Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 22 December 24 >

December 23[edit]

Category:Extinct insect families[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 19#Category:Extinct insect families

Category:Boating accident deaths[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: keep, noting that this discussion has led to Category:Water transport deaths being added as a helpful new parent over the nominated category and the target. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While there is a difference in meaning between boating (which our article says is for pleasure and sport) not for transportation and shipwreck (which means the boat is defunct in WP parlance - so wouldn't include person-overboard type scenarios), I'm not sure the distinction of which lead to one's death is meaningful. Moreover, many of the articles included in the boating category are transport related and are the result of the ship capsizing, sinking, or otherwise being shipwrecked. Therefore, merge the two. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • People can be killed by boats without any shipwreck. The six articles I sampled none of them mentioned a ship of any sort. Rathfelder (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If merged, the target should be broad enough to include boating and transportation ships and to include with and without shipwreck. For example Category:Ship accident deaths. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a difficult one. They are both Category:Transport accidental deaths. But not both Category:Deaths by drowning. I'd say the by Drowning was far more important than whether they were on a boat or ship (or kayak or raft). But, they are both well-populated. How about Category:Deaths by drowning on water transport?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose. I would keep these separate, and provide clear delineation between what constitutes a "boating accident" and what constitutes a "shipwreck". I can easily think of a situation where, for example, a boat passes under a bridge or other raised structure, an inobservant person on the boat stands up at an inopportune moment and is struck in the head, and they die without either drowning or being in a shipwreck. Of course, many deaths in boating accidents will either be drowning deaths, or will involve the "wreck" of the boat, but there needs to be room for the edge cases. BD2412 T 07:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • People killed in boating accidents may not have been in the boat. See Kirsty MacColl.Rathfelder (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Water transport accident deaths, and make the shipwrecks cat a subcategory of it. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the reason we're here is "discreation of editors" isn't working well. Evidence of confusion between boating and shipwreck. Better to rename with clear category names that editors will instantly recognize, less likely to put things in the wrong category. They can die of drowning or fire without being in a "shipwreck".
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. count me in with leaning oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You don't need a shipwreck to be killed in a boating accident. I would not oppose the creation of 'Category:Water transport deaths as a parent category. Dimadick (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and SNOW close Off the top of my head, Kirsty MacColl and Naya Rivera didn't die in shipwrecks, but accidents involving boats that remained afloat. Boating itself is a form of leisure activity and any number of accidents can result in death by injury or drowning. This nom is completely misguided, and the comments above show that nobody is confusing anything. Kingsif (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile I created Category:Water transport deaths as a parent category. Presumably the discussion can be closed with no further action required. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are lots of ways to die in a boating accident that is in no way a shipwrieck.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 25 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:Association football in the United States lists[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same as previous proposal. "Association football" is included in only one title, the page that is listed below for renaming. DB1729 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in that case the many countries that only have "football" as the name of the sport should also be changed accordingly (e.g., England). Grutness...wha? 00:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to reflect local usage, but do not change the rest. In most countries, "football" means soccer, but in USA, Australia, and perhaps a few other places, it refers primarily to another sport. Local usage should be used, without changing anything else, including parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 16:19, 27 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.

Mayors in South Holland[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Useful categorial information about mayors related to municipalities. Lois12jd (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The categories aren't proposed to be deleted but to merged. The link of these mayors with the municipality will remain. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now While there likely were more than 5 mayors for each place, most would not be individually notable. No objection to recreating if any get up to 5+ articles but, right now, these hinder navigation with a bunch of underpopulated categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 27 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:Lists of association football stadiums in the United States[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Understood on the use of "association football" on most of the sport's pages. That said, every article title in this category contains the word "soccer". None contain the word "football". And of course, "football" generally refers to a completely different sport in the U.S. DB1729 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 16:19, 27 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.

