< September 24 September 26 >

September 25

Category:Extraterrestrials-humankind relations

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. All category contents except the redirect are suitably categorized elsewhere. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard § Category:Extraterrestrials-humankind_relations
Nominator's rationale: Really? Editor2020 (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your point: do you mean that undocumented things should be excluded from the category system (which would imply that Category:Scientific speculation should be deleted)? Apokrif (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Speculation of E.T. contact wasn't the category name... also, we should take care not to state in Wikipedia's voice what are fringe views (and should describe those as such (alleged, claims, beliefs, speculation, etc)). Category:Search for extraterrestrial life is an adequate example too, but still could not fit all the content of the category being discussed. —PaleoNeonate – 04:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right: the category is not (only) about speculation: it's also about fiction and about things, like Raelism, the existence of which is not disputed. Apokrif (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles you put into this cat both refer to fiction and, at the very least, this category title implies non-fictional usage. So neither article produces reliable sources for non-fictional alleged or attempted such relations. Even drilling down to the sub-category member articles, at best the reliable sources support saying that there are those who believe they have had relations of one sort or another with extraterrestrials. The category is not, however, "Promoters of extraterrestrials-humankind relations" or "Believer in extraterrestrials-humankind relations", both of which would already be covered by the pre-existing Category:UFO religions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The two articles you put into this cat both refer to fiction" No (one of them is Zoo hypothesis). Moreover, other articles can be added, and this category also contains subcategories.
" both of which would already be covered by the pre-existing Category:UFO religions" No.
"at best the reliable sources support saying that there are those who believe they have had relations of one sort or another with extraterrestrials." No.
Apokrif (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only examples of human-extraterrestrial relations given in the Zoo Hypothesis article are all to works of fiction. Saying "There are reliable sources" without actually giving any is as non-contributive as these flat contradictions. Please provide some evidence that there are independent reliable sources of actual human-extraterrestrial relations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was refferring to Zoo Hypothesis, not to one of its subsections.
"Please provide some evidence that there are independent reliable sources of actual human-extraterrestrial relations" Why should I? That's irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps you are conflating "unproven", or "looked for", with "fictional"?
Apokrif (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should want to provide reliable sources because that what the entire project is based on and because you yourself said "there are reliable sources." If you are unwilling or unable to do so, that makes the argument to keep that you started with rather hollow. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that the category name does not have "actual" in it? (perhaps you did not see that I wrote "alleged" and "attempts at" immediately after the passage you quote)
Regarding sources about the actual topic of this category, see, for instance, Search_for_extraterrestrial_intelligence#References and Raël#References.
Apokrif (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The category name does exactly that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that Category:God should be renamed? Apokrif (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. And yet I still stand by what I said just above. If you can't wrap your head around the differences between those two, then you don't belong on this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point was: categories are sometimes about (possibly) non-existent things, even when the category's name does not says it explicitly. Apokrif (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP doesn't take a position on whether god exists. But whether Cletus from the Ozarks ever had a probe shoved up his ass by the lizard people from Zeta Reticuli? Yeah, we take a position on that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP take a position on whether there is extraterrestrial life? Apokrif (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it does take a position on the idea that "they are among us". They aren't. And since this category strongly implies they are', it's going to get removed. Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or more succinctly: WP doesn't take a position on extraterrestrial life. It DOES take a position on "Extraterrestrial-human relations". You're welcome for the spelling/grammar correction, by the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn: "it does take a position on the idea that "they are among us"" No (see Search for extraterrestrial intelligence for instance). Apokrif (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MPants at work: You may correct yourself spelling and grammar errors. Apokrif (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example, no two people agree that SETI constitutes "relations" between humans and extraterrestrials. It's highly subjective. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Whitelighters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in the category and not likely to expand with the show being over JDDJS (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both are already in the Charmed characters category, so that they will not be orphaned. I do not know enough about any other parents to comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are already categorized in the parent cats so there's no need for upmerging --Lenticel (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Language isolates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_17#Language_isolates_of_Europe and WP:SMALLCAT, there is really no need to have Category:Language isolates diffused. Please make sure to also upmerge to any other relevant categories by language. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Assamese Brahmins

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: procedural close. This nomination is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_19#Category:Assamese_Brahmins. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a duplicate category of Brahmin communities of Assam. It should be deleted to ensure Brahmin categorisation is constant, keeping in–line with the Brahmin community categorisations for other Indian states, such as Brahmin communities of Uttarakhand etc... This is just adding to the clutter. Please action and delete this. No point of having two categories representing the same information. AnjanBorah (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jacob Rees-Mogg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Textbook case of overcategorisation, specifically relating to Eponymous categories for people (which are meant for "very notable cases"). It is important to remember that "Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively but Category:Barack Obama, Category:John Maynard Keynes and Category:Albert Einstein are some exceptions" - and this category contains just two articles - the BLP of the subject and an awful silly season article that was subject to an AfD which closed as no consensus with the option of a future merge. Clearly fails WP:SMALLCAT as well. AusLondonder (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British Eurosceptics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Helper201 moved the category without resort to CFD/CFDS 10 days ago on the grounds "Grammatical correction" - but the parent category, Category:Eurosceptics is consistently named with the lower cases, which is grammatically correct. AusLondonder (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Use with a capital. I moved the mentioned page as it appeared obvious that it was incorrect. Almost every time I have seen the spelling it has been used with a capital. Note the page Euroscepticism consistently uses a capital 'E'. Wiktionary also states it as a capital. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Euroskeptic The Collins dictionary also gives it with a capital E, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/eurosceptic Helper201 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Eurosceptics, a Google search of newspaper articles about the subject indicates a capital E is the most common usage, I presume the root is "Europe". Sionk (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:All redirect templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 10#Category:All redirect templates. ℯxplicit 06:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless hidden category that contains content identical to Category:Redirect templates and isn't sortkeyed Pariah24 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Notable Orthodox Churches North America

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary list, as by the virtue of existing on Wikipedia, all the listed churches are "notable". epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Big Ten Women's Soccer Tournament

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I created a different category at Category:Big Ten Conference Women's Soccer Tournament some time ago and never actually proposed the old one for deletion. The other category has a more accurate naming convention and is more consistent with the other categories. Jay eyem (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_25
No tags for this post.