The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Heavily tattooed people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: /Maybe listify--this is wildly subjective. Although many of the individuals categorized here are known for being tattooed, there are others who have famous or notorious tattoos but who are not *heavily* tattooed. Alternately, there are others who are heavily tattooed but not known for it (a lot of metal musicians, e.g.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- subjective and would involve OR. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is for people primarily famous for being heavily tattooed, not for people random editors just happen to think have a lot of tattoos. Abyssal (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to agree. I brought this up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization to get the views of other editors after I came across this category. Points made thus far have convinced me this is not a useful category. AusLondonder (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems a bit silly to have almost 20 articles on people primarily famous for their tattoos and then lump them in a category with every other tattoo-related article to clutter up the place. Abyssal (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this category does indeed seem ambiguous and broad, for example does Raul Meireles warrant being in this category? He's a footballer but well known for his tattoos. By this logic many sportspeople, celebrities, and others who have a lot of ink could be included here. Despite this and the fact I was initially leaning towards delete at the same time per Abyssal's vote I think there is a valid idea to have a category for people who are known for being tattooed first and foremost. Perhaps bringing up a new category Category:People known for tattoos could be possibly more appropriate? Tell me what you think thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete without objection to renaming this category, being tattooed is a defining characteristic of the people in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as for some people Isobel Varley it's what their notability is for, but add some category text explaining that the category is for people notable for their tattoos (e.g. record-breaking). DexDor ^(talk) 19:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question what is the definition of "heavily tattooed"? Any how any definition avoid being either WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or WP:ARBITRARYCAT? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• IMO this category can work without us defining "heavily tattooed"; if being heavily tattooed is the/a reason for a person's notability (why that person is in RSs) then put them in the category. If the category is deleted (without an upmerge) then it would leave articles such as Julia Gnuse without any categorization based on what the person is notable for (i.e. her aticle would not be in/under Category:Tattooing) - is that ok? DexDor ^(talk) 18:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @DexDor: I can see the logic of that, but it brings us back to the old problem that with most categorisation now done using WP:HOTCAT, editors don't see category explanations when adding a categ to an article. (Aside: this is a pathetic technical failing of the software which could easily have been resolved long ago if the WMF had put more resources into the core software rather than subsidising the committee games of the self-appointed "Wikipeida chapters". But we are where we are </ranty-aside>).

So under its current title, this category will fil up with articles where some editors has seen a photo and decided "look, lottsa tattoos, let's categorise them". Could an alternative title avoid that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'ts not quite correct that the category will fill up; it may from time to time, contain some articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria, but that's true of many categories (e.g. see the politicians etc in Category:Truck drivers). I don't think we should be so strict about categorization that some articles don't fit into any topic-based categories - i.e. biographical articles that can only be categorized by things such as year of birth/death (which are really categories for administration) and not by what the person is notable for. DexDor ^(talk) 20:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor: note that I haven't actually !voted to delete. I am just trying to see whether anyone can think of a way of making this category less high-maintenance. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 13:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Knights Second Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A lower-tier decoration & non-defining, as none of the subjects are notable for having received it; see WP:CATDEF. Created by Special:Contributions/Folks_at_137 who started many categories on similarly obscure awards. See for example:

• CfD: Category:Knights 2nd class of the Albert Order.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAWARD, I see no reason to deviate here from this guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 13:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Knights 2nd Class of the Saxe-Ernestine House Order (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A decoration of the low tier & non-defining, as none of the subjects are notable for having received it; see WP:CATDEF. Created by Special:Contributions/Folks_at_137 who started many categories on similarly obscure awards. See for example:

• CfD: Category:Knights 2nd class of the Albert Order.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAWARD, I see no reason to deviate here from this guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 13:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Order of Michael the Brave, 3rd class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A decoration of the low tier & non-defining, as none of the subjects are notable for having received it; see WP:CATDEF. Created by Special:Contributions/Folks_at_137 who started many categories on similarly obscure awards. See for example:

