of [[:Category:Christian movements]] but then includes articles like [[Greek Revival architecture]] and [[LaRouche movement]] which are clearly not Christian movements. If anything that considers itself a "revival" or anyone who calls themselves a "revivalist" can be included, this category is so broad to be not very defining. As an alternative to being deleted, perhaps this category can just be pruned to only contain articles and categories that pertain to <i>Christian</i> revival movements but I wanted to get some feedback from the CfD crowd before undoing another editor's edits and purging this category. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
*Hopelessly broad. Pruning it will only be a temporary solution as it'll likely fill up again. If needed, it should be renamed to {{cl|Christian revival movements}} or similar. Either that or add [[American Cryonics Society]] and be done with it. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small>[[User_talk:Grutness|<span style="color: #008822;">wha?</span>]]</small>'' 00:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Delete''', the sub[[:Category:Christian revivals]] already does the job. Disclosure: meanwhile I moved a couple of articles to this subcategory. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 17:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' with selective follow-up, moving [[List of Billy Graham's crusades]] into [[:Category:Christian revivals]] (on one meaning of the term), and adding that sub-cat into the parents of the nominated category. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 22:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
*[[:Category:Revival architectural styles]] covers architecture (if not other arts). If {{cl|Christian revival movements}} is needed (it seems a bit vague to me) trim & '''rename''' to that. Otherwise delete. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 19:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
| |||