Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 6



Category:Prehistoric synapsids

 * 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: restructure. BlackholeWA, please go ahead per the discussion. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose modification/tree management prehistoric synapsids


 * Nominator's rationale: Incorrect subcategory tree BlackholeWA (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Category:Pelycosaurs

As an adjunct to the discussion below about birds/dinosaurs, I ended up taking a look at the supercategories of Category:Mammals, up to and including Category:Amniotes. For the most part, this is structured mostly as I'd expect, with categories for lower clades being included as subcategories of higher clades. However, I noticed that something seemed to be slightly off with the category tree for the categories Prehistoric synapsids and Pelycosaurs.

The category tree looks roughly like this, excluding branches:

Amniotes > Synapsids > Prehistoric synapsids > Pelycosaurs > Eupelycosauria > Sphenacodonts > Sphenacodontoidea > Therapsids > Mammals

There are two major problems with this, from what I can tell as somebody who is not a paleontologist. Firstly, the tree takes an odd route through "Prehistoric synapsids", despite the fact that the subcategory tree includes all mammals. In this sense, we are categorizing all modern mammals as "Prehistoric synapsids", which is obviously not accurate categorization.

Secondly, and perhaps the root cause of the problem, the "pelycosaurs" category seems to have some incorrect contents. According to the corresponding article, Pelycosaurs used to be considered a proper taxonomic order, but have since been redefined as a paraphyletic group that specifically excludes Therapsids and their descendants, such as the mammals. As such, the category currently contains subcategories that are supposed to be specifically excluded from its definition!

I think the entire problem could probably be solved by cutting Prehistoric synapsids and Pelycosaurs out of this tree, and, for instance, directly placing one of the three subcategories (Eupelycosauria maybe?) into Synapsids. I don't want to do this myself, however, as doing so would possibly mean restructuring the subcategories of Pelycosaurs so that all the right articles are still contained, and I'm not sure I know enough to correctly make the "break" at the right point, let alone do recategorization afterwards, so I thought I'd bring the matter here. BlackholeWA (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - user:Caftaric, a prolific creator of needless categories, is essentially the only editor of Category:Eupelycosauria, and user:NotWith is responsible for the dubious parenting, so I would doubt the authority of the present tree. Notwith and Caftaric were probably the same person and I used to wonder whether they were just spreading confusion in esoteric branches of the category forest. Oculi (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggest moving this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology, as I would not expect any further input at this forum. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually dropped a note in there linking to this conversation, although nobody seems to have chimed in. BlackholeWA (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed in principle, but not sufficiently knowledgeable to suggest details of a suitable remedy. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 06:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you are on the right track with putting Eupelicosauria directly into Synapsids. If no-one comes up with a rational counterargument before this is closed, I think you could go ahead with it. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hopped over from WP:PALEO to leave my two cents. I'm completely oblivious to the logistics of fixing categories, but I'd be on board with cutting out Pelycosaurs and "Prehistoric synapsids" and making Eupelycosauria (as well as Caseasauria) a direct subcategory of Synapsida, following the nested, monophyletic structure of the rest of the tree. As for restructuring the other categories and pages involved, I don't think that would be too complicated to do from my perspective of it.
 * "Prehistoric synapsids" I think would do fine remaining under Synapsida after removing Eupelcyosauria and Pelycosaurs as subcategories.
 * As for Pelycosaurs, looking at the remaining pages I think this category could perhaps be dissolved altogether. Two of them (Mesenosaurus and Mycterosaurus) are already under the Varanopidae subcategory of Eupelycosauria, so their inclusion directly under Pelycosauria seems redundant in the first place. The pages for Protoclepsydrops and Pelycosauria itself could probably also be put under Synapsida—the former's classification being indeterminate beyond synapsid, and the latter for its relevance to synapsid systematics.
 * Again, completely oblivious to the logistics of sorting categories, but I hope my input helps some. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 15:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was exactly the sort of input I was hoping for. I think we will probably be able to take your suggestions forward, if nobody objects. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Wikipedians interested in WWE

 * 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 Category:Wikipedians who like WWE to Category:Wikipedians interested in WWE. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in WWE to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE
 * Nominator's rationale: Fundamentally the same category, except Category:Wikipedians who like WWE is much more popular. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Reverse merge, "interested in" is the standard format. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge per Marcocapelle; you can be interested in WWE but hate it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge This is supposed to be about collaboration, not preference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge per Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Template:Vietnam-painter-stub

 * 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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting


 * Nominator's rationale: Stub template with only 3 transclusions, doesn't even categorise into a separate category. painter-stub or Vietnam-bio-stub would work equally well. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 15:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Standard practice to split nationalities by many different accepted subtypes, and it's also standard to upmerge the templates if there are only a few articles using them. This is one of hundreds - possibly thousands - of templates using this style (see Tuvalu-politician-stub and Peru-journalist-stub for examples). It costs less (i.e., nothing) to upmerge templates than to have stub-sorters and others scratching their heads to come up with alternative templates if they get a redlink. Grutness... wha?   00:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There was also some serious undersorting - there are now 33 articles using this template. Not enough for a separate category, but still plenty. Grutness... wha?   05:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Grutness. --Just N. (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Byzantine-era pagans

