Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/Today

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

How to use this page

[edit]
  1. Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or to be created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
  3. Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
  5. Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
    1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
    2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
  6. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
    1. Alternatively, if the category is a candidate for speedy renaming (see Wikipedia:Category renaming), add it to the speedy category at the bottom.
  7. Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

[edit]

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Discussion for Today

[edit]
This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_September_30


September 30

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Mainichi Broadcasting System

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Current name of holding company. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airliner bombings in the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:OCLOCATION and WP:NARROWCAT; the absolute number of airliner bombings is too small to warrant subdividing, it's unlikely to grow substantially in the future, and the country where a bombing took place is not a central defining characteristic. OCLOCATION dictates that countries of occurrence may be useful for dividing up huge and unwieldy categories, but this isn't one of them, and is unlikely to ever be. Carguychris (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Nomination does not consider the effect of this deletion on Category:Improvised explosive device bombings in the United States where this will result in declining navigation abilities to get to quickly see those articles about IEDs involving aircraft in the United States. Hmains (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that. There are only about twenty listings in that category. Adding nine more should not make the category unwieldy, and since the articles are all named "<airline name> <flight number>", it's obvious which ones are airliner bombings. Carguychris (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airliner bombings in the Soviet Union

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:OCLOCATION and WP:NARROWCAT; the absolute number of airliner bombings is too small to warrant subdividing, it's unlikely to grow substantially in the future, and the country where a bombing took place is not a central defining characteristic. OCLOCATION dictates that countries of occurrence may be useful for dividing up huge and unwieldy categories, but this isn't one of them. Additionally, this subcategory will forever remain extremely narrow because the subject country no longer exists. Carguychris (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by auxiliary equipment failure

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category name is excessively vague and therefore violates WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. There is little agreement in the aviation community as to what constitutes "auxiliary equipment". Carguychris (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please suggest a merge target. Mason (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is difficult given the ambiguity of the current name. The sole current article in the category, TWA Flight 529, crashed due to an elevator failure. Perhaps Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving flight control failure? The underlying issue is the lack of a consistent, unambiguous definition for "auxiliary equipment". "Flight control" is considerably easier to define, but is also ambiguous to some degree. All that being said, I'm also concerned that creating myriad aircraft accident categories by cause may lead to WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:NARROWCAT concerns. Carguychris (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by instrument failure

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: (1) It's important to specify the type of instrument under discussion. (2) Flight instrument (or navigation system) failure is almost never cited as the solitary cause of a notable aviation accident or incident, making the current name a violation of WP:NARROWCAT or WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Almost all complex modern civil and military aircraft have multiple redundant systems, and the vast majority of "instrument failure" accidents involve the pilot(s) becoming fixated on a single malfunctioning instrument or system while ignoring other, properly functioning instruments or systems that, if used properly, could have prevented the accident. Investigators typically cite pilot error as the primary cause in such accidents; flight instrument failure is usually secondary. Carguychris (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by missile shootdowns

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category name seems self-contradictory or even oxymoronic, and inherently implies a cause. Shootdowns are typically intentional acts and not accidents; in the rare occurrences in which aircraft have been shot down under circumstances that may be truly accidental, considerable controversy typically exists, and blanket categorization implying a cause could be a violation of WP:NPOV. Carguychris (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "accidents and incidents " includes non-accidents. Please suggest an alternative name if you dislike it. Mason (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents already exists, so this branch of Category:Aviation accidents and incidents seems redundant. Suggest Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents involving surface-to-air missiles. (It is unclear whether the creator of this subcategory intended to restrict it to SAM shootdowns, but the only article currently in the category is a SAM shootdown, and I would argue that in air-to-air or fighter shootdowns, the weapon used is non-defining.) Carguychris (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fighter aircraft shootdowns