Baptist congregations[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, based on the discussion here and related categories (noted in this discussion) that were discussed is separate nominations. Following the lead of Fayenatic london, in the cases where the congregations were established in an earlier century than the buildings, I moved them up to, e.g., Category:Baptist organizations established in the 18th century. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping scope. A manual merge is needed because the articles in the Baptist congregations categories may already be in a US subcat of Baptist churches. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They built "four successive church buildings at this site." So they were originally in the 1818 church building, as would be expected. If you propose that each and every building renovation or replacement is documented in the categories, I'm not entirely sure that the current "yyyy constructed building or structure" system cannot be used. But do we really want that?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be done manually anyway (that is the proposal, at least), so this is just an extra point of attention. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would suggest that the article be categorised only by (i) the century in which the congregation was established, and (ii) the year the current building was opened, unless the article has a substantial separate section about a previous building. Renovations are rarely defining. – Fayenatic London 22:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better still Category:Baptist churches founded in the 18th century‎ for those subsequently moved or rebuilt. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree "founded" is better than "established". But, we already have "yyyy constructed" and "yyyy demolished" for buildings subsequently moved or rebuilt, so we don't need yet another category.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment founded may be a better term than established, period. However that move would need to be based on moving this whole huge tree. There is no reason to suppose this is unique even to churches, I am thinking whther we say founded or established effects everything.
  • Reverse merge that way we put the articles in categories that clearly say this is about when they were founded/established, not just that they existed in those times.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I just closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_21#Presbyterian_congregations as merge/rename to "churches". In the cases of the articles where the congregations were established in an earlier century than the buildings, I moved them up to e.g. Category:Presbyterian organizations established in the 18th century; but perhaps it would be acceptable for such an article to be in both "18th-century churches" and "19th-century churches". – Fayenatic London 14:54, 29 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:Latin American Spring[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article Latin American Spring was deleted after it was found to be bogus claims and extreme case of Wikipedia:SYNTH, there's no Latin American Spring and the articles in the category are of mostly unrelated events, borderline hoax. CDLCR (talk) 21:37, 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:Subdivisions of Russia[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Technically incorrect. Match main article: Political divisions of Russia.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not fixed because Subdivisions is broad enough to contain Regions too, so that makes it a more useful parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, so the article Region uses the word "region" the same way as the categories use "subdivision". Ultimately it is just a matter of definition, so ultimately I am indifferent, but I thought the word "region" is primarily used for informal regions (including historical and touristic). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why we ask subject matter experts. Remember that in English (and its legal system), "subdivisions" are smaller than "divisions", that in turn are smaller than "baronies", "counties", etc. It's been a long time since I'd RFC'd Tobias Conradi in 2005, and asked for arbitration twice, so I'm a bit fuzzy on all the details. After s/he was banned, all these "country subdivisions" were supposed to go back to "administrative divisions" and "political divisions". Many were done. Lots of redirects still around, too. Besides, a guy with 150+ sockpuppets can do a lot of damage over time. One of the worst we've ever seen.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, for several reasons. But this subsection is getting 10 indents deep, so....
  1. I've long been favorable to flatter hierarchies. Centuries with a hundred year subcategories, not decades with only 10.
  2. Deep/tall hierarchies are annoying to navigate.
  3. On a wider computer screen, it wastes lot of real estate, and you have to click through again and again.
  4. On a small phone screen, you cannot see enough at a time, and you have to click through again. And again. And again.
  5. So I'd put as much as possible under Category:Geography of Russia, with a navigation template (that does not yet exist) to slide sideways between top level things like Regions and others like Selsoviet/Somon/Sumon that are actually the same thing in different places.
  6. It also means a tolerance for smaller categories at the bottom of the hierarchy. Just because there is only 1 entry, and it will not be likely to expand, doesn't mean it needs to be merged somewhere else.
  7. Another thing that Conradi did is a massive Template (that s/he kept changing the name, so there are different redirects to it all over the place). I've been wrestling with it for a couple of days now. It purports to have all the geography "types" and "terms" for all languages in one template. Everytime you make a change, it propagates to hundreds of articles. Somebody changed it so it always defaults to collapsed and doesn't take up the bottom half of the screen on every article. But hard to maintain. A few days ago, it was full of redlinks. After I've fixed a dozen or so things, it is obviously missing many more after 10 years. So it needs to be pruned, and instead access our categories that already update dynamically.