• CfD: Category:Knights 2nd class of the Albert Order.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAWARD, I see no reason to deviate here from this guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 13:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:German people of Silesian German descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NARROWCAT, while I can imagine there may be room for a category of German people who had to migrate from Silesia in 1945 (when Silesia became Polish) to more western parts of Germany, this category actually contains children of these migrants and that seems a bit overdone. Btw I'm not even sure if there is a separate category for the parents who were the ones who migrated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- obscure and non-defining, possibly OR. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we already have Category:German people of Silesian descent which already does a good job of summing those people up nicely. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for info, the latter is not quite correct, this other category contains Polish Silesian people who emigrated to Germany, and that category is up for deletion too, see yesterday. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and repurpose -- At the end of WWII, there were a lot of Germans displaced from territories beyond the post-1945 boundary. These people had lost everything and were on one hand severely traumatised and on the other a security problem to the occupying powers. Being such a displaced person (DP) or the child of one may be highly defining: one article specifically states that is defining for her. However, I doubt it is useful to split those who displaced from Pomerania and east Prussia from DPs from Silesia and from Sudetenland Germans displaced from Bohemia. I would suggest we have a single category for "Germans displaced at end of World War II", possibly Category:German displaced persons. A head note will explain its scope, as this will require more words than are convenient for a category name. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As mentioned in the nomination, I can well imagine a category of German people who had to migrate from Silesia (or Pomerania) in 1945, but the nominated category is for people who were born after 1945, like born in 1958. That's really a different issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename per option B. – Fayenatic London 13:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming according to one of the following options:

Option B

"Organizations" to "Organisations"

• Category:Business organizations based in Iran to Category:Business organisations based in Iran
• Category:Student political organizations of Iran to Category:Student political organisations of Iran
• Category:Organizations of the Iranian Revolution‎ to Category:Organisations of the Iranian Revolution‎
• Category:Organizations based in Tehran to Category:Organisations based in Tehran

Rationale: Since these categories have the same national scope, they should match in ENGVAR usage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B To match existing spelling of parent Category:Organisations based in Iran AusLondonder (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B – Follow example of parent Category:Organisations based in Iran. Oculi (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• OPtion B - Since Iran lies between India (formerly British) and Iraq (formerly British mandate), I would suggest that British English is the appropriate orthography. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: do not merge, but create new parent and selectively populate it from these categories. – Fayenatic London 13:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sailboat components to Category:Sailing ship components

Nominator's rationale: I can't find good definition of either; if there's a distinction between these two lists of articles I can't guess what it would be. B.S. Lawrence (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support - I generally like the idea of such a merge but worry there are a lot of components (mostly of sailing ships) that are not universal to the two. Perhaps one overarching category could be created, say "Sailing vessel components", with subcategories for components unique to sailboats or sailing ships. --Mindfrieze (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this really made me want to clarify the distinction; now I realise this is already beaten around with the main articles sailboat v. sailing ship (I guess I should have looked there, huh?). I note from the former "Distinctions in what constitutes a sailing boat and ship vary by region and maritime culture.". I've at least added the links to these main pages to the two categories, to keep it clear, in case the merge doesn't actually happen. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both to Category:Sailing vessel components, I doubt there is much that applies only to boats and not ships or vice versa and I am not sure it matters if there are. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. On a quick scan, I reckon that over 20% of the items in Category:Sailboat components do not apply to sailing ships. I will notify WikiProject Sailing, and suggest that we await more input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the project has already been notified, tho unhelpfully some of he discussion seems to have happened there rather than CFD.

Anyway, would those supporting merger, please give examples of sailing ships which have any of the following: backstay insulator, boom vang, bulb keel, canting keel, CBTF Technology, daggerboard, parasail, pelican striker, spinnaker, kite rig, trampoline (multihulls), winged keel, vaka (sailing)?