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category name seems self-contradictory or even oxymoronic, and inherently implies a cause. Shootdowns are typically intentional acts and not accidents; in the rare occurrences in which aircraft have been shot down under circumstances that may be truly accidental, considerable controversy typically exists, and blanket categorization implying a cause could be a violation of WP:NPOV. Proposed category name is less subjective. Carguychris (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename. This is inconsistent with the rest of the category tree. Mason (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be moved to the Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents category tree for consistency with existing aircraft shootdown articles. Pardon my failure to mention that in the initial proposal. This category and the aforementioned "missile shootdown" category effectively created a branch of Category:Aviation accidents and incidents that duplicates part of an existing category tree. Carguychris (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Major League Baseball stolen base leaders

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent category. Only three articles. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Labor disputes in Samoa

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The only article in this category is Samoa Public Service Association, not a specific dispute. AusLondonder (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mason (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Labor disputes in Taiwan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The only article in this category is about the Labour movement in general and not a specific dispute and which is already appropriately categorised. AusLondonder (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mason (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Labor disputes in Luxembourg

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only article in this category is about a trade union not a specific dispute and which is already appropriately categorised. AusLondonder (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Labor disputes in Vatican City

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only article in this category is Association of Vatican Lay Workers, which is about a trade union not a specific dispute and which is already appropriately categorised. AusLondonder (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: We really don't need to intersection ethnicity/religion with area of scholarship. The category creator needs to review WP:EGRS.Mason (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, though - are you guys totally unaware that Jewish legal scholarship stretches back centuries? (Actually, millenia.) It is deeply embedded in Jewish culture, outlook and ethos - and intertwined with Western legal history. So it's not in the least surprising that there are so many Jewish people among the ranks of Category:American legal scholars - and that so many of the most well-known and widely cited American legal scholars are Jewish.
Here is a small selection of the "google blurbs" that turned up when I googled "Jewish legal scholars history", which should give you a sense of what I'm alluding to:
  • Jewish Law and American Law, Volume 2 - Academic Studies Press
Through careful comparative analysis, the essays also turn to Jewish law to provide insights into substantive and conceptual areas of the American legal system, ...
  • The Hebrews and the Foundation of Western Law
Starting as early as the second century A.D., Jewish scholars attempted to compile a code of laws from the Torah and other sources, which would assemble all ...
  • The Hidden Influence of Jewish Law on the Common Law Tradition
As Christian scholars sought contacts with Jewish intellectuals in order to...
  • Jewish Law: A Very Brief Account - David D. Friedman
Jewish law may be the best recorded legal system in the history of the world; there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of pages of surviving ...
  • Oxford University Press - An Introduction to the History and Sources of Jewish Law
Jewish law has a history stretching from the early period to the modern State of Israel, encompassing: the Talmud, Geonic, and later codifications. // :Instead, the work would take a broader view and include material from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hellenistic Egypt, Roman law, the Samaritans and the Karaites
  • Jewish Law Research Guide | University of Miami School of Law
The Post-Talmudic legal scholars are separated into three historical sub-periods: geonim (700-1050), reshonim (1050-1599), and aharonim (1600-today).
