Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 21

< December 20	December 22 >

December 21

Category:20th-century Puerto Rican actresses

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: do not merge. At the time of this close, the category had 41 articles in it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:20th-century Puerto Rican actresses to Category:20th-century American actresses

Nominator's rationale: Merge little this 11-page category with 20th-century american actress per WP:SMALLCAT. Since the 20th-century is over this category is not likely to grow. You could alternately merge this with Category:Puerto Rican actors if that is not a good target. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The overall Category:Puerto Rican actresses has over 50 entries, some of which need to be moved to this category. Also a good many of these actresses only ever worked on the island, making the direct placement in the American actresses category not justified. There is also no indication that there are not more articles that could be created. It is the overall potential size, not the current size, that should be considered in discussions like this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I expect we have categories for each of the 50 states; so we should allow siblings for US territories. A while back we discouraged a 20th/21st century split as equivalent to present/past. If we did anything it should be to merge to Category:Puerto Rican actresses, but we have more than 5 articles here, so that there is no reason to merge at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We only have a by century sub-cat for Puerto Rican actresses, not for any state actresses. This is justifiable on the grounds that Puerto Rico is more distinct from the mainland than any state, even than Hawaii. This is especially true since Hawai'i produced films have tended to be in English, while in Puerto Rico there is a history of producing works in Spanish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In this case there is scope for expansion, as many articles have not been properly categorized. Dimadick (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is currently a sub-cat of Category:Puerto Rican actresses, Category:20th-century Puerto Rican actors and Category:20th-century American actresses. If we are to do anything with it we should upmerge it to all 3. Of course since Category:20th-century Puerto Rican actors is a holding category for this and Category:20th-century male actors it might make sense to just delete Category:20th-century Puerto Rican actors if we want to get rid of this category, but we should include the brother category in that move. For now it appears that there is not a will to do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2020 (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.

Black English people (continued)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Nominator's rationale: merge per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_18#Category:Black_English_comedians. Black British is regarded as an ethnicity, while Black English, Black Scottish, Black Welsh are not. - @Rathfelder, Dimadick, Grutness, Carlossuarez46, Peterkingiron, Laurel Lodged, and Johnpacklambert: pinging contributors to the earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge we categorize by recognized ethnicities, and this is not that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am reluctant about this, but if the categorization is not supported by sources, this could be Wikipedia-specific jargon. Dimadick (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support well reasoned, although we do have a matching article: Black Scottish people. Besides, in Scotland 27 years ago, I'd heard them called "New Scots". It always amazed me how some relatives had no objections to Blacks, but hated Irish. Prejudice is learned.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unnecessary 'ethnic' categories, without any indication that being of that ethnicity makes a person do the jobs differently than non being of that ethnicity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as far as the English categories are concerned. I've never heard anyone refer to themselves or anyone else as Black English. I just dont know what happens with Black Welsh or Scottish people, but there are far fewer articles and perhaps we might at least want to take out the occupational subcategories.Rathfelder (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- "Black British" is a recognised ethnic descriptor. "English", "Welsh" and "Scottish" are more likely to refer to ethnic descent. Category:Black sportspeople from Wales, etc. might be viable as an alternative (or additional) target. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2020 (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.

Presbyterian congregations

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 and rename to "churches", i.e. to Category:18th-century Presbyterian churches‎, Category:19th-century Presbyterian churches‎ and Category:20th-century Presbyterian churches‎. – Fayenatic London 11:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose manually merging Category:Presbyterian congregations established in the 18th century‎ to Category:18th-century Presbyterian church buildings‎
Propose manually merging Category:Presbyterian congregations established in the 19th century‎ to Category:19th-century Presbyterian church buildings‎
Propose manually merging Category:Presbyterian congregations established in the 20th century‎ to Category:20th-century Presbyterian church buildings‎

Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping scope. A manual merge is needed because the articles in the Presbyterian congregations categories may already be in a US subcat of Presbyterian church buildings. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support — but merge both targets to "churches" instead of "church buildings" (see Category:18th-century Protestant churches et seq), matching Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 18#Lutheran congregations. A congregation makes a "church", there's no good reason to distinguish a congregation "established" to having its initial church as a building.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as stated. A congregation is not a building of any sort. I would be entirely in favour of merging both to 'churches'. Oculi (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Combine I prefer "Churches" as well. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Note @Marcocapelle: While all three of the !votes above appear to be different, they all favor a merge with a rename of the target category but the target categories are not tagged. Not sure if you're open to this approach though. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with general agreement, I've tagged the targets, too.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at Bethel Presbyterian Church (Bethel Park, Pennsylvania). Where the church (Christian community) was founded in 1770s and 1780s, but now meets in a building built in 1910. While the building is 110 years old, the church (community) is 240+ years old. I am in favour of categorising buildings by their date, in this case Category:Presbyterian churches established in the 18th century‎ and Category:Presbyterian churches built in the 20th century‎ would both be accurate. Unfortunately WP is fixated on Dis/Establishment in its category structure. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose congregations can exist for their entire phase of existing without a building of their own. I know of some congregations that lack an actual church building, and instead use of movie theatre with a small amount of office space for other purposes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. The congregations on their own are not notable for Wikipedia articles, it is the churches that are notable. It can be questioned where a chronology category is always necessary though, as church buildings often have parts dating from very different periods of time. Place Clichy (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Films by audience

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 14#Films by audience

Category:Movie Central original programming

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 28#Category:Movie Central original programming

Category:Scripts by Paruchuri Brothers

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 to Category:Films with screenplays by the Paruchuri brothers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scripts by Paruchuri Brothers to Category:Screenplays by the Paruchuri brothers

Nominator's rationale: Maintain consistency with Paruchuri brothers. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support For consistency with the other categories in the category tree Category:Films with screenplays by Indian writers. Dimadick (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question, for consistency, shouldn't it become Category:Films with screenplays by the Paruchuri brothers? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, yes I overlooked this. This should be the actual title. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2020 (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:Footballers from Milan

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: do not merge, pending the upcoming RFC. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Footballers from Milan to Category:Sportspeople from Milan, Category:Italian footballers

Nominator's rationale:

Overcategorisation per WP:OCLOCATION, previous deletion discussions notably at Category:Golfers from Leeds, the numerous discussions linked there, and the advice set out at this essay written to support the creation of WP:OCLOCATION stating Do not replace national categories with state ones or city ones within an article because not all states and cities have occupational groupings. For example, a California writer should be under both Category:American writers (or a subcategory) and Category:California writers. Keep in mind that the goal here isn't to subdivide the occupation, but is simply to subdivide the geographical area. Dual merge to maintain the categorical structure we have for this: specific occupation by country (to categorise occupation), and general occupation by city (to diffuse which city the person is from.) SportingFlyer T·C 15:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 21:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - we need a full RFC on these kind of categories. Why is 'footballer from X' unacceptable but 'sportsperson from X' or 'actor from X' fine? I don't think it is over categorisation by the way - of far more concern is us deciding that somebody is from somewhere based on *Flanders voice* nothing at all, in 99% of examples I have seen nothing other than a birth place. That is a huge BLP issue. Giant Snowman 21:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Giant. We have too many discussions about individual sports categories. In this case, why pick on the 148 footballers? What about the cyclists and racing drivers? Rathfelder (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - there is an upcoming RFC about this subject. Grutness...wha? 04:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see any sign of the creation of new categories being held up. How would that work? Rathfelder (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; Category:Footballers from Buenos Aires was created 2 days ago by @Librarian from Liberia:... Giant Snowman 17:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. This is a note from the current nominator on my user page explaining the RFC is about to be set up. Why s/he would go ahead and nominate another category in light that baffles me. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see any reason why sportspeople should be treated differently from other people from Milan or Buenos Aires. Rathfelder (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Me neither. Grutness...wha? 02:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. This kind if discussion is beyond the pay grade of this topic. It needs a much wider RFC. Giant Snowman 09:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is a well-populated category. Where we can populate a category well, as here, upmerging is destructive, as it will hinder naviagation. For small categories the reverse applies. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2020 (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:Destroyed landmarks in Kyiv

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Destroyed landmarks in Kyiv to Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Kyiv

Nominator's rationale: "Landmarks" is subjective - a couple of these articles may not have been "demolished" but on the whole the city is probably just large enough for a "demolished buildings and structures in" category and many of these would be eligible for that category, instead of deleting the category completely. SportingFlyer T·C 15:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support This would expand the scope of the category to other buildings with articles of their own. Dimadick (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, buildings and structures is less ambiguous than landmarks. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — matches other recent landmark decisions. Should be officially recorded in category naming.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2020 (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.

