Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7: Difference between revisions

• Containerize Category:Antigua and Barbuda people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Argentine people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Bahamian people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Barbadian people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Brazilian people of African descent‎ 
• Containerize Category:Canadian people of African descent

• Delete Category:Bermudian people of African descent
• Delete Category:Bolivian people of African descent
• Delete Category:Costa Rican people of African descent
• Delete Category:Curaçao people of African descent

Nominator's rationale: containerize (or delete if there aren't any subcategories), it is perfectly fine to keep these categories as container categories with subcategories for Gambian, Moroccan, Kenyan etc. descent, but having articles directly in them implies a mere racial use. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion which is still open for discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl, DexDor, Necrothesp, Hmains, and Dimadick: pinging contributors to the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Containerise all per nom. I regret that this is necessary, because it prevents these categories being used where there are reliable sources where the origin is too vague for by-nationality categorisation, e.g. "mother emigrated from West Africa in the 1930s" ... but it's the only way to prevent them being used a proxy form of racial categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who wish Jytdog would come back (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Misuse of user categories per WP:USERCAT: Categories which group users by advocacy of a position, Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive, created primarily for humourous or satirical purposes, Categories which group users on the basis of irrelevant likes. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are a number of such categories, including one that just went through an extensive deletion discussion with a "keep" result last year. Is there a reason why this specific category would be singled out?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's silly and defies USERCAT in those ways, I don't think there's any question of that. But sure, we could debate this again, I don't really care either way. I just saw this cat and was like, wow, isn't Wikipedia better than the 2001-2010 Wikipedia I used to read, with its silly quirks and MS Paint maps? Cats are really supposed to be legitimate and useful now, instead of some popularity vote option... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, yes, there is a reason: Jytdog was indef blocked by ArbCom; LHvU has no blocks and was simply retiring from WP. That's a huge difference; let's please not openly defy ArbCom and support reinstatement of blocked users, especially through something as arbitrary as categories... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't advocating a position on deletion in either direction, only noting a previous similar discussion and asking how it differs (which you have done, thank you). On a separate note, I disagree with your statement "let's please not openly defy ArbCom and support reinstatement of blocked users" as it seems to suggest that editors are not allowed to openly express their disapproval of Arbcom decisions. That would be...unfortunate.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cats are not supposed to be advocacy and this is disruptive. The user was indeffed for off wiki harassment for those not paying attention to ArbComm (a good thing) Legacypac (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categories should not be used to protest an ArbCom decision, it is unnecessarily devisive. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A well-intended gesture, but in my view ultimately unhelpful to moving forward in a difficult situation. (Just as one for-instance, it'd of course be wholly out of bounds for anyone to make a category to express the opposite view, so in the extent to which more conversation needs to be had about the underlying question--in my view, at this time it does not--I think it's much more appropriate to stick to the traditional venues for it. E.g. talk page on the ArbCom motion is this way.) Innisfree987 (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I know this comment isn't supportable by any present guidelines so I'm not even going to try, I just think that sometimes you need to let a community do what it needs to do when a widely respected member departs. This is not a comment on the Arbcom case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as creator. First of all, for what it's worth, I'm not protesting ArbCom. I think their motion is appropriate given the circumstance. That being said, I still think Jytdog should return to face the music, and furthermore, merely expressing that opinion is perfectly acceptable, as several well regarded editors have already done so on his talk page. Benjamin (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Afrotropic ecozone biota to Category:Biota of the Afrotropical realm

Nominator's rationale: Reason: (1) To match the article (Afrotropic ecozone redirects to Afrotropical realm), (2) Consistency of category name structure with other species-by-region categories (e.g. Category:Biota of Africa). Alternatives (e.g. Category:Biota of the Afrotropic ecozone) could also be considered (personally I think "ecozone" is clearer than "realm").

Note: The category was originally named "Afrotropic biota"; the "ecozone" was inserted by CFDS.