  8. So Category:Regions of Russia would sit side by side with Category:Political divisions of Russia and Category:Administrative divisions of Russia.
Anyway, that's what I'd like....
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO, I said "subsumes". Human geography is messy. I'd prefer Regions would be side-by-side with Political divisions and Administrative divisions for ease of navigation, because most Regions have nothing to do with either Political divisions and/or Administrative divisions, and they all can cross each other's boundaries. If you want a strict hierarchy, that's it: Regions -> Political divisions -> Administrative divisions, largest to smallest size, upper to lower level.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Messy indeed. But then I wonder what you want to leave in Category:Political divisions of Russia, ultimately. As you want to move Administrative divisions to the Geography level, and presumably you want to move Economic regions to Geography level as well, and presumably you want to split the Former category, there is not much left in Political divisions than Federal subjects, which already has its own category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom to match main article. However this should be a container for general articles and subcategories for different levels and types of division. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 27 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:Subdivisions of the United States[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Technically incorrect. Match main article: Political divisions of the United States.
  • Not fixed because Subdivisions is broad enough to contain Regions too, so that makes it a more useful parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion continued in the section right above this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom, but it should primarily be a container for types of division. I do not see "regions", which might be a concept of physical geography, not political, in the category: someone else has perhaps fixed that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 27 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:C-type stars[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nobody calls this type of star a C-type star, they are referred to as carbon stars, occasionally by more complex terms such as carbon-rich something or other. See the main article for the category as an example. "C-type" is misleading since the spectral type for these stars often doesn't begin with C, depending on the scheme used. Lithopsian (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: the proposed name would be clearer and reduce potential confusion. While assigning this category to a star article I initially assumed it would be 'Carbon stars', and had to track down the alternate category name through the Carbon star article. Praemonitus (talk) 18:28, 2 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:Subdivisions of India[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Technically incorrect. Match main article: Administrative divisions of India.
  • One can also argue that the hierarchy should be:
Country
Parts of country (whether political divisions, administratieve divisions or informal regions)
I suppose the subdivisions tree is meant for the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has nothing to do with this nomination, but glad you are helping improve it.
    1. Note that article is a stub with no references, another started by Conradi.
    2. The lead actually says: "A division is a type of administrative division...."
    3. I'd recommend renaming it to Division (political geography) as it is labeled a geography stub, matching Political geography, and turn it into a list with actual references.
    4. As to the related category, it doesn't really serve a purpose. It only has 4 entries, so SMALLCAT. The Division (political geography) list article should be sufficient with proper references.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom, but purge of items that ought to be in subcategories. This should be a container with a few general articles, excludign those on individual divisions etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 27 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:Starfleet doctors[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match parent Category:Fictional military medical personnel.

Prior to merge with #Category:Starfleet nurses (below)
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:42, 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:Starfleet nurses[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 with Category:Starfleet doctors into a new Category:Starfleet medical personnel. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Doesn't seem like there's much room for growth. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 05:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alternatively merge with Category:Starfleet doctors into Category:Starfleet medical personnel. --Atvica (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Starfleet doctors which will still only get us to 13 entries in the category (there is 1 overlap at present). Upmerge also to Category:Fictional nurses, which will then be at 139 entires, which is reasonable. Several of those 139 entries are redirects, and at least one seems to be about someone who was more a wet nurse than a medical nurse, but I think for a fictional entities category both can be preserved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: together with Category:Starfleet doctors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:39, 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:Duolingo users[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: User category for people learning languages via Duolingo. I fail to see how this is relevant to building an encyclopedia, at best it's trying to WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Le Deluge (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how one learns something is not useful in building an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:31, 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:Administrative divisions of India by state or state or union territory[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: do not rename (in light of discussion above), but rename Category:Administrative divisions of India by state or state or union territory to Category:Administrative divisions of India by state or union territory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2C per Category:Subdivisions of India. Confusingly, many Indian states have a second-level subdivision called division. This is however not the case of the two states in this category, which use the word mandal. This renaming removes the ambiguity and sticks to common practice in naming categories for country subdivisions. Also, by state is repeated in the current title, an obvious mistake. Place Clichy (talk) 17:32, 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:Converge ICT[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a Filipino telecoms company, with only the company article in it. Le Deluge (talk) 17:30, 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:List of celebrities who served in the Indian military[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Celebrity" never works as a categorisation Le Deluge (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And it's not a list either...! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The question of who is (or is not) a Celebrity depnds on the POV of the editor. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would oppose this if we used clearly designations like actors, musicians, etc. I do not think this is in either case a justified overlap category, but here it clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These "celebrities" can be categorized in standard articles for military personnel. That they were celebrities is not defining. Dimadick (talk) 13:02, 29 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:Administrative divisions[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. A nomination of Category:Types of country subdivisions for renaming could be helpful in focusing in on the naming issue highlighted by this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Useless near-empty duplicate of the target. The current category description seems to precisely describe the scope of the other, better-named category: "types of administrative divisions, not specific (named) divisions (e.g., "county" is included, but not "Clark county"). For specific (named) administrative divisions, see the subcategories listed below". Note that in this discussion, the term of country subdivisions was preferred for categories. Place Clichy (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both together as the scope of both categories overlap. If "subdivision" is not a proper English term in this context, then at least I was not aware of that, but I will leave it to others to discuss that. Note however that the alternative "administrative divisions" will leave us with the problem where to leave subCategory:Regions. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That probably doesn't belong here. Look at the main article. It was recently added here by Rathfelder, but "Continental regions", "Historical regions", "Tourism region", etc. are not relevant here. I'll remove it.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not remove it yet. That would only be appropriate if (and after) there is consensus to narrow this category to Administrative divisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrative entities called "regions" should certainly be treated differently than regions in the general sense. Place Clichy (talk) 09:44, 24 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:United States topic navigational boxes[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) William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current name of the category is confusing, templates are often miscategorized into this category (example). Name of the category should reflect the category description: Navigational boxes added to this category should include a link for each U.S. state and may also includes links for U.S. Territories, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands and the District of Columbia. I am very open to alternative suggestions—it is the best that I could come up with. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no activity in a month, need consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:46, 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:Proposed monuments[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To reflect the (wider) parent category Category:Monuments and memorials Hugo999 (talk) 08:31, 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:War crimes committed by the Home Army[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. However, the category was empty when I closed it, so I have deleted it. Due to the no consensus result, the category may be re-created if populated. Given the nature of the category, care should be taken in populating it – these things should be well-sourced. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Controversial category and likely ORish. Added to three articles, none of which contains the term "war crime" in the body, so this just a POV that those incidents are "war crimes". I did a quick Google Book search for Sahryń "war crime" / Pawłokoma "war crime" / Dubingiai "war crime" and got zero meaningful hits. Likewise, I cannot find any reliable source using the term "Home Army war crimes " or "War crimes committed by the Home Army". No prejudice to this being restored once there is some reliable body of scholarly research which discusses this logical concept. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename, at most "war crimes" may be changed to "massacres" but as they have clearly been committed by the Home Army there is no reason for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems rather like an argument for renaming “War crimes committed by Ukrainian Insurgent Army” - although it depends on how the sources refer to these massacres - rather than keeping this as is. The pl category is not referring to “war crimes” so I’m not clear on how this one is suppose to be based on that one. Volunteer Marek 09:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here is the difference. Even a cursory search turns up sources for “UPA war crimes” [1], [2], [3], [4] etc. On the other hand, a search for “Home Army war crimes” (or similar) turns up... ONLY this Wikipedia category. That’s pretty good indication that this, unlike the case with UPA, is just your own original research. Volunteer Marek 09:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to avoid the "war crime" WP:OR label, since apparently none of these were prosecuted as such much less lead to convictions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "War crimes" here seems to be used here in a consistent way to other WWII crimes, not all of them being nominally cited in e.g. the Nuremberg trials. I do not really see any reason to water down the responsibility of the Home Army, which would also be sticking to a pretty stinky POV. Renaming to massacres would be a second best option, but certainly do not delete. Place Clichy (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename to "Massacres committed by the Home Army" since some Home Army units committed revenge attacks on Ukrainians (more here Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC) added later - After thinking about it, I believe such a category would be WP:UNDUE since those retaliation strikes and massacres were very few (3?); I am leaning now to delete that cat. all together. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Massacres committed by the Home Army. The category and its parent needs a headnote saying that the Home Army was the main armed resistance in World War II Poland, loyal to the government in exile in London. At least one was a revenge attack. As far as I know, no one was convicted of a war crime for any of these massacres. It is not for WP to adjudge guilt: that fails NPOV. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron: Indeed, Renaming in such context makes sense. Also, Buidhe pointed out that this is what the Polish corresponding category actually sais. While in Polish, 'zbrodnia' literary means 'crime', Polish Wikipedia uses this term where we use massacre. For example, one of the articles included here, Dubingiai massacre, is pl:Zbrodnia w Dubinkach, and same for the others. They might be war crimes, but it's OR to call them that, but they are undisputable massacres and this is the right category tree for such tragedies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Home Army was an authorized military formation of the Polish Underground State, so the category should be consisted with other armed forces of WWII. No renaming is necessary, since massacres and reprisals are subcategories of the larger war crimes category. As far as the "no one was convicted of a war crime" argument goes, criminal convictions are not necessary to meet the definition of a war crime. Many events in WWII history w/o criminal convictions are classified as war crime. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only were none of these persecuted or charged as war crimes, none of them are actually described as war crimes in reliable sources. Hence, this is pure WP:OR with a side of POV. Volunteer Marek 09:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the articles in the cat seem to make reference to them being war crimes. It is not for us to decide if they are or not, that should be left to RS inside each article. So since none of the articles in the cat seem to have RS supporting their inclusion it would be an empty cat. I could also see a rename to avoid the OR issue. PackMecEng (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there even a rule that categories that temporarily become empty need to be deleted? Secondly, I checked the relevant category on the Polish Wikipedia. It includes articles about events that are clearly defined as war crimes with in-line references provided. See: [5]. I mean even if there are shortcomings with the current articles, the category surely has potential and shouldn't be deleted. Knižnik (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — Knižnik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic - see 500/30 restriction Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020) [6] [reply]
Yes, categories that are empty for 7 days are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:C1. PackMecEng (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the issue remains that at least some of these events have been described as war crimes in reliable sources. See [7] - specifically mentions Dubinki as such. (The book title translates "Glinciszki and Dubinki. War Crimes in the Vilnius Area in Mid-1944 and Their Repurcussions In Today's Polish-Lithuanian Relations").Knižnik (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the source, but that should then be added to the article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the source to the relevant article and used it as a reference.Knižnik (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — Knižnik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic - see 500/30 restriction Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is not original research to say that the massacre of civilians, infants included, is a war crime. This could be renamed to Civilian massacres committed by the Home Army, which would then be a sub-category of other crimes (rape, looting, and so on), but this is much trouble for a now small category.--Astral Leap (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the source does not call it a war crime it is indeed original research to call it that. PackMecEng (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a point of clarification which is relevant here. Above Buidhe says that the category is based on the Pl-wiki category pl:Kategoria:Zbrodnie oddziałów Armii Krajowej. But that is not the same thing. "Zbrodnia" (-e, plural) means "crime". So the pl-wiki category is "Crimes by units of the Home Army". Not "WAR CRIMES by the Home Army". Otherwise it would be "zbrodnie wojenne". This looks purposeful since none of these are generally referred to as "war crimes" even though they were obviously crimes. Likewise the distinction between "Home Army" and "units of Home Army" looks to have a purpose. The three massacres in this cat currently were not ordered by the Home Army but rather were either rogue units "AK-associated" units. For example, Pawłokoma massacre took place March 3 1945. But the Home Army had been disbanded in January of 1945. So this wasn't "Home Army", although some of the participants had formerly been in the Home Army. Volunteer Marek 21:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this is kept, I think we need some kind of container category. I also found Category:War crimes committed by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and Category:War crimes of the Independent State of Croatia. I think the main issue is to make sure there are reliable sources calling events included in such controversial categories 'war crimes'. If such sources can be found, then such categories should exist. Going back to the ongoing discussion, did anyone find any RS calling the three massacres currently present in this category (Dubingiai massacre, Pawłokoma massacre and Sahryń massacre 'war crimes'? Ping User:Buidhe (creator). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piotrus, any intentional murder of civilians is a war crime, full stop.