 * 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 as nominated. A follow-up nomination to consider exclusively a rename to Category:Late antique pagans could be started. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Byzantine-era pagans to Category:Late-Roman-era pagans
 * Nominator's rationale: This category almost exclusively encompasses pagans from between the conversion of Constantine in the early 4th century and the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Western Empire in the late 5th, a period usually referred to as 'Late Roman', not 'Byzantine'. Many of these did not even live in or come from the East Roman/Byzantine Empire, and there were very, if any (not worth categorizing), pagans in the historical Byzantium of the Middle Ages. The only oddity if this cat. is renamed as proposed would be Gemistus Pletho, who lived in the 15th century, but the designation 'Late Roman' is not technically incorrect for him. Avilich (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support in principle per nom. Perhaps split: there are a few 6th-century Byzantine people in this category, maybe they can be combined with Gemistus Pletho in a separate Category:Byzantine pagans. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think splitting is appropriate. Those pagans who lived past 476 were still a relic of classical Roman times, and the label 'Byzantine' – broadly used to distinguish the Greek and Christian Empire from its Latin and pagan counterpart – is contingent on them ceasing to exist. Aside from the philosopher Plethon, there are very few people, if any, who could be genuinely referred to as Byzantine pagans. People from late antiquity didn't magically switch from being Roman to Byzantine simply by living past 476 or 500. Avilich (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Better Category:Late antique pagans. I think this is a usual term for the period.  Gemistus Pletho is certainly an outlier, who might be in Category:Renaissance pagans.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is a better name. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire world outside of Roman influence in late antiquity was non-Abrahamic. This is too broad. Avilich (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Late antiquity refers to the Roman and Byzantine Empire only. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, see its wikipedia page. Avilich (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article mentions the rise of Islam in passing but late antiquity is not an islamic period. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be an "Islamic period" for it to include everything that was going on in the region during that time. Late Antiquity is not a religion/empire specific term.★Trekker (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue was whether the entire world would be included and that is not the case, as late antiquity is primarily about the Roman and Byzantine Empire. It would be absurd to include early Muslims in Category:Late antique pagans. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom To include both the Western and the Eastern Roman Empire. Marcocapelle's proposal would expand the scope to other countries of late antiquity. Dimadick (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and per Dimadick. --Just N. (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Users who like cold weather

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting users who like cold weather


 * Nominator's rationale: Don't see how this is relevant to building an encyclopedia Le Deluge (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Birds

 * 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: remove  from direct membership of, as this bypasses its existing proper categorisation via  which is already within Dinosaurs (albeit nine layers down). Dinosaurs is in turn already within  (four layers down). Commendation to StarryGrandma for pointing this out; this point was only made rather late in the discussion, and explicitly influenced several who commented afterwards. Also, keep the popular culture categories for birds out of those for dinosaurs, etc. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * birds


 * dinosaurs


 * reptiles


 * Birds are not dinosaurs. This is a basic issue of English usage. I am tired of an editor who has the really annoying attitude that he knows more than other people who goes around trying to force everyone else to accept that birds are dinosaurs and use classifications accordingly. In English words have meanings, that are negotiated by multiple usages. Yes, I know there is an alleged relationship between dinosaurs and birds, but this does not make the two the same thing. We should not class birds as being dinosaurs, and we need to edit out the stealth conflating of the two that has been snuck into articles. If you look on the talk page the last discussion was about this very topic, and a there was no wide support to classify birds as dinosaurs. It has since been imposed and reinforced without consensus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He means me. Please glance at the articles Bird, Dinosaur, Dinosaur size, etc. Wikipedia defines birds as dinosaurs, avian dinosaurs to be exact (the extinct ones are called non-avian dinosaurs). Just because I edit the topic and keep categories and articles on my watchlist in order to edit the topic does not mean disruption has occurred. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. To support your totally non-standard use of the words you would have to cite actual reliable sources using these terms, not just Wikipedia. However see I have cited two very reliable sources showing that you are just plain wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your second reliable source says that birds are dinosaurs, and discusses how humans eat dinosaurs for dinner.Randy Kryn (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