Note: Any changes resulting from this CFD should also be made (e.g. by a subsequent CFD/CFDS) to other categories (e.g. the fauna/flora subcats). DexDor ^(talk) 18:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: There's little possibility that this category can be properly maintained over the entirety of Wikipedia. From what I am able to tell, the application of this category to articles has been spotty, at best, over the last twelve years. There are a couple of relevant points on the category's talk page that I will include within this discussion that, I believe, should be considered when discussing deletion. Strikerforce^Talk 18:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• From the category's talk page, I submit the following for consideration -

1) From @AnthroMimus: - assuming all the other objections (and there are many) are resolved in its favor, my question would be: Whom do you suppose will use this list? Is there really someone out there who might say, I want to read an article about a random American Christian, I wish there was an encyclopedia that had a list that I could pick from? Yet people evidently spend their time jumping from article to article to tag with this category.
2) Also from @AnthroMiums: - Another reason this category should be killed outright is that it is rife with selectivity. For example, Watergate Felon Charles Colson (later radio "evangelist") is not included. Nor is the founder of the reborn Ku Klux Klan William Joseph Simmons, who was a teacher in a Methodist Episcopal Church. Nor any of the priests involved in the Church pedophilia scandal (including the bishops and cardinals who hushed it up). Were these people not Christians? Or does this list only include "good" Christians? And who decides?
3) From @Son of Somebody: - What are the criteria for inclusion in this category? In the US, a person must claim to be a Christian or Jew for any hope of social advancement, save academia, and to achieve elective office.
For reference, this category was previously discussed here. Strikerforce^Talk 18:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, while admittedly there are issues with the tree of Category:People by religion, we cannot delete one random category from that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Religion categories are supposed to incllude the relatively hand-full of people for whom their religion is a defining trait, instead of a trivial aspect of their lives (such as being bald, or having blue eyes). We are not aiming at full list. Dimadick (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose but consider selective pruning. Not all Americans who are of Christian faith or background should be in this categoriy or its descendants, rather only those for which their American Christian-ness is a defining feature. Better off handled on a case by case basis. Similarly, we generally don't (or shouldn't) frivolously categorize actors, scientists, and other non-political persons by political party, even if such information is verifiable. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:African-American supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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). Legacypac (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With 13 articles, this is by far the biggest category of the recent batch of supercentenarian categories nominated at CFD. Any objection which relates specifically to categorising African-Americans by longevity would apply also to Category:African-American centenarians, which has not been nominated. However, given the adverse historical status of African-Americans, it is unsurprising that there is a significant scholarly literature on the topic of longevity in African-Americans. So the nominatpor's assertion that there is no good reason to single out african americans by age sounds glib and un-researched. I am well aware of the extent of GRG-cruft around, because a decade ago I initiated the efforts to stop the flood and clean it up; but when I see that a CFD nomination is based on a demonstrable false assertion like this one, I do wonder how much rigour is being applied to the cleanup. "GRG made it, so it must be bad" is not good criterion.
  If, despite the scholarly notability of the topic, editors prefer not to keep the the category, then alternatively Merge to both parents: Category:American supercentenarians and Category:African-American centenarians. The nom @Legacypac gives no justification for this proposal to remove these people from the parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of any scholarly research on African American super centurions specifically. The cat and universe of potential study subjects is just small. No one is lookkng at the 100 year old articles which presumably exist because the people are otherwise notable beyond being old. Anyone in this cat could be added to the African American centurion cat if someone cares. Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: A centurion was a professional officer of the Roman army. We are discussing centenarians, i.e. people who have reached 100 years of age. The fact that you refer twice to something different doesn't give me confidence in your knowledge of the research base ... and your attempt to claim that there isn't specific research on African American super centurions misses the point that there is study on African-American longevity, and this is a significant subset of that group.