[8] Basically any event that could be described as a "massacre" and occurs in wartime is a war crime. (t · c) buidhe 13:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, you can't construct this definition yourself. That's original research (it's incorrect too if for no other reason than it has to occur during a war). On Wikipedia we rely on reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 15:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And you most definitely need sources if you start attributing to people or organizations ("War crime committed by XYZ"). You can't just WP:OR it. Volunteer Marek 15:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe and Volunteer Marek: I concur per WP:REDFLAG and like. Exceptional/controversial claims require good sources. We can't be the ones to be the first to call something a 'war crime'. It is the very definition of OR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename there are no reliable sources confirming this terminology as far as I can see. The category on Polish wikipedia doesn't translate as war crimes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category tree of "X nationality war crimes" is used for all similar events, and the criticism of it applies to the entire category tree. Therefore, any renames should apply to the entire category tree because treating war crimes by the Home Army differently from war crimes by literally any other group is clearly contrary to WP:NPOV. (t · c) buidhe 16:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this is true. Other “similar” categories have actual sources to back it up. You got no sources here what so ever. Volunteer Marek 23:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for English terms "War crimes committed by the Home Army", "Home Army war crime(s)" and "Armia Krajowa war crime(s)", and Polish "Zbrodnie wojenne Armii Krajowej", on Google Books and Google Scholar and I came away with nothing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the articles in Category:War crimes committed by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army don't mention the phrase "war crime". I'd say if this category is deleted, that one should be as well. In Category:Soviet World War II crimes it doesn't seem like most of the articles such as Deportations of the Ingrian Finns, Massacre of Broniki, or Kharkiv tragedy use the phrase "war crime". Even Category:Nazi war crimes (these were actually prosecuted to a certain extent, so legal terminology is more likely to be applied) has members that don't describe the event as a "war crime", such as Sonderaktion 1005. Per my investigation, the standard of sourcing that you expect just does not exist for other categories in the "war crimes" tree, so either no action should be taken or the entire category tree needs to be redone. (t · c) buidhe 06:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur this is a wide-spread problem that needs more community attention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please see my comment above. Some of these events have been described as war crimes in reliable sources. See [9] - specifically mentions Dubinki as such. (The book title translates "Glinciszki and Dubinki. War Crimes in the Vilnius Area in Mid-1944 and Their Repurcussions In Today's Polish-Lithuanian Relations"). It was published by the IPN when the institution still had non-nationalist credentials, so why should we omit such a good source? I am mostly active on Russian Wiki so I was quite unaware of set limits for newbies to edit some articles (tho how exactly Dubingiai massacre relates to Poland&Holocaust remains unclear), my relevant edits got reverted. A more experienced user might reinstate my changes to said article.Knižnik (talk) 15:52, 17 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:Jewish Japanologists[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS. I have a very hard time believing that being Jewish and a Japanologist is a WP:DEFINING feature of any of the scholars tagged here. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — this one made me laugh. Actually wanted to see why anybody would think there was a Jewish Japanologist. Many/most of the articles don't even have a mention that they are Jewish. It's merely based upon the names seemingly sounding Jewish! How this escaped notice all these years flummoxes me.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The ignoring of EGRS rules has become extreme and needs to be overturned and stopped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is there a chair of Jewish Japanology somewhere? I guess that Category:Jewish orientalists is not very far behind. Place Clichy (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another irrelevant religion/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:16, 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:Detention[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: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 11:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Detention (video game) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:02, 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:People with acquired Belgian citizenship[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They appear to be the same thing in Belgium Rathfelder (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done that, without much success. I think the problem is that citizenship is complex and by definition varies from country to country - and often over time too, and the necessary expertise is not available to us. So I'm inclined to suggest that we should use "People with acquired Fooish citizenship" as the default for all countries where the "Naturalised citizens of Foo" category doesnt contain any actual articles. If that is supported I suppose I had better nominate them all. Rathfelder (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. But let's finish this as an example, then do groups. Tagging too many at a time just invites thrashing.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:15, 26 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) 01:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or Reverse Merge) Clearly overlapping in this case. I'll defer to others on the better name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I have sought sources on which term is better in general, but don't have anything comprehensive to report here. In principle, to "acquire citizenship" is a more neutral and inclusive term than "naturalize" (or "naturalise"), but it looks like the latter is used pretty much universally in English-language materials. Kestenbaum (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — A lawyer has spoken. For those who notably acquire citizenship without naturalization, such as honorary citizenship, we'll just have to revisit the issue then.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:36, 27 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:Articles containing Old English (ca. 450-1100)-language text[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: withdrawn: see here for more information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia's style for the abbreviation of circa is "c." per MOS:CIRCA.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:20, 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.