In closing, I've now added 15 more articles to this category, and there are scores more that can be added. Which reminds me: I also created Category:African-American legal scholars a few years back, which now has 42 articles. Like their Jewish counterparts, they bring their own outlook and ethos with them when they engage in legal scholarship. And lastly, I just created the "missing" parent cat, Category:Jewish legal scholars. There are scores of articles about non-American Jewish legal scholars waiting to be added. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the issue at hand: Why have you all completely ignored the argument I presented showing the very clear pertinence of Jewish legal scholarship? Not a single editor has responded in any way to the case I've made. Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The criterion in WP:EGRS is: "combination is itself recognized as a defining topic that has already been established (in reliable sources showing substantial existing research specific to the topic." The sources you cite above are about Jewish law, which is certainly a significant topic, but not legal scholars who happen to be American Jews. Btw, some of your sources could be used to create a section in the Jewish law article about its influence in Western law, if not an article itself. Kol tuv, ProfGray (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For what it's worth, there are reliable sources that recognize "Jewish lawyers" (or legal scholars) as a defining topic. I don't know why there's no category, maybe it's been proposed and deleted in the past. Sources include:
  • Hornblass, Jerome. "The Jewish Lawyer." Cardozo L. Rev. 14 (1992): 1639.
  • Auerbach, Jerold S. "From Rags to Robes: The Legal Profession, Social Mobility and the American Jewish Experience." American Jewish Historical Quarterly 66, no. 2 (1976): 249-284.
  • Rabbis and Lawyers: The Journey from Torah to Constitution [book], Jerold S. Auerbach
  • Auerbach, Jerold S. "Prophets or Profits? Liberal Lawyers and Jewish Tradition." Judaism 36, no. 3 (1987): 360.
  • Simone Ladwig-Winters, (2018) Lawyers Without Rights: The Fate of Jewish Lawyers in Berlin After 1933
  • Fagen, Melvin M. "The Status of Jewish Lawyers in New York City: A Preliminary Report on a Study Made by the Conference on Jewish Relations." Jewish Social Studies (1939): 73-104.
  • Wald, Eli. "Jewish Lawyers and the US Legal Profession: The End of the Affair?." Touro L. Rev. 36 (2020): 299.
  • Greisman, Israel M. "The Jewish Criminal Lawyer's Dilemma." Fordham Urb. LJ 29 (2001): 2413.
  • Asimow, Michael. "Jewish Lawyers in American Popular Culture." Va. Sports & Ent. LJ 21 (2022): 1.
  • Sarna, Jonathan D. "Two Jewish Lawyers Named Louis." American Jewish History 94, no. 1 (2008): 1-19.
  • Meniconi, Antonella. "The expulsion of Jewish lawyers from the legal profession." Razza e: 99.
  • Jarausch, Konrad H. "Jewish Lawyers in Germany, 1848–1938: the Disintegration of a Profession." The Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 36, no. 1 (1991): 171-190.
  • De Benedetti, Paola. "Jewish lawyers at the Court of Turin." Razza e: 153.
  • Shamir, Ronen. "Nation-building and colonialism: The case of Jewish lawyers in Palestine." International Journal of the Legal Profession 8, no. 2 (2001): 109-123.
  • Kuhne, Gunther. "The Impact of German Jewish Jurists on German Law until 1933 and Their Immigration Thereafter to the US, Israel, and Other Countries." Tel Aviv U. Stud. L. 15 (2000): 67.
However, rather than create a category, why not create an article with this material? Expand from these few sentences: History of the American legal profession#Jewish lawyers. Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ProfGray for breaking down the issue as well as wading through the wall of text! I think your suggestion to make a page is very constructive! @Anomalous+0 please keep your arguments more concise if you want editors to address them on the specifics. Mason (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. @Mason, would it be reasonable to rename (Move) the Category:Jewish American legal scholars to a new Category:Jewish American lawyers, as a subset of Category:American lawyers by ethnicity? As shown with source above, this combination is a defining topic, though it only has an article section and not a full article yet. (I'm not sure if there's enough for Jewish lawyers in general, though examples of De Benedetti, Meniconi, Shamir, Kuhne above would be relevant.)
Btw, there's also List of Jewish American jurists. Does this article imply that there's a defining topic for a category by this name? Thanks, ProfGray (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I assume that there's previously been a Jewish lawyers category, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_3 I think that creating a page with more substance than just a list would be a better place to start. Mason (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on ProfGray's rename suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Things in the United States that were built by slaves

