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.
Well, fair point, but on the other hand Category:Wheelchair sports competitors is now a supercategory consisting only of subcategories. That is neater than having it consist only of subcategories plus one lonely page for Aaron Fotheringham. It's like having one spoon in the fork drawer. Whether that trumps Category:WCMX athletes being a category of one is matter of taste I guess. Either way is OK with me.
But I mean maybe an editor will come the category page and be like "oh here's this lone guy that somebody put in the supercat, I'll just put it in it's correct subcat" and then they are going to down a blind alley... maybe.Herostratus (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2021 (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.
Category:Racing drivers killed in aviation accidents or incidents[edit]
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 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.
Oppose. LGBT is basically just a shortened way of saying "people who in some way don't fit the societal norms around sexuality, gender, and sex" but no one wants to say that, so instead we say LGBT. Asexual people count.
Further, we should mimic the language used in the article, so expanding to the longer LGBTQIA isn't appropriate.
Finally, this category is about people who in some way don't fit the societal norms around sexuality, gender, and sex (i.e. LGBTQIA people, more commonly known as LGBT people) by their sexual orientation, as it pertains to them not fitting the societal norms. So LGBT needs to be in the name. And because it's not specific enough, the categories "People by sexual orientation" etc will invite the creation of "heterosexual people", "allosexual people", and "people whose sexual orientation is unknown", and I doubt anyone cares to have those subcategories. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article on asexuality states that (bold by me):
"Regarding romantic or emotional aspects of sexual orientationorsexual identity, for example, asexuals may identify as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or by the following terms to indicate that they associate with the romantic, rather than sexual, aspects of sexual orientation:
aromantic; lack of romantic attraction towards anyone
I agree that some of these self identifications fall under the LGBT umbrella term, but clearly not all of them. How can we include a person who self identifies as heterosexual/heteroromantic in a subcategory of LGBTs? —capmo (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm just going to quote what I said earlier: Finally, this category is about people who in some way don't fit the societal norms around sexuality, gender, and sex (i.e. LGBTQIA people, more commonly known as LGBT people). Asexual people are part of the LGBTQIA community (that's what the A is, if it wasn't self-evident) and they do not experience attraction in a way that fits societal norms. It is frankly insulting to say that they don't really belong, just because some asexual people experience heterosexual or heteroromantic attraction. Asexuality is not about who you're attracted to, it's about how you experience attraction. I know it wasn't your intention to be insulting, but it is a persistent issue that people will try to argue that some group is not really LGBTQIA, and it results in a lot of gatekeeping and discrimination. Basically, there's a lot of history here, and LGBT issues are complicated.
However, just to clarify my initial explanation, I'll apply your argument to trans people because I think it may demonstrate the issue more clearly. So, you said How can we include a person who self identifies as heterosexual/heteroromantic in a subcategory of LGBTs? and An asexual person who self identifies as heterosexual/heteroromantic is not LGBT. as a result of the quote: "Regarding romantic or emotional aspects of sexual orientation or sexual identity, for example, asexuals may identify as heterosexual ..." I'm just going to directly replace each reference to asexuals with trans people. "Regarding ... sexual orientation ... trans people may identify as heterosexual ..." then How can we include a trans person who self identifies as heterosexual/heteroromantic in a subcategory of LGBTs? and Atrans person who self identifies as heterosexual/heteroromantic is not LGBT. A trans person is LGBT simply because they are trans. Being heterosexual, allosexual, or not intersex does not "disqualify" them from the LGBTQIA community. The same is true for asexual people. They are LGBTQIA simply because they are asexual. Their other identities aren't important to that equation, because being asexual immediately means they are part of the community.
Sorry, that's so long, I've tried to cut it down (I had more). I tend to write a lot. I will point out quickly that none of us are actually obligated to debate every point that anyone raises, and it is quite rude to ping us to insist that we do. Regardless, hopefully I gave enough information to address your concern (imagine if I wrote all of this and none of it was helpful, I would cry). --Xurizuri (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2021 (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.