Italian communes[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More like this
Nominator's rationale: As Marcocapelle raised at a recent CfD (for which I was the nom), the usual name for these in English is "municipality", as evidenced by the fact that the parent is Category:Municipalities of Italy, which was moved there from "Communes of Italy" after a CfD in 2014. Indeed, the closer of that CfD requested that all these categories be tagged for speedy renaming per WP:C2C, but six years on seems a little late to try to do that as consensus may have changed. WP:C2C doesn't seem to apply otherwise because this is a proposal to rename the majority of subcategories of Category:Municipalities of Italy (a few are titled with "Municipalities of..." already). YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, per earlier discussion, commune is obviously a wrong translation of the Italian word comune. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Marcocapelle points out that these are municipalities not (necessarily) places populated by flower children or the organized proletariat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:34, 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:Students who committed suicide[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Also, High school and College students aren't Children, and often aren't minors. Many/most are duplicated or triplicated in the subcategories and other parallel subcategories.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their education status 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, such as their number of siblings, and the occupations of their parents. See previous:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Chefs who committed suicide
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation
  3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#Category:Suicides by occupation
  4. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Category:Drivers who committed suicide
  5. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Category:Clergy who committed suicide
  6. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Category:Academics who committed suicide
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These ones could be disputed. It is not so much their occupation (student) but their young age which matters. Their suïcide may well be their primary reason of notability. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. A number seem to identify bullying and ant-LGBT slurs and these typically are "Suicide of..." articles, like with Suicide of Jadin Bell and Suicide of Hamed Nastoh. I don't think the student part is what's defining though. Category:Bullying victims who committed suicide or Category:Minors who committed suicide might be closer. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Child and High School to "Youth Suicides"/Delete College I'm totally open to a different name for the student categories, since it's really the combination of youth and suicide that is defining, not their student status as a "career" per Marcocapelle. Delete college per JPL. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have preferred something concrete defining "youth" but given that we have other far far less-than-perfect categorization schemes, I can live with that too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion -- No objection to merger. I do not think we should be eliminating categories for children who killed themselves due to cyber-bullying or social media pointing those looking into self-harm to more webpages on that subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see this as trivial, and the sources cover it. Dimadick (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Something I'd like to point out is that we have a lot of pages in these categories where the article pagename is "Suicide of name of person", and the pagename "Name of person" is a redirect to the suicide-of page. There has been a consensus for a long time that the suicide-of pages are about the event (suicide) rather than about the person, and that the event is notable for our purposes whereas the person is not notable except for the event (as in WP:BLP1E). Thus, for example, we have Suicide of Tyler Clementi, to which Tyler Clementi is a redirect, and Category:Male violinists is applied to the redirect (because it's a category about types of persons), but not to the main suicide-of page (because it's not a category about types of suicides). Thus, I can see a case for renaming categories like Category:Students who committed suicide to something like Category:Student suicides or Category:Suicides by students. In other words, make the category names about the suicides rather than about the persons. Once one does this, it makes more sense to keep the various sub-categories, such as for college students or high school students, because they are logical sub-topics. Furthermore, although I agree that suicide is not a defining feature for these various student groups in general, the facts that these pages are about suicides by these particular groups of young people, whose suicides were triggered by social characteristics of high schools, colleges, and so forth, according to large amounts of reliable sourcing that focus upon the school environment as having caused the suicides, these categories are defining of the suicides and should be kept in revised form. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 2 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:Royalty who committed suicide[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; Marcocapelle has helpfully suggested where the contents should be merged to upon category deletion, so I will do that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death, even though the death itself may have been notable.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their education status 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, such as their number of siblings, and the occupations of their parents. See previous:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Chefs who committed suicide