These are English words, which have meanings government by common usage, not claudistic analysis. In common English usage dinosaur refers to a class of animals that all went extint millions of years before the first humans came to be. THis is how my Physical anthopology professor used the term in arguing that dionsaurs and humans never coexisted. Here states dinosaurs died out 65 million years before the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/first humans existed. Here is another firm no to dinosaurs and humans ever coexisting. I could cite lots and lots and lots and lots more sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your second source says birds are dinosaurs, and is a major point of the article which has a misleading sub-headline. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Query - why is this in cfd? Oculi (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This belongs to a CfD discussion about Category:Dinosaur films on February 20. It is probably better to keep it together rather than starting a new discussion per today. Content wise I agree with John Pack Lambert. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet another reason to delete the Category:Dinosaur films? not only have we no objective view of how much about dinosaurs a film must be, but we seem to have a difference of opinion on what dinosaurs encompass. The Birds (film) now a dinosaur film. As Spock would say: "fascinating". But, as between dinosaurs and birds, I do agree that conventional usage distinguishes the two. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Question—Categories are meant to be useful; inclusion in scientific categories (evolution connected or otherwise) is based on widely supported conclusions in the applicable fields. My questions—is the genesis of this discussion theology or science? The title of this thread vitiates the possibility of a useful discussion or consensus. Best to withdraw the debatable formulation in favor of a debatable question. At the least, the narrower discussion proposed by is a better venue. I also see and echo 's question. Wikipedia should go with the science—Birds as avian dinosaurs is settled terminology. — Neonorange (Phil) 20:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum This simple, basic presentation at this Berkley website "Dinosaurs are not extinct. Technically. Based on features of the skeleton, most people studying dinosaurs consider birds to be dinosaurs. This shocking realization makes even the smallest hummingbird a legitimate dinosaur. So rather than refer to "dinosaurs" and birds as discrete, separate groups, it is best to refer to the traditional, extinct animals as "non-avian dinosaurs" and birds as, well, birds, or "avian dinosaurs." It is incorrect to say that dinosaurs are extinct, because they have left living descendants in the form of cockatoos, cassowaries, and their pals — just like modern vertebrates are still vertebrates even though their Cambrian ancestors are long extinct." Is the first Google hit for the string 'Dinosauria'. — Neonorange (Phil) 20:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * AddendumThis frivolous request should be taken up WikiProject Dinosaurs — Neonorange (Phil) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removing Category:Birds from parent Category:Dinosaurs — Birds are not dinosaurs, any more than humans are reptiles. They are all descended from ancient reptiles. While there is an reptilian embryonic stage during human gestation, that does not make it possible for intra-phylum procreation.
 * Does the article Bird support the inclusion? Yes: "Birds are a group of feathered theropod dinosaurs". This is sourced in Bird and so is perfectly valid; indeed it would be remiss to omit such a defining characteristic. (This is not a matter for cfd.) Oculi (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is factually wrong. Humans belong to Synapsida, the sister group to Reptilia within Amniota. Humans are not reptiles and did not descend from reptiles. Early Synapsids were once referred to as "mammal-like reptiles" but this terminology is considered deprecated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh For Goodness Sake! Category:Reptiliomorphs: "During the Carboniferous and Permian periods, some tetrapods started to evolve towards a reptilian condition." Only pedants would argue about whether I'm referring to the more specific Reptilia versus Synapsida. Mammals split. Birds split. They all have their own taxonomy. We shouldn't waste everybodies time trying to create strict heirarchies of such splits, when the details are disputed and unknowable.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently we need a guideline WP:COMMONTERMINOLOGY next to WP:COMMONNAME. In common language birds aren't dinosaurs, even if they are in scientific classification. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Birds are dinosaurs, and Wikipedia should not base its categories on misconceptions but on scientific data. Dimadick (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Birds are indeed dinosaurs and the language typically used on Wikipedia very explicitly reflects this fact. Although arguably the "common" usage of the term dinosaur refers to the extinct species, it seems generally accepted that, as a category, "dinosaur" is a monophyletic clade that is inclusive of birds. As such, it makes sense to have the bird category be located within the dinosaur category. I'm not sure what harm this does. BlackholeWA (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Opinion revised per StarryGrandma below
 * Seriously - given the amount of text given over in the bird and dinosaur articles establishing that birds are a type of dinosaur and in explaining the avian/non-avian dinosaur terminology, why on Earth would we contradict ourselves in our own category system? Including bird as a subcategory of dinosaur does nothing to confuse the "common reader". If they want to look at non-avian dinosaurs only, they can simply go to the dinosaur category and not click on the bird subcategory. BlackholeWA (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and dinosaur and bird signify two different things in common usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't a case of using ourselves as a source, this is a case of following precedent for how we present things. As for sources, there are a wealth of sources that state that birds are avian dinosaurs. This isn't controversial. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we need better guidelines. Birds aren't dinosaurs in any scientific classification either. The proposed parent classification is Coelurosauria that later divided to Maniraptora. We don't know whether flying reptiles came before feathered dinosaurs, and some became flightless, or vice versa. The time spans are far too great. All mammals during that age were similar to shrews. We don't classify humans as walking talking shrews. There is no evidence that Jurassic proto-birds mated with other reptilians of the same era, any more than humans can mate with a shrew. All we know is that what eventually became proto-birds had divided from other reptiles during the Jurassic (or perhaps much earlier).
 * Comment -- Birds may be descended from one class of dinosaur. They have wings and (mostly) fly, which most dinosaurs did not. They are warm-blooded, which some dinosaurs may not have been (and reptiles) were not.  This the equivalent of classifying humans as apes or monkeys, which is insulting, particularly when applied to Black people.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * please consider removing your last 6 words because they are not relevant to this discussion and they might lead to a huge off-topic discussion. If you remove the words, do not hesitate to delete this comment too. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay we've had our fun, this discussion has officially become nonproductive. I recommend we close this (keeping birds as a dinosaur subcategory, per status quo and scientific consensus) before it starts to become less wikipedia more seedy subreddit. BlackholeWA (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Humans ARE classified as apes. --Khajidha (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support removing Category:Dinosaurs as a parent of Category:Birds. Wikipedia categorizes by defining characteristic, not by every characteristic that is true. I don't think the fact that birds are dinosaurs is defining for birds. If it was, then I would expect it to be included in the lede paragraph of bird. It is not mentioned until the second paragraph. This is a debatable point, but I think from a common usage perspective, most editors would not expect to be a subcategory of . Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I am clear of the distinction here. What is a "defining characteristic" of birds? It seems very arbitrary. Everyone's internal conception of a "bird" is subjective. Are the defined by their feathers? Their lineage? Their ability to fly? I think that the fact that they are avian dinosaurs is a fairly defining characteristic of their nature, especially from a biological perspective, which is a relevant one to these articles. Also, the dinosaur category itself would be incomplete without including birds. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is never a precise way of determining what a defining characteristic of something is. But that is the standard WP uses in categorization, so a judgment has to be made. And in my judgment, being a dinosaur is not defining for a bird. You're free to disagree. If the answers were easy, there would be little need for CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, birds being dinosaurs is only mentioned in the second paragraph of the lede precisely because of objections like the ones found elsewhere in this discussion. It is a defining characteristic in some senses, but also one that editors throw a fit over. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be describing a standard scenario in which there is no consensus for inclusion of certain information in the lede paragraph. If there's a dispute about whether it's defining, I'm wary about categorizing by that feature. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet another discussion — We also have the problem that has repeatedly (6 times) added (recently renamed) parent films about dinosaurs to films about birds over the objections of many other editors. The parent is Category:Films about reptiles. Birds are not reptiles, any more than humans are reptiles. There is discussion at Category talk:Films about birds.
 * "birds are not reptiles"? So I should tell the publishers of the text used to teach biology at my community college that their book is wrong? Many of the current texts used in colleges and universities have switched to presenting birds as part of their coverage of reptiles. Because they are reptiles. Your objections are based on outdated science. --Khajidha (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Meh a distinction between Aves and Birds would be helpful here, but this doesn't seem like the type of discussion suitable for XFD. Many reliable sources claim that the dinosaur class/order is now represented by Aves, but birds are distinct from the popular conception of dinosaurs.  Careful use of technical language here seems to be the best solution. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The bird article is not assigned to category:Reptile, so that's a complete non-issue. It absolutely should be assigned to the category:Dinosaur, as birds are now widely agreed by scientists to be living dinosaurs. Just because some here clearly have issues with the idea of evolution doesn't mean that we should water down our articles to placate them. MeegsC (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not even all scientists agree on it. There is enough scientific writing about the extinction of the dinosaurs. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The scientific consensus is that birds are avian dinosaurs. The "extinction of the dinosaurs" is mostly a byphrase for the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. Words used to simplify doesn't mean that the truth isn't... true BlackholeWA (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm surprised this conversation is even happening. Scientific consensus is that birds are a living lineage of the dinosaurs that did not go extinct. This is absolutely a defining characteristic, it's not some piece of trivia or controversial. -- Green  C  14:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - We have talked about the lead paragraphs of the Bird article, but I would also direct peoples' attention to the lead paragraph of the Dinosaur article, of which about half of the text is devoted to explaining that birds are dinosaurs, and it goes so far as to bold the two dinosaur subtypes of avian and non-avian. From that perspective, the dinosaur category would itself be incomplete without also containing the bird category. (And yes, I know that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, but the verbiage of the bird and dinosaur articles represents existing on-site consensus as to how we present the relationship between the two groups). I have already given my !vote above, but I still support including the dinosaur category for the bird category, and am not sure that any of the arguments against doing this have been particularly convincing. The two main ones seem to be:
 * 1. There exist some sources that say "dinosaurs have gone extinct" - Well, yes, because they are using the phrase "dinosaur" to mean "non-avian dinosaur". While this is a common usage, there is no reason for us to not use more proper definitions in the encyclopedia. Same goes for the "common terminology" argument. This isn't a case of common naming, this is a matter of stating sourced facts.
 * 2. Being a taxonomic dinosaur is not a "key characteristic" of a bird - Why not? From an evolutionary and taxonomic standpoint, it is probably their most important characteristic. Who is deciding what makes these characteristics important? Current consensus holds that it is important enough that it is prominently discussed in the existing bird and dinosaur articles, with much emphasis, and taxonomic subgrouping is almost as straightforward as you can get as viable defining categories for biological organisms. Also, disregarding the bird category on its own, not including the bird category within the dinosaur category makes that category incomplete - as the accepted scientific definition of a dinosaur definitely encompasses modern birds. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm of the opinion we should go with scientific consensus that birds are dinosaurs, with a note regarding the common usage of "dinosaur"; e.g. in the "extinction of the dinosaurs" we would specify "non-avian dinosaurs". This is akin to eggplants being botanical fruits used as a culinary vegetable—it would be odd to not categorize it as a fruit, considering the biological evidence every gardener understands.--Anon423 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Birds are NOT dinosaurs, though they may be descendants, a unique survivor of the extinction of c.65M years ago. It would equally be inappropriate to categorise mammals as reptiles, becasue all land vertebrates are descended from reptiles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that's not actually true, as was discussed above. Mammals are (and are descended from) synapsids, which are a sister group of reptiles within amniota. This is indeed largely reflected in their respective wiki category trees (although checking now, there seems to be a missing link in what is otherwise a pretty diligent clade-wise category structure, which I may fix) BlackholeWA (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The proposer and many of the supporters have a complete and total misunderstanding of biology. Birds ARE dinosaurs. --Khajidha (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose first off, we don't go off of common knowledge in categorizing things, we go off of what reliable sources say. (also, I think most people at this point do know that birds are dinosaurs, it's common trivia) Regardless, scientifically, there is a clear consensus that birds are a type of dinosaur and should be categorized as such. Something like "movies about dinosaurs" vs "movies about birds" is definitely less clear, since "movies about dinosaurs" generally refers to non-avian dinosaurs. However, the article dinosaur is clear in including avian dinosaurs, so what should be done about this particular situation is not subject to that ambiguity. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The original discussion was about films. I agree that in a tree about biology other criteria may be applied than in a category about fiction. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The original discussion here was most definitely NOT about films. Perhaps another discussion was, but not this one. If people are going to post comments like "Birds are not dinosaurs.", with a demand that categories be removed they have to expect to get pushback from the scientific community! MeegsC (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please take the effort to click the link to the original discussion that has led to the current discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I had trouble finding any link to the original discussion, but it doesn't change anything. You and John Pack Lambert keep asserting things that are, at best, misunderstandings of biological fact. Or, worse, completely outdated theories. --Khajidha (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of the two applies to me. I am asserting that scientific language and common language have diverged. When a non-biologist uses the word "dinosaur" they mean the same thing that biologists in scientific writing would call a "non-Avian dinosaur". Neither is wrong, it is a matter of language, and (for this discussion) a matter of weight. I would imagine that common language would have more weight in Wikipedia (e.g. per WP:COMMONNAME), especially in non-scientific category trees like films. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per BlackholeWA, although if any scientist 'pedians come along and argue that it's not an appropriate taxonomic classification I'd likely defer to them and change my !vote. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the clade of birds falls within the clade of dinosaurs, so all birds are necessarily dinosaurs, so the category of birds should fall within the category of dinosaurs as a proper subset. Reptiles is more tricky. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 19:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See my further comment below referring to 's support argument. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 18:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the removal as violating Wikipedia's basic categorization methodology for the sciences. This has nothing to do with whether or not birds are dinosaurs. No other category of dinosaur subgroups is listed directly in Category:Dinosaurs and Category:Birds shouldn't be there either. Dinosaurs is a diffusing category, with groups in the the category tree underneath. The parent category of the Birds category is Category:Paravians, a widespread group of theropod dinosaurs that originated in the Late Jurassic period, which should satisfy the dinosaur cravings. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a completely valid point. Birds as a direct child category of dinosaurs is overcategorisation as it is already a subcategory of a subcategory ... etc. of dinosaurs. (I did not count all the levels). This seems to be a bit of a tangent to the original post, as it  accepts that birds are dinosaurs, but also other things in between, and the opposition logic remains valid. Birds should remain a subcategory nested in dinosaurs at whatever level works best for the rest of the available relevant categories, but not at two levels. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 18:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will cede to this logic and support conditionally the supercategory for Birds not being Dinosaurs directly as long as the relationship is reflected in the tree. BlackholeWA (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Scientific consensus is clear: Birds are dinosaurs. Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, not some old "common knowledge". Pavlor (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be based on common name, and common usage, and common usage treats birds as a thing distinct from dinosaurs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME is an article title guideline. It absolutely does not mean that the content of the encyclopedia has to conform to whatever the common public misconception about a topic is. What? BlackholeWA (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am tired of being insulted by people who think they know more than the common person. This is not an issue of a "common misconception". This is an issue of the way words are actually used in actual speech. Dinosuar and bird do not in common speech and actual usage in any way designate the same thing. Those who insist otherwise and then insult those of us who insist on following actual usage are being way too rude and condescending.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Last time I looked the common person was not rated as a reliable source. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 19:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors are reminded that casting aspersions, even when failing to be specific, is considered uncivil, and is not a valid form of logical argument. The practice is divisive, not conducive to achieving consensus, seldom persuades an intelligent person, and gives a bad impression of the perpetrator. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for scientific stuff, support for pop-culture stuff (films, etc.) Birds are, in fact, dinosaurs (not "like", or "descended from", they are dinosaurs in the true cladistic sense) in scientific parlance, and we should reflect that when appropriate. However, they are not dinosaurs in the common colloquial sense of that word, so any "pop-culture" category like entertainment should be excluded from the dinosaur categories of the same. For instance, Toucan Sam would not fit in one of the dinosaur categories. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I find this comment to be particularly wise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this concept. There seems to be an extreme amount of overcategorising in the pop-culture categories, with some categories having little or no connection to reality. A bird is a dinosoar, but the category Birds is included in the category Dinosaurs, so a normal bird should never be redundantly directly categorised in Dinosaurs. Similarly, a fictional bird categorised in Fictional birds, is already in a subcategory of Birds, and should not normally also be directly categorised in Birds, and absolutely not directly in Fictional dinosaurs. This does not stop Fictional birds being a very distant subcategory of Dinosaurs because of how categories work, but not in Fictional dinosaurs, because fictional organisms are not included in scientific taxonomy. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 05:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I too agree with this distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No reason why "fictional bird"-type categories should not be in "fictional dinosaur"-type categories. So, while the Hitchcock movie "The Birds" should not be directly included in "films about dinosaurs" it should be included in category "films about birds" and THAT category should be included in "films about dinosaurs". --Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove Category:Birds from Category:Dinosaurs - Category:Birds is already in Category:Paravians, it shouldn't be in the top level parent as well. As an aside, pushing the categorisation of birds this way (regardless of how many scientists agree or disagree), is kinda feeling like a someone is pushing a point of view, and possibly that a point is being pushed... - jc37 00:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Russian Empire Azerbaijani people