Centuries in Roman Egypt

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/merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Propose merging
- Category:1st-millennium establishments in Roman Egypt to Category:1st-millennium establishments in Egypt
- Category:Establishments in Roman Egypt by century to Category:Establishments in Egypt by century, Category:Establishments in Roman Egypt

Propose keeping (and repopulating with the above, where applicable):
- Category:Roman-era Egyptians
- Category:Egypt (Roman province)
- Category:1st millennium in Roman Egypt as parent over the century categories and part of Category:1st millennium in the Roman Empire
- Category:Centuries in Roman Egypt likewise
- Category:Establishments in Roman Egypt
- Category:Byzantine Egypt
- Category:1st century BC in Roman Egypt, which is a notable split from Category:1st century BC in Egypt as the initial period of Roman Egypt
- Category:1st-century BC establishments in Roman Egypt likewise within Category:1st-century BC establishments in Egypt
- Category:7th century in Byzantine Egypt, which is a notable split from Category:7th century in Egypt as the final period of Roman Egypt

This nomination brings back a former proposal at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_6#Centuries_in_Roman_Egypt which was rejected at the time, but may now gain consensus following the recent discussions leaning towards just using "Egypt" at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_24#Category:5th-century_establishments_in_Roman_Egypt and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_28#Ottoman_Egypt. – Fayenatic London 13:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, Caeciliusinhorto, Omanyd, Peterkingiron, Greyshark09, Laurel Lodged, Place Clichy, BrownHairedGirl, T8612, Dimadick, and Oculi: pinging participants in those previous discussions. – Fayenatic London 14:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Egypt for these centuries should be seen as a subdivision of the Roman Empire, but it was still Egypt. Dimadick (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support (except millennium - an unnecessary level). The period from the end of Hellenistic Egypt to the Islamic conquest is not enough centuries to need a millennium parent. At some periods Egypt ruled a wider area of the Middle East. In those periods an adjective is useful, but in periods when Egypt meant (as now) the Nile valley and delta, with surrounding deserts, no qualifier is needed, so I am not sure about some of the keep items. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, there is no ambiguity, nor can I imagine any other good reason why it would be necessary to insert "Roman" in the category name, except when it is an overarching category for the entire Roman period in Egypt. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — No need for extra qualifers. Egypt is a well-known place that has transcended ruling empires. Egyptian people didn't automatically become Roman citizens. Delete all the millenium super-categories as not needed, and poor matches to the shorter lived empires.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The qualifers are un-needed per WP:PRECISION, and they impede navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 21 December 2020 (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.

Murder victims by occupation

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: it was a bit difficult to take the comments and summarize them into a coherent close, but the suggestions by the nominator seem appropriate to me. So that's delete Category:Murdered artists, Category:Murdered bankers, Category:Murdered designers, Category:Murdered filmmakers, Category:Murdered models, and Category:Murdered physicians. Withdrawn nominations for Category:Murdered explorers, Category:Murdered lawyers, and Category:Murdered revolutionaries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Murdered artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Murdered bankers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Murdered designers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Withdrawn Relisted ~~Category:Murdered explorers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~
Propose deleting Category:Murdered filmmakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Withdrawn Relisted ~~Category:Murdered lawyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~
Propose deleting Category:Murdered models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Murdered physicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Withdrawn Relisted ~~Category:Murdered revolutionaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. There is nothing inherently WP:DEFINING about being murdered in these occupations. They are not expected as a professional qualification to end their lives by being murdered. See also the well-articulated rationale about suicides by occupation (below).
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at minimum revolutionaries and lawyers. I checked these categories and most such individuals were murdered because of their professional activities, so I do think that it's defining. Here are some sources showing that "murdered lawyer" is a defining characteristic:[2][3] (t · c) buidhe 12:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Explorers & Revolutionaries/Delete Rest I think getting murdered is likely an occupational risk for those two, although I'm not sure if "Revolutionary" belongs in this tree. For the rest, completely agree with nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not agree that the intersections are trivial. More to the point, deleting instead of merging would effectively remove them from the parent categories as well. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check all of them but they should be in the nationality and location cats so, for instance, Adrienne Shelly is already under Category:American women film directors and Category:People murdered in New York City. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most as trivial intersections. Bankers and designers are obvious examples. I am open to the idea that there may be a few exceptions. There is no need to merge, all articles are already in another occupation and another murder category (e.g. Category:Male murder victims). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except for revolutionaries and maybe explorers, but rename that one to Category:Assassinated revolutionaries. All but one of those articles looks like an assassination. (Hélène Rytmann was killed by her husband for unknown reasons, but he later claimed mental illness.) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all certain category overlaps seem to be related - explorers, lawyers, and models have been targeted for their professions, but these categories don't make that distinction (a lawyer dedicated to stopping pollution killed by polluters is related; a lawyer dedicated to stopping pollution killed in an armed robbery over his/her rolex isn't.) Properly sourced lists would be a better way to do these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least the revolutionaries. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- not necessarily trivial, but occupation may be irrelevant in cases of murder by a spouse or close relative, so perhaps purge. In some cases their occupation may be a reason related to their murder. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most The problem is that generally occupation is not an explanation of the murder - but sometimes it is. Maybe we just have to keep purging them. Rathfelder (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nota Bene: in the interest of closure, I've withdrawn for relisting those few that generated discussion, as was done with the Suicides nomination (below).
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suicides by occupation