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation
  3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#Category:Suicides by occupation
  4. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Category:Drivers who committed suicide
  5. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Category:Clergy who committed suicide
  6. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Category:Academics who committed suicide
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clicking through several, the intersection does not seem to be notable even they they are defined by both. While it may seem that this reduces categories, they are also in their specific royal house/country and death by location, so it this is adding category clutter. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, as trivial intersections, but it should be a merge rather than a deletion for most of these categories. This is the alternative proposal:
- Marcocapelle (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh fudge, I was going to nominate those targets next, using this as precedent.... (If the royalty are trivial, the non-royalty are even more trivial.)
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shouldn't necessarily stop you from the nomination of the targets, but the rationale for sure will not be a trivial intersection with occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is NOT a trivial intersection. In these cases (or most of them) there is a clear link between being royal and committing suicide. Some were commanded to kill themselves (which is more like an execution than a modern suicide). Others faced a political situation where they had lost power and killed themselves, probably as a preferable alternative to starving to death in prison or being publicly executed. One of the Macedonians was given a noose, hemlock and something else and told to choose her mode of death. That is not a voluntary suicide. Similarly in the Roman world, it was accepted that those who had failed should "fall on their sword". I suspect that something similar applies in the Chinese cases. This is all quite different from most modern western suicides, which are the result of depression or other mental illness. Thus today, a coroner's verdict of (plain) suicide is rare, but usual one being suicide during mental illness (or such like). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need some categories along the line of people forced to suicide? Rathfelder (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First I'd like to see some links to articles in order to check that this happened regularly and that it concerns a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 31 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:Models who committed suicide[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their education status 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, such as their number of siblings, and the occupations of their parents. See previous:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Chefs who committed suicide
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation
  3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#Category:Suicides by occupation
  4. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Category:Drivers who committed suicide
  5. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Category:Clergy who committed suicide
  6. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Category:Academics who committed suicide
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clicking through several, the intersection does not seem to be notable even they they are defined by both. While it may seem that this reduces categories, they are also in their specific royal house/country and death by location, so it this is adding category clutter. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, as trivial intersections with occupation. But, regardless whether the parent categories by gender are considered useful or not, as they still exist the nomination should become:
- Marcocapelle (talk) 23:13, 25 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:Grand Order of King Tomislav recipients[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders visit Croatia, or vice versa, the Grand Order of King Tomislav is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. King Harald V of Norway, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani and President Konstantinos Stephanopoulos are not remotely defined by this award. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 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:Military decorations and medals of South Africa in order of precedence[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SORTKEY, WP:OVERLAPCAT and maybe WP:IDONTLIKEIT
We have a standard category for military decorations and medals of South Africa named Category:Military decorations and medals of South Africa which sorts the contents alphabetically so the Van Riebeeck Decoration is near the end because it starts with "V". (With me so far?)
But those same articles are also in Category:Military decorations and medals of South Africa in order of precedence but this time the Van Riebeeck Decoration is near the beginning because it's an important award. I don't think this is something we do with categories, but maybe I'm being narrow minded. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly a duplicate category, hence overcategorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articlise -- This is a list article sitting in category space. The creator has manipulated the syntax to place it in order of precedence. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_23&oldid=1073192469"