 * 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 Category:People of the Russian Empire. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Russian Empire Azerbaijani people to Category:Azeri people from the Russian Empire or Category:Azeri people of the Russian Empire or Category:Azeri people in the Russian Empire
 * or Upmerge to Category:People of the Russian Empire
 * Nominator's rationale: Prefer from to match Fooers from Boo, but Speedy discussion had of and in would be another possibility. Record as precedent at WP:CATNAME.
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Category:Russian Empire Azerbaijani people to Category:Azerbaijani people of the Russian Empire
 * Oppose this one, suggest instead, which is similar to e.g.  and . Using Azeris rather than Azerbaijani seems a better idea in if the scope of the category is based on ethnicity and not geography. It is also less anachronistic. Place Clichy (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose  There was no state or nation of Azerbaijan in the Russian Empire. The liturature designates the people in what is now Azerbaijan as "Tatars". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Azeri people of the Russian Empire, Clichy forgot the "people". Those others are outliers, and need to be fixed.
 * As we have neither Category:Azeri people nor Category:Azeris these suggestions will not work, speedily or otherwise. Oculi (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe not for speedy then, but Azerbaijani surely cannot be used for a time when there is no Azerbaijan. Place Clichy (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia currently uses only "Azerbaijani" for categories, including Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people by country of citizenship and its sub-cats. There were two related discussions in 2013: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_28 and Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 18. In November 2018, Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people was apparently emptied out-of-process. This edit stated that it duplicated Category:Azerbaijani diaspora. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional complexity, according to Azerbaijan, until the beginning of the 20th century the name Azerbaijan was only used for what is now the northwest of Iran. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * speedy participants.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Rename to Category:Azerbaijani people of the Russian Empire pending creation of Category:Azeri people. (There is Category:Tatar people and indeed Category:Tatar people of the Russian Empire: cf Laurel Lodged's comment at the speedy above.) Oculi (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted in the Speedy discussion, there were no Azerbaijani in the Russian Empire, that was only in Iran.
 * Azeri redirects to Azerbaijanis. Oculi (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is Category:Azerbaijani people that should be subjected to this close scrutiny, rather than this tiny subcat with 3 articles. Category:16th-century Azerbaijani people exists, for instance. As things stand, this is the intersection of Category:Azerbaijani people with Category:People of the Russian Empire and should accordingly be named Category:Azerbaijani people of the Russian Empire. Oculi (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:People of the Russian Empire would be an excellent plan. Oculi (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Azerbaijani people of the Russian Empire per Oculi's suggestion. We do not have a separate article on Azeris. Dimadick (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination and come back with a larger plan that encompasses Azeri and Tatar for the late modern period. Otherwise it looks like a Wiki invention. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:People of the Russian Empire unless in another appropriate sub-category. I am not sure we have enough evidence to use any of these terms clearly for people in the 18th and 19th century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support merge per JPL. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alt upmerge — it seems to have shrunk to only 3 entries, so let's punt SMALLCAT.
 * Rename to Category:Azeri people of the Russian Empire. Azeri is an ethnicity.  Azerbaijani is a nationality for a nation that did not exist until modern times.  Azerbaijan consists of lands conquered by Russia from Iran mainly in 1826-8.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - upmerge to Category:People of the Russian Empire is supported by 4 out of 6 above and not opposed. Oculi (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:People of the Russian Empire Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:People of the Russian Empire OR Rename to Category:Azeri people of the Russian Empire. --Just N. (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