Category:I Can See Your Voice (German game show)[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:@Saisønisse: RTL officially renewed I Can See Your Voice for the third season, and this time under the German title Zeig uns deine Stimme, which emanated from Daniel Hartwich's tagline before the stage of truth performance.[1][2]
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.
Merge -- It might be appropriate to add "(or re-established)" to the headnotes of the targets, but we are unlikely to get a significant population for any re-established category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2021 (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:speedy keep. Somewhat a procedural close, somewhat a SNOW close. The proposal seems to imply wanting to delete hundreds of un-listed subcategories as well. (non-admin closure)User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category (and all its subcategories) clearly violates WP:EGRS. The intersection of ethnicity and occupation is almost never a defining characteristic of any person. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think these categories are overused and should be cut back, but there clearly are some which are defining - musicians, commonly, many Jewish categories, African- Americans ...Rathfelder (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2021 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article and a sub-cat for alumni, which are already linked to each other, so this category is not necessary for navigation. The linked category i French Wikipedia also has a category for faculty, but none of those tutors have articles in enwiki. – FayenaticLondon10:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The faculty category was created. Several tutors have an enwiki. The global category is essential to make the link between alumni, faculty and the school page. --WKPDA3 (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, with only two subcategories it is still doable to link them directly with a "See also" note, without the need for a parent category. That happens by default with Albums by artist and Songs by artist. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2021 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Not a particulary useful category, not something that has been done for other aircraft types and has little encyclopedic value. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as ZLEA notes, we don't categorise aircraft (or as far as I can tell any other commercial/industrial product) by their production status. This is also getting well into smallcat territory - it had two members (one of which I removed because there were no sources that actually confirmed that the type was in production).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I must say "we don't usually..." is not a strong argument. But production status is impossible to keep up - some type have repeatedly gone out of producton, then in again, perhaps under a new name. Besides, we don't want too many categories - remember the "twin engined tractor aircraft with unicorn sprinkles" :) Jan olieslagers (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If this contained anything (which it does not) it would be an attempt to have a current/past distinction, which is not allowed. However the parent contains 522 articles which is so large that it needs splitting, perhaps by decade. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, a list can justify what "in production" is supposed to mean, and have "as of" statements to show when it was checked last for list inclusion. There certainly are such aircraft in production, so the list wouldn't be empty. Perahsp @Armduino: the category's creator can build the list? -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2021 (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.
Category:Characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe[edit]
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. Per consensus, deleting a category that has been repeatedly recreated and repeatedly deleted in many forms for more than a decade. Doczilla@SUPERHEROLOGIST19:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps the category description could be refined, but the purpose is distinct. We have a set of articles on MCU characters as distinctly MCU characters (e.g. Stephen Strange (Marvel Cinematic Universe)). This category contains characters who are Marvel Comics characters (the article is primarly about the character as it appears in the comic books), who happen to appear in the MCU, but lack MCU-specific articles (e.g. Ancient One). BD2412T05:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For a comic book character, it absolutely can be. It depends on the breadth of the depiction, but of the thousands of notable comic book characters, a relative handful have been selected for adaptation in one of the dozens of MCU films, and a handful of those have been prominently featured in those films. For the aforementioned Ancient One it certainly is, and is prominently noted in the lede of that article. Accord, Batroc the Leaper, Frigga (character), Justin Hammer, Aldrich Killian, Proxima Midnight, Betty Brant, and so on. BD2412T04:30, 6 November 2021 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Why does this person have a category? The subcategory doesn't belong here, and the two entries are just things he was associated with. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To say the Bureau of Narcotics "is just something he was associated with" is like saying J. Edgar Hoover "just happened" to be head of the FBI. deisenbe (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2021 (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.
Comment: The article on asexuality states that (bold by me):