[edit]
Convert Category:Things in the United States that were built by slaves to article Things in the United States that were built by slaves
Nominator's rationale: Unforuntely, I don't think that this is defining because these "things" aren't regularlly defined as built by slaves Mason (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Listify? If we are listifying, what should the list be called?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Failed verification and WP:NONDEF issues. I checked several articles at random and most do not support the source of the claim of Native American descent being "self-identification" or that the individuals have not "shared proof of this heritage" (proof is not mentioned). The insinuation here is that these people are not genuinely of Native American descent but sources don't support (or contradict) that. As for some self-sourced claims of descent being false, that is true for all other types of descent but we justifiably don't have Category:People who self-identify as being of Sephardic Jewish descent. Furthermore, people saying "I'm Native American" in an interview, if they lack a genuine connection to Native American culture, is never going to meet the standard for categorization in WP:NONDEF. (t · c) buidhe 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, I agree that these should be deleted per nom but definitely nominate all the subcategories too. Per the below discussion, I'm changing my vote to neutral for now. Was not aware of a previous discussion on this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose. This was the subject of a very long CFD, the contributors of which should be pinged. Mason (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that there had been a prior CfD but the result is hard to reconcile with the P&G. Seems like a better solution to the identified problem might to be enforcing existing wp:defining rules or even eliminating Native American categories by descent that aren't for registered tribal members. The situation as it is now feels like Wikipedia trying to decide who is proven to be a real Native American or not—which the sources, in the vast majority of cases, don't allow us to do. (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it's unclear to me what differentiates this category tree from the People of Native American descent tree. Articles like Tiffany Darwish seem like they could be placed into either. What type of source is required to declare Native American identity "proven" rather than a mater of "self-identification"? (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many people are of descent and not enrolled tribal citizens but this is still a defined aspect of their biography. The point of this broad category is that Wikipedia is *not* trying to decide who is or is not of Native ancestry but reflecting what published, sources state: that these individuals have stated they have Native ancestry in their published biographies. Yuchitown (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that almost all articles in the category fail verification as it is currently drafted. This is a problematic category, especially for BLPs. It is a subcat of Category:American people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent, which makes the stronger claim that the indivudals have no proof of the heritage. (Previous parent categories put everyone in this category under Category:Native American cultural appropriation and Category:Transracial (identity), but those at least have been removed.) It is of limited use to have a category that groups together known frauds, people who have a genuine but incorrect belief that they have Indigenous ancestry, and people who do have Indigenous ancestry but a particular standard of proof hasn't been found in reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will ping all participants at the previous CFD. I will also note (without comment) that since the previous discussion, ArbCom has passed a motion stating that Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan (who both participated in the prior CFD) are to be considered a single user.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brandmeister, CorbieVreccan, Dimadick, Indigenous girl, Jjj1238, Koavf, Marcocapelle, Mark Ironie, Moxy, Namiba, Place Clichy, Qwerfjkl, RevelationDirect, TheMainLogan, ValarianB, and Yuchitown: Pinging previous participants, regardless of participation in the above discussion. I have no opinion on the merits of the proposal. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose deletion the category was created because of the very specific and nuanced differences between claiming Native American heritage and claiming any other kind of heritage. There are numerous cases (as the amount of articles in the category suggests) where an individual's claim to Native American ancestry is relevant enough for inclusion, but they are not considered to be Native American by the Native American community because of the aforementioned nuances that exist here. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment does not engage with the deletion argument at all and should be disregarded by the closer. Unless there is more clarity about how the two sets of categories are distinguished in reliable sources and how we can verifiably distinguish them, there is no basis for categorization. You also haven't explained how people in this category meets the defining criteria. I wonder if there is even any evidence in reliable sources that native American heritage (as opposed to being an actual tribal member) is somehow distinct from all other ethnicities that it requires a different categorization scheme (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes, this is often defining and also Native American is a unique political classification in the United States, not an ethnicity. Yuchitown (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To expand further, these are longstanding categories based on self-identification (a term widely used in literature about Native American identity) by individuals in secondary, published sources. These are the broadest possible categories that reflect that the individual has claimed Native American ancestry. I hope everyone in this discussion have familiarized themselves with the topic of Native American identity in the United States, and how it is a unique political status that is not comparable to ethic or racial classifications or other identity classifications, such as those of the LGBTQ+ communities. Being Native American is a communal identity, not an individual identity. While being a tribal citizen clearly requires confirmation from the tribe in question, being a descendant also requires confirmation and also has real-world implications (for instance, direct descendants of tribal citizens are still eligible to use the Indian Health Service, even if they aren't enrolled. Innumerable