People from Samos

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from East Samos to Category:People from Samos
 * Propose merging Category:People from Pythagoreio to Category:People from Samos
 * Propose merging Category:People from Vathy, Samos to Category:People from Samos
 * Propose merging Category:People from West Samos to Category:People from Samos
 * Propose merging Category:People from Karlovasi to Category:People from Samos
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division and (in this case) to island level. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge all for now These hollow layers and small cats do not aid navigation. No objection to recreating any town that gets up to 5+ articles though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge all for now. --Just N. (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

People from Serres (regional unit)

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Amphipolis (municipality) to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Amphipolis to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Proti, Serres to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Rodolivos to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Emmanouil Pappas (municipality) to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Emmanouil Pappas to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Irakleia, Serres (municipality) to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Strymoniko to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Nea Zichni to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Alistrati to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Serres (municipality) to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Ano Vrontou to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Skoutari to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Sintiki to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Petritsi to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Visaltia to Category:People from Serres (regional unit)
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Serres (58,000 people), Irakleia, Serres (4,000 people), Sidirokastro (6,000 people) and Nigrita (9,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge all for now These hollow layers and small cats do not aid navigation. No objection to recreating any town that gets up to 5+ articles though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge all for now. --Just N. (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

People from Thesprotia

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Filiates (municipality) to Category:People from Thesprotia
 * Propose merging Category:People from Igoumenitsa (municipality) to Category:People from Thesprotia
 * Propose merging Category:People from Igoumenitsa to Category:People from Thesprotia
 * Propose merging Category:People from Margariti to Category:People from Thesprotia
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Filiates. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge all for now These hollow layers and small cats do not aid navigation. No objection to recreating any town that gets up to 5+ articles though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge all for now. --Just N. (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Asian-South African culture in Johannesburg
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting asian-south african culture in johannesburg


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCLOCATION)  There is no concept of "Asian South African Culture", let alone a city-based "Asian culture". Chinese, Asian (synonymous with Indian) and Japanese people in SA/Johannesburg are not a coherent group in any way Park3r (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, none of articles suggests there is a common Asian culture in Johannesburg. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The content is too disparate to make a useful category - Japanese + Chinese + Indian. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I challenge anyone to find an actual usage of the term "Asian" in South Africa where it refers to something other than South Asian. That is the common usage of the term, and we are going against it in this category are grouping together things that would not be seen as a unified whole in South Africa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The content is too disparate to make a useful category. --Just N. (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Categorization of People
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. 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: (see below). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a centralized discussion about merging Category names into its main guideline, Categorization of people.


 * Nominator's rationale — we have many recent CfD where the creators of categories have not read all of the instructions, resulting in much more work here. Originally, Naming conventions (categories) was a WP:POLICY. Over time, various parts have been split by Francis Schonken. This is making it harder for editors to grok.


 * The former has subsections (I'd originally created several of them):
 * Neutrality
 * Occupation
 * Heritage
 * Residence
 * Time periods


 * The latter has newer parallel subsections, several of which are nearly the same:
 * By nationality and occupation
 * By heritage
 * By place
 * By time period
 * By year


 * Better yet, there are many defined shortcuts to make documenting easier, such as WP:COP-PLACE, WP:COP-HERITAGE, WP:COPCENTURY.


 * The latter also has an extensive section:
 * Creating a new category where details specific to people are gathered.


 * recently opined: "... People don't read guidance (and even less edit accordingly) when something isn't expressed clear & compact. And that's what is wrong with the newly proposed text (which was in fact already included in the guideline all along). Even proponents of that text were thus far unable to locate it in the guideline. ... Please consider reformulating it to something that is more easily understood, and hence more easily followed by Wikipedia editors."