Your reply also shows a misunderstanding of how en.wp categories work. The current situation is that all the articles in Category:African-American supercentenarians are already in a Category:African-American centenarians through being in a subcat thereof. A reader who visits Category:African-American centenarians can browse the the supercentenarians by visiting the subcat. This is similar to how. e.g. Category:People from Berlin, Wisconsin is a subcat of Category:People from Green Lake County, Wisconsin.

Your proposal to simply delete Category:African-American supercentenarians without merging to its parents therefore removes the articles from its parents categories. Your nomination gives no reason to do so, and your reply also gives no reason.

Your comment that anyone in this cat could be added to the African American centurion cat if someone cares is disgraceful: it is not up to other editors to tidy up the mess caused by your unjustified removal of articles from a category in which they belong; and your dismissal of it by the remark if anyone cares conveys a disdain either for the integrity of category system or for the topic of longevity in African-American people. Neither sentiment should have any place in the categorisation of any topic on Wikipedia; if you don't care enough about any topic to handle its categories properly, then you should refrain from tinkering with those categories. Your "don't care" efforts here are starting to look like wilfully disruptive editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely work with cats and consider them overly complex and often useless. These are some of the most useless and racist I've seen hence the nomination to delete them. Attacks on my knowledge are misplaced - you don't know me or my interests or how widely I read. Centenarians is a strange word and I'm sorry I misspelled it inadvertently with autocorrect. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: You are quite entitled to consider categories useless, if you choose to do so. However, unless and until there is a WP:Consensus to remove the category system, please do not disrupt it.

I have no information on your state of knowledge other that what you chose to display here, and I make no judgement on anything other than what you have chose to display here, which is unimpressive.

Your latest remark that these categories are racist is extraordinary. In what ways is it racist?

Do you believe that significant scholarly literature on the topic of longevity in African-Americans? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge per BrownHairedGirl. Obviously all other nominated supercentenarians categories on this page should be merged as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not need this small sub-category based on race, which was foisted upon Wikipedia long ago by the GRG because that's how they did it, so we had to do it to. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newshunter12: Fair enough, this category is too small. But the effect of deleting the cat rather than merging will be to remove its contents from all supercenterarians categories, and also from Category:African-American centenarians. Why do you and Legacypac want to do that?

Do you believe that African-American supercentenarians are somehow not African-American centenarians? Or that they are not American supercentenarians? Because deletion is a valid option only if you believe both those things to be true. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - these noms are all defective, as BHG points out. No rationale has been given for retaining Category:African-American centenarians and yet deleting the more defining Category:African-American supercentenarians. Oculi (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only two pages in the cat. The parent cat is enough to handle rhese pages Legacypac (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to both parents: Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Singaporean centenarians. Too small to keep, but the nom @Legacypac gives no justification for this proposal to remove these people from the parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at the pages in question would show they are already categorized as Singaporeans. Noting they happened to pass 100 years is fairly trivial but if someone wants to use that cat that is fine. Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Your proposal would remove those two articles from Category:Singaporean centenarians. It is up to you to explain why you consider that an appropriate action. I see no justification for doing so, because it seems to be undisputed that they are (or were) Singaporean centenarians.

If you consider that categorising people as centenarians is trivial, then you are of course free to propose the deletion of Category:Centenarians and all its subcats. But unless and until there is a consensus to do so, you need some rationale to justify why you want to remove these particular pages from the centenarians catgories, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only two pages, so its a useless category, which is meant to be for a group of similar articles, not effective one-offs. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newshunter12: Fair enough, this category is too small. But the effect of deleting the cat rather than merging will be to remove its contents from all supercenterarians categories, and also from Category:Singaporean centenarians. Why do you want to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Singaporean centenarians. Oculi (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Spanish supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Two redirects and a list page. Pointless cat Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to both parents: Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Spanish centenarians. Too small to keep, but the nom @Legacypac gives no justification for this proposal to remove these people from the parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• there are no people in the cat. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As you mentioned, there are two redirects and a list page. These should be upmerged, obviously. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) @Legacypac: That is irrelevant. The pages currently in the category clearly do belong here, so if this category is to be deleted, its contents should be merged to the parent categories. Your proposal would e.g. remove List of Spanish supercentenarians from Category:Spanish centenarians, but you give no reason to do so and I don't see how it can be justified.