AFAIK, those are all components of sailing boats, but not components of sailing ships. Merger will leave them improperly categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I support this merger, however, I agree with you the topics of these two categories shouldn't be dumped willy-nilly into one overarching category. But while there are certainly many articles unique to each category, as you pointed out, there are also several common articles that shouldn't be so pigeon-holed. I would propose placing both existing categories - in their entirety - within a new Sailing vessel components category and then pulling common topics out of each (sub)category into the new main category. -- Mindfrieze (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mindfrieze: that sounds like a good ultimate solution, and I'd agree with that outcome. But merger is not a good way to get there. Better to just create a new Category:Sailing vessel components as a parent to both these categories, and recategorise as appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: This may just be poor semantics on my part, but the outcome you describe - with which I agree - sounds like the definition of a merger to me. -- Mindfrieze (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mindfrieze: a merge is when the contents of CAT are moved to CatB, and CatA is then deleted. In this case I think we both agree that CatA and CatB should both be kept, but some of their contents moved to a new CatC, which will be a parent of both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for the clarification. I agree neither of these existing categories should be merged into the other and deleted. I fully support moving both into a new parent category and reorganized. -- 13:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I had closed this discussion earlier today under the impression there was consensus about a merge and the creation of a new parent category, in combination. According to this discussion on my talk page there appears to be just consensus about the creation of a new parent category on top of the two existing categories. So I've reopened this discussion in order to clarify consensus on whether or not to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will support the creation of a new parent, which can then be followed by manual re-categorisation of things that apply both to boats and ships. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Republican Party (United States) websites to Category:American conservative political websites

Nominator's rationale: This is the only category with the scope "websites that publish material from the perspective of a political party", which is difficult to define. The current category name suggests that the websites are owned by the Republican Party or has links to it, which cannot be proven for many websites in this category. Either expand the scope of this category to American conservative websites in general, or upmerge to its parent category. feminist 10:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: soft delete. If a replacement category is justifiable (which is not evident), it should be given a clearer name. – Fayenatic London 13:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Boomerang Programming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: None of the 3 articles in this category mention Boomerang Programming (which is currently a redlink). DexDor ^(talk) 05:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @DexDor: I believe the category refers to television shows broadcast by Boomerang (TV channel)....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, neither of the three articles refer to Boomerang (TV channel) so it doesn't seem to be defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to both parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Photographers from Manhattan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to parents. Needlessly narrow. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. Photographers from New York City is categorization enough....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep category There is a distinct difference between a Manhattan photographer who photographs celebrities and one from Staten Island or Queens. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know all photographers from Manhattan photograph celebrities? AusLondonder (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and upmerge. No need for such low-level categorisation. AusLondonder (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per First world problem; trivial category. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possible merge to Photographers from New York City. Either way it seems unneeded – do we need articles about photographers from the Bronx and Staten Island as well? Inter&anthro (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Harpists from New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge possible merge to Category:LGBT people from South Africa but either way it is a trivial intersection of race and LGTBQ identity. See a a roughly similar South African-related cfd here. Per WP:TRIVIALCAT. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete/merge ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Inter&anthro: What about Category:LGBT Native Hawaiians, Category:LGBT Native Americans, Category:LGBT African Americans, Category:LGBT American people of Asian descent and Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino-American people to name a few? Sources in South Africa have noted an intersection of black identity and LGBT identity such as this and this. AusLondonder (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AusLondonder, thank you very much for your response, I appreciate the sources you mentioned. For some reason it is more common to find ethnicity based categories deriving from the United States than other countries, possibly because there is more English language coverage on the matter. However as of this comment the two articles in this cateory are not notable for being LGTBQ and Black South African. There is also not much on LGBT rights in South Africa regarding race. If anymore sources can be found I will gladly withdraw my cfd nomination. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge for now as the category contains too few members to be useful. Unsure about the trivial intersection rationale. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.