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 withdrawal by relister, as all subcategories have not yet been nominated, and there was no consensus on those discussed. Individual subcategories should be renominated. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Suicides by occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: For the vast majority of entries in these categories (thousands of them), there is no (established) link between the occupation and the manner of death, and there may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide (e.g. for sportspeople), making the link even weaker. This makes this too often a trivial intersection. There are of course cases where the occupation and the suicide are linked (or are discussed as such in sources), but such cases would be better in a list, where it is easier to only list those where the intersection is deemed noteworthy by sources. (Note; sources about the death of person X will often discuss both their occupation, and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, e.g. their number of children).

If some bot could (if necessary) tag all subcats, I would be grateful. Doing this by hand is not really feasible. Fram (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tool we could use to mark tables of subcategories would be very helpful. We often discuss something which is claimed to be a precedent affecting similar categories, but it is generally unclear which others are supposed to be affected and the discussion is often inconclusive. Rathfelder (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I do sympathize with the proposal but it is likely that some subcategories will require an individual discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's possible of course. The ones I checked were filled with people who committed suicide after their wife died, after they were diagnosed with a serious illness, after they caused a serious accident (in regular life, not during their occupation), and so on. But if there are subcategories where the grouping, the intersection really makes sense, then we can see how to keep these and how to organise the tree to restrict it to such ones. Fram (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a day or two and relist — Note there's already a big discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation. The category as a whole was previously nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Category:Suicides by occupation. Instead, it has slowly been nibbled away. Also, recently:
1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 29#Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Berlin, then
2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Germany by method.

Seems like morbid fascination!
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this whole tree is overcategorization. we really need to do something to cut down on death related category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John Pack Lambert. Death is only a defining event for a very small number of people. Rathfelder (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit I am less than sure we really need categories for death beyond the basic date of death category. Just to pick the person who came to mind the fasts Thomas S. Monson is only in a category for the year he died, no cause of death or other death related categories. He is in 24 categories, 1 of which is currently nominated for deletion. His predecessor as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Bordon B. Hinckley is also in only 1 death category. Before him we have Howard W. Hunter who is in the year of death category and Category:Deaths from cancer in Utah and Category:Deaths from prostate cancer. I am less than convinced the cancer categories are defining and worth having.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment, this discussion can only be closed after all subcategories are tagged and listed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous time this was nominated. Also, all the sub-cats will need to be tagged, or alternatively, grouped in much smaller individual discussions. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suicides by occupation subcategories

Avoiding WP:TRAINWRECK. Now 22 down after December 12 was closed. Tagging those remaining without subcategories, as some of these are subcategories of others:

Relisted Propose deleting Category:Activists who committed suicide

Relisted Propose deleting Category:Doctors who committed suicide

Relisted Propose deleting Category:Journalists who committed suicide‎ (duplicated in Writers)

Relisted Propose deleting Category:Jurists who committed suicide‎

Relisted Propose deleting Category:Philosophers who committed suicide (both Writers and Academics)

Propose deleting Category:Samurai who committed suicide‎
Propose deleting Category:Spies who committed suicide