William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merging them will make future discussion easier here at CfD, and has better facilities for edit summaries.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose burdening CfD with this. The cleanup needs to happen, only if and when such cleanup would appear problematic (which thus far does not seem to be the case), more precise points could be brought here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is backward. We decide the guidelines here in centralized discussion. We only polish them on the Talk pages. Agree that cleanup needs to happen. But frankly, you did the split with substantial duplication, and that has caused the current confusion.
 * Still oppose to have anything else than category naming guidance at Category names, and to have category naming advice anywhere else than at Category names, which is the clear and simple separation of topics I have now operated (see below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, the bigger problem imho is the fact that Category names meanwhile includes guidance that is unrelated to naming. If it is unrelated to naming it should be moved to Categorization of people for sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ... which I'm doing right now. No CfD needed for that afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Originally, all the discussion of how to populate the categories was included under the naming. Now, most of it has migrated to the more specific Categorization of people. Better to move all of it.
 * William Allen, as I already explained at the COP page you're wrong on that. The guidance was *originally* included in the COP guideline, which existed almost a year before the category naming guideline was initiated: copying/elaborating that guidance there should never have happened. But that's water under the bridge: the two types of guidance are again separated now,
 * at the COP guideline
 * and at the category naming guideline
 * As far as I'm concerned this CfD can be closed now, unless there's an intractable problem with the separation of topics I just operated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, all the parts need to be in one place, not just the parts that you personally like. The separation itself is intractable. It has caused many arguments here at CfD.
 * The separation of "category naming" guidance from "categorization guidance" appeared fairly simple (didn't take me so much time). Some of the guidance I originally wrote (& still am attached to) for the COP guideline is currently rightly positioned in the "category naming" guidance, so this has nothing to do with what I or you prefer. It's a simple factual separation of the guidance regarding how categories are named (which belongs in the category naming guideline) and how such categories are applied in biographical articles (which belongs in the WP:COP guidance). I'm not impressed that the former failure to effectuate such quite clear and simple separation caused so much CfD trouble in the past, a past which we can put behind us now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment —, please don't move things around during discussion. Very hard for everybody to follow. This discussion will run for at least 7 more days seeking WP:CONSENSUS.
 * Rather the other way around: don't start a CfD when the discussion is still active elsewhere (which is WP:FORUMSHOPping), in this case at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people. So, no, the updates which I did in response to the issues raised in that discussion should not be "halted" because you decided to come forumshopping here. So, suggesting a close of this CfD section, until if and when discussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people are no longer active. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't cast aspersions, and WP:AGF. That discussion is over. Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people was firmly based upon prior discussion here, had already run more than 7 days (9 days), and the proposed text has already been copied into the project page in accord with our discussion processes. It was your additional comments that prompted a broader discussion. This is the proper venue for this discussion across multiple guidelines.
 * That discussion is not over: it is still very much active. Still, also not your decision to make: seems like you try to end the other discussion by running here with your forumshopping. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * History — correcting some misconceptions in earlier comments:
 * 2006-06-10 02:21:15 William Allen Simpson (update to match current Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and reduce duplication of text)
 * Copied over Residence subsection, in an attempt to reduce duplication.
 * 2006-06-10 06:00:47 Francis Schonken (→‎Special conventions for categorization of people: main link to detailed guideline, not to encyclopedia category)
 * This was the first cross link. At this point, Naming conventions already had considerably more detail than Categorization of people.
 * 2006-07-12 15:11:23 William Allen Simpson (→‎Heritage: re-word)
 * Naming conventions added pursuant to recent CfD and VPP, not properly updated in Categorization of people (until today).
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. "At this point, Naming conventions already had considerably more detail than Categorization of people" – possible, but that is no defense of what shouldn't have happened there and then, and apparently was the origin of multiple CfD appearances. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We've tried this split for 15 years now, it did not work well. Better to move everything to one convenient place, just as we already did for WP:EGRS. Hopefully we learn our lessons from past experience, rather than doubling down on a failed tactic.
 * Well, as I said, I don't think that a good idea. Grouping category naming guidance on a page titled Category names seems logical. Moving all guidance that is not about category naming to a more appropriate place, like I did, is equally logical. Sorry if that clashes with your ideas of more flawed forms of guidance presentation being preferable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This discussion should be somewhere else, as the renaming/deletion of specific categories is not proposed and nothing is tagged. A talk page for instance. "Categories for discussion (CfD) is the central venue for discussing specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories and stub types." Oculi (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent point, the discussion should be moved to e.g. Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid this discussion is completely opaque. Rathfelder (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Procedural Oppose this is a Request for Comment and should be handled as an WP:RFC, not at WP:CFD. If an RFC is opened, I will make further comment there. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Detector dogs
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Detector dogs to Category:Detection dogs
 * Nominator's rationale: This is mostly technical, but why do we have Category:Detector dogs for the main article Detection dog? Either this category is renamed to detection dogs, or the main article should be renamed to detector dog. I honestly don't have a preference one way or another. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename to match article title. Can probably be speedied. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support renaming as per nom. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 21:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Cavalryman (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC).
 * Support per nom. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 19:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Works by Ishikawa Masamochi
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. 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. This could be re-considered if more relevant articles are created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Works by Ishikawa Masamochi to Category:Edo-period works
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge I have no idea what the actual rationale for this merge proposal is: Marcocapelle says that it is a WP:SMALLCAT (i.e., that the category is "small [and has] no potential for growth"), but this is a somewhat extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence and is here presented with no evidence whatsoever. Both the Bijutsu Jinmei Jiten and the Nihon Jinmei Daijiten proclaim Masamochi to be the author of numerous writings, and the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten apparently (based on a scan of the article on Masamochi, where asterisks are used to mark items that have their own entries in the encyclopedia) includes no less than 20 standalone articles on works written by him. The fact that English Wikipedia does not currently include articles on such topics is, as far as I can tell, irrelevant as to whether this category should exist as a standalone category in the meantime, as a merger would only make categorization more troublesome when those articles are eventually created. (Note that I'm no all that familiar with CFD, and this is based on a somewhat literal reading of WP:SMALLCAT, so I may be mistaken in this belief.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "as a merger would only make categorization more troublesome when those articles are eventually created." While I agree that there is scope for expansion here, you are awfully optimistic. Wikipedia's coverage of Japanese literature is quite poor, and chances are that most of our volunteer editors are unfamiliar with 18th and 19th century poetry and prose. Dimadick (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The benefit of categories is to easily navigate to a substantial number of similar articles. If this category remains a one-article category for the next 5 years it misses its purpose. On the other hand, if a number of articles about works by Ishikawa Masamochi are being written after all, it is very easy to recreate the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge for Now with no objection to recreating if it gets to 5+ articles (not counting redirects). Current category serves no navigational purpose. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, where does "5+" come from? I'm not familiar with the guidelines regarding cats (when I create an article I give it the cats that I think it should logically have, and if those cats don't exist I create them). Based on SMALLCAT (linked above) I was assuming that only categories that are not theoretically expandable were not to be included, but when met with opposition I started working on another article. However (as the massive drop-off in my monthly contrib count will demonstrate), I'm quite busy IRL these days -- pumping out one other article that could be connected to the existing Genchū Yoteki one through this category seemed like something I could do in the space of a week or so, but four is a bit... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5 has been the usual cut-off mentioned in discussions by many editors ever since I found WP:CFD quite a few years ago. At some point of time I suggested to mention this number in the guideline but that idea was rejected, if I remember correctly because it would be too much instruction creep. I still think it would be helpful to mention, not as a prerequisite but as an ongoing practice. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At some point, I also suggested rewriting the editing guideline so we don't have what amounts to CFD case law. We've had several editors read WP:SMALLCAT in good faith only to come here to find out the way we pretty consistently use 5 articles as a rule of thumb. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge for Now . --Just N. (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Color articles with suppressed CYMK data
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting color articles with suppressed cymk data