This is one of about a dozen similar categories for which you or @The Blade of the Northern Lights have in the last few days proposed deletion rather than merger. I don't see any indication that either of you understands the crucial distinction between deletion and merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only actual page here is titled similar to the category which is redundant. We don't need a cat copying every page title out there. The other titles are just redirects and most redirects are not categorized. Legacypac (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: I will try again. Why exactly do you believe that List of Spanish supercentenarians should be removed from Category:Spanish centenarians, as you propose? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Why do we need a category that repeats the page title of the only actual page in the cat? I could create 5 million needed cats based on page titles if this is really useful. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: please read what I actually wrote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only one page and two redirects, so its a useless category, which is meant to be for a group of similar articles, not effective one-offs. The nom is correct in that it is redundant for the article to have a category all to its self. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newshunter12: Fair enough, this category is too small. But the effect of deleting the cat rather than merging will be to remove its contents from all supercenterarians categories, and also from Category:Spanish centenarians. Why do you and Legacypac want to do that?

e.g. why should List of Spanish supercentenarians be removed from from Category:Spanish centenarians, which will be the effect of deletion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Spanish centenarians. Oculi (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nigerian supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only two pages. No point to be this specific. Legacypac (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to both parents: Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Nigerian centenarians. Too small to keep, but the nom @Legacypac gives no justification for this proposal to remove these people from the parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fancruft cat not something with parent cats. Centenarians is also a useless cat - we don't make pages about people only because they got to 100 years old, any more than we categorize by hair color or because they made it to 90 years old. Nationality is already correctly applied to these bio pages so that is a red herring. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Please read what I actually wrote. The effect of your proposal is that the contents of this category should no longer be categorised as centenarians. There is no consensus to delete Category:Centenarians, so why do you want these pages to be removed from Category:Centenarians? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on any of the other category nominations in this batch, in this specific case neither article should be in this category. Both should be in Category:Longevity claims (and one of the two I intend to nominate for deletion fairly soon). Neither of these are remotely validated supercentenarian cases, which is what these "Supercentenarian by nationality" categories are for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: if you believe that an article is incorrectly categorised, then recategorise it.

However, what has been proposed here is to remove these pages from all centenarian categories solely because the category is small. Small categories should be merged, not deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Nigerian centenarians. Oculi (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only two pages, so its a useless category, which is meant to be for a group of similar articles, not effective one-offs. Neither page should even be in this category since their claims are dubious and unverified. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newshunter12: Fair enough, this category is too small. But the effect of deleting the cat rather than merging will be to remove its contents from all supercenterarians categories, and also from Category:Nigerian centenarians. Why do you and Legacypac want to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:George W. Bush sibling group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING category. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very strange name Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is sufficient to have these articles in Category:Bush family. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete vary awkward, redundant cat. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Redundant to Category:Bush family. Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dimadick....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Whitney family of Connecticut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-notable family, non-defining category per WP:NONDEFINING. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. The fact that the Whitney family published a genealogy in 1878 does not make it noteworthy, nor does the inclusion of more notable families (i.e. the Bush family) within it. See also the equally arbitrary, non-notable, and largely redundant template {{Whitney family of Connecticut}} --Animalparty! (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hungarian supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: One page (up for deletion) and one redirect does not a category justify. Legacypac (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Overly specific, virtually empty category. Reyk _YO! 07:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to both parents: Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Hungarian centenarians. Too small to keep, but the nom @Legacypac gives no justification for this proposal to remove these people from the parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Hungarian centenarians. Oculi (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only one page and its up for AfD at that, so its a useless category, which is meant to be for a group of similar articles, not one-offs. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newshunter12: Fair enough, this category is too small. But the effect of deleting the cat rather than merging will be to remove its contents from all supercenterarians categories, and also from Category:Hungarian centenarians. Why do you and Reyk and Legacypac want to do that?