individuals make claims to Native American descendency, but often these claims are unsubstantiated so they go into this category or its subcategories. That doesn't mean they do *not* have Native American ancestry; it just means confirmation in reliable, secondary, published sources needed to recategorize them haven't been found yet. These are broad, Schrödinger's cat categories. Without them (and anyone here who has edited Native topics for years will know), these individuals repeated get added to the specific tribal categories (e.g. Category:Mohawk people) and repeatedly have to be removed. The name of this category is factually accurate and meets Wikipedia's requirements for what can be verified. Yuchitown (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose This is both defining and relatively easy to source. Dimadick (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That someone has made a claim of Native American ancestry is often easy to source. Where almost every article fails verification for this cateogry is in sourcing the claim that they have no proof of that ancestry (as the parent category words it), or that they have not shared such proof (as this category words it). Our failure to find a source making a certain claim can’t be used as verification for the claim that no such source exists; that is WP:OR, used here to make contentious claims about BLPs.--Trystan (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify I get the point of opposers, but because of apparent doubts in some (or many) of such claims, this is clearly WP:OPINIONCAT and hardly WP:DEFINING as compared to e.g. established Category:Native American people. Brandmeistertalk 08:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inclusion here is not an opinion. All the people included in these categories have identified as being of Native American descent (generally or of a specific tribe, in which case they go under the appropriate subcat) in secondary, published records. Often that's all that can substantiated; that they include that in their biography. When tribes confirm their citizenship or descendancy in secondary, published sources, then they can be moved into the smaller categories. Yuchitown (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different Procedural Oppose Since the original nomination, there have been a number of subcategories which this parent category serves to group and shouldn't be deleted in isolation. (I do have concerns about most of the subcats though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Subcategories Two of these subcategories serve a clear purpose: The Cherokee heritage groups are why the Cherokee group is so large and descendants of multi-racial people who fibbed about their identity to utilize the Pocahontas exception to racial segregation justifies a subcategory. (The Category:American people who self-identify as being of Powhatan descent subcategory is misnamed though, since few would be able to name Pocahontas' tribe.) I'm less sure what the purpose is for all the other, mostly small, tribal categories though since the exotic sounding name of the tribe may have basically been picked at random. Occupational subcategories for actors and politicians dubiously claiming ancestry might be a better approach. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These categories are based on how the individuals have self-identified in secondary, published sources and use the terminology they use. For instance, this article mentions Nadema Agard identifying being of "Powhatan" descent. Speculation, second-guessing, and original research isn't permitted on Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suport per nom. Better editing can eliminate the issues around WP:BLP.--User:Namiba 14:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Deletion I also have checked many of these articles, and so far, the majority fail verifiability on self-identification, resulting in such claims for people, including BLPs and BLP notables of non-BIA tribes, that are not supported by reliable, published sources and seem to, instead, be the implications of original research. The insinuation for the people categorized as self-identifying is that they are frauds. Wikipedia, which now plays a significant role in AI-generated searches, relies on its policies that require all material in its mainspace must be verifiable so as not to spread disinformation.Bcbc24 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (including subcategories) to regular descent categories, but purge obvious cases of fraud. The articles usually contain very little information about this topic, in most cases they just rely on the subject's own statement about their descent. But that applies to every other descent too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lighthouse of Alexandria

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. It rather is a "what links here" collection. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the suggestion for a Category:Cultural depictions of the Lighthouse of Alexandria? If that happens, should we also delete this category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A new cultural depictions category could be a (temporary?) solution, but e.g. Pharos (crater) does not belong there either, it is merely named after the island on which the lighthouse was located. If the new category is created the current category should certainly be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now No conceptual objection to the category (I expected to iVote keep) but, after purging, we would be left with the main article plus Sostratus of Cnidus. The rest appears to be WP:OCASSOC and WP:PERFCAT. No objection to recreation later if content emerges and no objection to a cultural depictions category (so long as it specific depictions, not just overcategorizing everything about the 7 Wonders in general). - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church of Sweden clergymen in Colonial North America

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is extremely narrow. I think it should either be merged to 17th/18th century American Lutheran clergy or renamed to Church of Sweden clergy from the Thirteen Colonies Mason (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There's only one page in here along with 8 images that are hosted on Wikimedia commons. Mason (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Mexican side in the Texas Revolution

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The current name sounds awkward and is confusing/inconsistent Mason (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I don't love the suggestion, but it is an improvement. Mason (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cercle Brugge templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: match naming of parent category Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"