 * Nominator's rationale: This is a typo of Category:Color articles with suppressed CMYK data. I initially tagged a CSD, but the category is refreshing too slowly for my typo to clear up. I guess it will become empty in a week or so? Sigh. Artoria2e5 <small style="font-weight:lighter">🌉 07:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This should be eligible for a speedy deletion, really. Given that the categories in question came from a template, I just ran an API script available through the Special:ApiSandbox: select the  option, turn on   and set   to   under , and set   under   to  . -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 19:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per Brainulator9. --Just N. (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:South Park (season 24) episodes
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. 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. (There was no content to merge to Category:South Park episodes.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting south park (season 24) episodes


 * Nominator's rationale: I feel this category was made pre-maturely. It should be deleted and remade when the 24th season starts officially airing or we can come to a clear concrete consensus that these specials do in-fact make up the 24th season. Grapesoda22 (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:South Park episodes per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:South Park episodes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Category has been emptied. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember there was one article in the category. It is the Pandemic Special, someone moved it to Category:South Park episodes prematurely. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Drives me crazy when people do this. Here, editors consider the situation and weigh in with their opinions but it is moot because someone empties the category before the discussion is closed. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:South Park episodes. --Just N. (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Historical board games
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Historical board games to Category:Board games about history
 * Nominator's rationale: Per parent category Category:Works about history and similar cases, the current name a bit ambiguous and can suggest this category is for 'old' board games while it is for board games by genre. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom; the current title strongly implies now-obsolete boardgames that are historically attested.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename per SMcCandlish. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * '''Rename per SMcCandlish. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 19:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename per SMcCandlish. --Just N. (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Asian-South African culture
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. 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 Category:Asian South African. That category would need to be nominated to be renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting asian-south african culture


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCLOCATION). There is no real concept of Asian-South African (the term Asian is synonymous with "Indian" in South Africa), and there certainly is no concept of Asian-South African culture. Park3r (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Weak support given no parent article, but what to do with Category:Asian-South African culture in Johannesburg? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is my first CfD, so forgive any mistakes I make. The category Category:Asian-South African culture in Johannesburg is not particularly useful. Category:Chinese-South African culture already groups the Chinese places meaningfully. Fordsburg doesn't have much in common with those areas, since it's an Indian and Pakistani enclave, and neither does the Japanese School (which parallels the reason why the parent category is also not useful). It doesn't serve any purpose and can also be deleted.Park3r (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Asian South African as this is just a redundant category layer. Category:Asian-South African culture in Johannesburg might be nominated too, but as a separate discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Asian South African, but rename that to "Category:Asian South Africans". Agreed with Marcocapelle about the Johannesburg subcat.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Asian South African, but rename that to "Category:Asian South Africans". --Just N. (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Order of the Republic (Sierra Leone)
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Order of the Republic (Sierra Leone)
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
 * Order of the Republic (Sierra Leone) is a Sierra Leonean award and, refreshingly, most of the recipients are associated with Sierra Leone. The 5 articles consists of 3 domestic politicians, 1 UN official stationed in the country, and the King of Saudi Arabia. The award is generally mentioned in passing with other honours and doesn't seem defining. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:OCAWARD. --Just N. (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Civil Order of Savoy
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Civil Order of Savoy
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and WP:OVERLAPCAT)
 * Civil Order of Savoy was a House of Savoy house order from the Italian Kingdom of Sardinia. We have 3 articles in this category: The 1st and 2nd are princes of the House of Savoy so they are already categorized under Category:Princes of Savoy while the 3rd is a physician with no clear connection either to the House of Savoy or to Sadinia. All 3 mention the award in passing with other honours. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per OCAWARD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:OCAWARD. --Just N. (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.