The fact that an article is at AFD is irrelevant. So long as it exists, it needs to be categorised, and if the AFD closes as "delete", we can make appropriate decisions then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:German supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only 4 pages in this cat, one is a list of German Supercenturians, two are redirects to lists, and the last is up for deletion. Cat serves no real purpose with only one or maybe zero actual pages in it Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to both parents: Category:Supercentenarians and Category:German centenarians. Too small to keep, but the nom @Legacypac gives no justification for this proposal to remove these people from the parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categories are for groups of similar articles and this category is effectively empty, which makes it useless. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newshunter12: Fair enough, this category is too small. But the effect of deleting the cat rather than merging will be to remove its contents from all supercenterarians categories, and also from Category:German centenarians. Why do you and Reyk and Legacypac want to do that?

For example, why should List of German supercentenarians be removed from Category:German centenarians? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Turkish supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Yet more GRG overcategorization. Category consisting of exactly one page, Yakup Satar (and for those at WP:WikiProject Longevity I'm thinking of merging that article anyway). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete like the ones I nominated. Same issues on all of these. Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- more obsessive stamp collecting from the gerontology enthusiasts. This is a clear case of overcategorisation that dilutes content beyond usefulness. Reyk _YO! 08:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to both parents: Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Turkish centenarians. Too small to keep, but the nom @The Blade of the Northern Lights gives no justification for this proposal to remove these people from the parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only one page and its possibly going to be merged soon at that, so this is a useless category, which is meant to be for a group of similar articles, not one-offs. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newshunter12: Fair enough, this category is too small. But the effect of deleting the cat rather than merging will be to remove its contents from all supercenterarians categories, and also from Category:Turkish centenarians. Why do you and Reyk and Legacypac want to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ukrainian supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category consisting of exactly one article (and someone more familiar with military history than me might want to look at the notability of said article). More GRG overcategorization. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a single page does not need a cat. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- this is a very obvious case of overcategorisation. Reyk _YO! 09:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to both parents: Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Ukrainian centenarians. Too small to keep, but the nom @The Blade of the Northern Lights gives no justification for this proposal to remove these people from the parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Ukrainian centenarians. Oculi (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A single page does not need a category, which is meant for a group of similar articles, not one offs. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newshunter12: Fair enough, this category is too small. But the effect of deleting the cat rather than merging will be to remove its contents from all supercenterarians categories, and also from Category:Ukrainian centenarians. Why do you and Reyk and Legacypac want to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl I can only speak for me, but the one article in this cat Mikhail Krichevsky is of dubious value, so I don't think anything of value is being lost eliminating this category. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Category:Norwegian centenarians: if you believe that article is of dubious value, then take it to AFD.

This is CFD, where editors discuss how to categorise articles which currently exist, as this one does. It is no part of en.wp practice to remove an article from relevant categories just because one editor has a personal view that the article is dubious.

So long as it exists, why do you want to remove it from Category:Ukrainian centenarians? Merger would remove the small category (which I agree is a good idea), while ensuring that article remains properly actegorised so long as it exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Puerto Rican supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: More GRG overcategorization. 3 pages in this subcategory, 2 of which are redirects. All of these are best in Category:American supercentenarians without this hyperspecific category. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete PR people are Americans Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Category:American supercentenarians. Too small to keep, but the nom @Legacypac gives no justification for this proposal to remove these people from the parent category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy pasted vote misnames the nominator. No one wants to remove these from the American cat, the point is the American cat does the job. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:, sorry to misname the nominator, who was actually The Blade of the Northern Lights. (That's partly a consequnece of the decision by Legacypac and TBOTNL to make a long series of almost identical individual nominations, rather than grouping them. A series of copy-pasted nominations nevcessitates copypasted responses)

However, the point remains that the effect of this nomination would be to remove the pages from both Category:American supercentenarians and Category:Puerto Rican centenarians. If nobody wants to do that, then why has TBOTNL proposed doing exactly that?

