RE: Deletion proposal[]
I'm assuming the citation of T:OVER-CAT is in reference to the line "ones that...focus on minor details or are otherwise frivolous". I think, while the long category name might be giving off that impression (and there is no precedent for removing a category because it's long), this is an equivalent category to Paralysed individuals, except without any invitation for speculation. It's clear. Someone requires a wheelchair, whatever their condition is, or they don't.
And it's not at all as insignificant or frivolous as a category pertaining to any other mode of transportation, which would and should be deleted if ever created. "Individuals who rode scooters" is not something I would be able to stand by. If you think that this category is about the mode of transportation, then you're missing the point. It's about lack of mobility, to the point that one has to use a wheelchair. It's a categorising people by their ability/lack thereof. Not at all different from category:Blind humans, so it shouldn't be any more controversial just for being long-titled.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 17:11, November 8, 2016 (UTC)
- Yup that's the one, though to be clear I never said anything about the length of the category name. When I propose category deletions, it is usually either because I don't think the category is significant/relevant (as in this case) or because I think its name/description/intent is unclear (obviously not in this case).
- You and I disagree about whether the category is significant or not. Since we're both admins, we probably need another admin to rule on this. Shambala108 ☎ 23:45, November 8, 2016 (UTC)
- I think I'll side with User:SOTO on this one. Wheelchair-users is a very different matter frm "people who rode a bicycle": it is a matter of representation. I can very easily imagine someone wanting to know how many wheelchair-users have appeared in the DWU. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)