William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actors is not tagged though, and I didn't go further. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all listed subcategories as trivial intersections. Wait with deletion of the top category (as originally nominated) until when or if we have deleted all subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all listed subcategories as being defining to the individual. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote — Moreover, this isn't about defining to the individual (that is handled in Category:Suicide by year), this is defining to the occupation. Neither journalists nor philosophers are expected by their profession to end their lives by suicide. Although physicians are apparently twice as likely to end their lives by suicide, that is actively discouraged by the profession. Moreover, the problem isn't mainly with doctors themselves, it is the resident trainees where suicide is one of the leading causes of death. That's a reflection of how badly they are treated, not a professional qualification. We don't have a category for residents, as thay aren't likely to be notable. If they commit suicide, they are very unlikely to become notable.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a duplicate vote. I commented on the original nomination of the top-level category. Then the discussion was re-listed, with a handful of sub-cats nominated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least Nazis and spies (the Nazis shouldn't be classified by location, however). In both cases, suicide is often a result of that profession; many Nazis committed suicide to escape justice and spies, to avoid torture and interrogation. (t · c) buidhe 12:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to add I'm not sure "Nazi" is an occupation. - RevelationDirect (talk)

Nazis are not in the nomination. I've checked the spies. Koch had avoided prosecution entirely. Zygier had not been convicted, yet somehow (suspiciously) managed to hang himself in a suicide-proof cell. Some were already convicted and imprisoned, but they didn't like it. None of this has to do with spying, no more than any other convict.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Oppose/Conceptual Support Whatever the merits of the individual subcategories (and I'd say they often are non-defining), deleting the parent category by itself would just weaken navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted, the parent isn't up for deletion until all the children have been handled. Doing in batches. This is the 3rd batch.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all listed subcategories Death categories are defining for these people. Instead of deleting the so-called clutter, we should expand the death category tree. Dimadick (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the death category tree, that's over at Category:Deaths by cause This is an unnecessary parallel tree.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Samurai cases may be a matter of honour. For spies it may be an act of bravery to prevent them giving away secrets. I am accordingly inclined to keep. In some cases this will be a trivial characteristic, but not always. In some cases, it was to avoid trial and sentence. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you don't object to removing all the articles where it wasn't an act of bravery or honor, and all other trivial intersections? Good to know. I'll work on that for the next batch.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we already have way too many articles in over 20 categories, some in over 50, expanding the number of categories related to death we can put biographical articles in is not a good idea. This is not "defining to the individual" in the sense of it telling us at all why they are notable, and it is not really a good way to group people. This just leads to way too much clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep until all subcats are tagged. I have sympathy for the argument of the trivial nature of some of these and the argument that often one's profession bears no relation to one's suicide (Turing was mentioned). That said, unless these categories are tagged it's unfair to delete them without providing sufficient notice to folks who are following them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos, we're doing these in batches. When this was first listed, there were 21 categories already tagged. We've dealt with them. Now I've tagged 7 potentially more controversial. Please discuss them. In a week, there will be more, until everything is covered.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted a section break because the original nomination of the top category causes a lot of confusion. There is at least consensus that we cannot delete the top category yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Don't know why folks don't read the whole thread before !voting.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least a few of these intersections are notable. Mind you, I have supported deletion for two more of these profession and suicide intersections on next day's page, but here I see quite a few intersections that do seem significant to me. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2020 (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:Recipients of the Order of the Seal of Solomon

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of the Seal of Solomon

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of the Seal of Solomon
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Seal of Solomon
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Commanders of the Order of the Seal of Solomon‎

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)

When prominent leaders visited imperial Ethiopia, or vice versa, the Order of the Seal of Solomon was given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Queen Victoria, Juliana of the Netherlands and Nicholas II of Russia are not remotely defined by this award. (The only Ethiopians in this category are members of the royal family who are already well categorized under Category:Ethiopian Royal Family.) There wasn't already a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are listed right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for some people (like Nicholas II), these categories have come to be a long-winded way to categorize them by every official trip abroad they took. I am not sure if all those trips are even neccesary to be mentioned in their article, but we clearly do not want to add them for every trip abroad they took. Of course with Elizabeth II we created a seperate article with the main intent of having it be a holding article for all these award categories. To me that just shows the overcategorization by award guidelines are not at all being enforced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, these awards represent someone else's official trip abroad to see Nicholas II. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that makes things even worse. So it is a listing of official trips abroad, and official dignitaries received. That went from maybe needing most of them at least in the article, to we do not need all this information period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2020 (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:Recipients of the Through Art – to Peace and Understanding

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Through Art – to Peace and Understanding

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OCAWARD)

Each year Belarus hosts Slavianski Bazaar in Vitebsk "Slavic Bazaar", a prominent eastern European music festival which brings an already prominent musical group to receive the Through Art – to Peace and Understanding during the opening ceremonies. The award is typically mentioned in passing in the articles so it doesn't seem defining and the category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2020 (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.