It is disappointing that neither @The Blade of the Northern Lights nor @Legacypac appear to understand the effect of what is being proposed by their series of delete nominations, and that repeated efforts to explain to Legacypac the difference between merger and deletion appear to be unsuccessful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to parents Category:American supercentenarians and . Oculi (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One page and two redirects do not constitute a category, so this category is useless. These people are also as American as any other Americans, so they do not a sub-category of their own anyway. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newshunter12: Fair enough, this category is too small. But the effect of deleting the cat rather than merging will be to remove its contents from all supercenterarians categories (including Category:American supercentenarians), and also from Category:Puerto Rican centenarians. Why do you and @Legacypac want to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl I can only speak for me, but the one page in this category Emiliano Mercado del Toro, would still part of the male supercentenarian cat and it would be easy enough to add him to the American one. Perhaps this could have been done more smoothly, but I think deletion is the right way to go at this point. This cat just doesn't merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Newshunter12 that makes no sense at all. What exactly is the reason you support deletion rather than merger? Why support his deletion from both Category:American supercentenarians and Category:Puerto Rican centenarians if you want to add him in later?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BrownHairedGirl I don't personally care if he is in either of those categories as I don't use categories myself, but was making the point if others thought he belonged there it is very easy to rectify without trying to stop the deletion of this category. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Newshunter12: wow! You don't use categories yourself. You don't care if they are accurate. So what are you doing in a CFD discussion????

Yet you are supporting an action (deletion) which you accept will require rectification, rather than supporting the alternative (merger) which won't. And you are pursuing this line across a dozen CFD discusison.

What are you up to? Is this some form of intentional disruption? Or has someone somewhere canvassed you to come to this discussion and vote for something who effects you don't care about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Norwegian supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category with two pages, one of which is a redirect. More GRG overcategorization. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not needed. No room for growth Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- More overspecific longevity cruft. Reyk _YO! 11:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to both parents: Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Norwegian centenarians. Too small to keep, but the nom @Legacypac gives no justification for this proposal to remove these people from the parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Norwegian centenarians. Oculi (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One page and one redirect do not constitute a category. Such fancruft is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newshunter12: Fair enough, this category is too small. But the effect of deleting the cat rather than merging will be to remove its contents from all supercenterarians categories, and also from Category:Norwegian centenarians. Why do you and @Reyk and Legacypac want to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl Well, I can't speak for the others, but for me this cat is useless and the one page in it Herman Smith-Johannsen, would still be listed under the Canadian supercentenarian and male supercentenarian categories. I don't feel that anything is being lost here, but I respect that you feel otherwise and I have seen plenty of old AfD's from years ago to know that you worked very hard to stem the GRG fancruft tide. I have a lot of respect for you as an editor, but unless you come over to my side here we will have to agree to disagree. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Newshunter12: that makes no sense at all.

Are you claiming that Herman Smith-Johannsen has no place in Category:Norwegian centenarians? Because unless you dispute that he is a Norwegian centenarians, then deletion is the wrong option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl Grouping people into categories by age is pretty pointless, so I see no value including him in Category:Norwegian centenarians. We don't do so for people in there 80's or 90's, so why 100's? It's just more cruft that people have built into Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Half Man Half Biscuit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: With only albums and songs subcategories, which already interlink from one another, an eponymous category for this band simply isn't necessary. WP:OCEPON Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Template-related templates to Category:Template namespace templates

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as redundant and unclear. Nothing's in here but a random smattering of selections from the target category or one of its other subcategories. Virtually everything classified as a template-namespace template is going to be template-related. The scopes overlap too much.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]