Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 16 January 18 >

January 17[edit]

Category:Sami[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. I have kept redirects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Nominator's rationale: To match up with the parent article, Sámi people. This would also affect the sub-categories. IceWelder [✉] 22:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the subcategories will need tagging. Oculi (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, provided that User:IceWelder lists and tags the subcategories as well. It would not make much sense if only the top category would be renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: I listed them above with the occasional grammar/style fix (ex. "Sami language terms" -> "Sámi-language terms"), hopefully having missed none. I will tag all of them shortly. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They should all be tagged now. IceWelder [✉] 13:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: if this is approved, the old names should all be redirected. – Fayenatic London 09:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that really necessary? I would expect if, after renaming, someone searches for Sami, that Sámi would pop up immediately. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, ASCII redirects to diacritics is the first standard case of WP:Category redirects that should be kept. It helps when people don't know quick ways to type the accent, or don't know beforehand which categories use it. WP:HOTCAT will substitute the target of any redirect, and if a redirected category is typed into an article, then a bot will transfer the new article to the target category.
    Although a lot of articles have recently been renamed with the diacritic, apparently at the request of user:IceWelder,[1] many instances in the text still have the unaccented "Sami", e.g. at the list at Sámi languages#Western Sami languages. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The moves you mention have been reverted pending further discussion. I wasn't aware that several moves were made unilaterally, only saw the disparity and wanted to bring in some consistency. Most of these moves were done by @SMcCandlish. That said, as the primary article still stands at Sámi people, I still support renaming the categories, but the discussion could be put on hold until the RM discussion is resolved. IceWelder [✉] 23:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Sámi doesn't seem to take precedence over Sami in an English dictionary. Geschichte (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which ... has nothing to do with anything. The majority of modern English-language RS on the matter use Sámi; see related thread at RMTR (which also links to previous article-level discussions). See also WP:TSF.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, modulo what I said at WP:RMTR (namely that there conceivably could be some specific exceptions that may arise, based on the orthography in the particular dialect, but this will only come up when the variance is reflected in the majority of English-language sources on that specific sub-topic).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We should use the correct diacriticals, but leave cat-redirects as these are credible source terms. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 23 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:Journalists killed by a mob[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) 01:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 of them, both already in appropriate subcategories of Category:Assassinated journalists Rathfelder (talk) 22:11, 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:Trade Union Federations on a global scale[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: deleted. Shushugah (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New category duplicates scope of existing Category:International and regional union federations czar 18:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I created this, but after reading also the talk page discussion on Category:International and regional union federations I see why a joint/shared category was made. I cleaned up/moved all the old categories to Category:International and regional union federations and this can be immediately deleted. Shushugah (talk) 18:41, 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:Cities and towns in Jajapur district[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia uses Jajpur everywhere, this is creating confusion. Common name is Jajpur [2] Walrus Ji (talk) 18:36, 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:Murdered criminals[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) 03:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not commonly and consistently expected as a professional hazard or qualification. There may have been many years between the occupation and the death, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person 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, such as their number of children.
See also: related rationale about suicides by occupation:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about this one. Quite a few of them were murdered by the police or by fellow criminals. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Toward Keep While I'm on board with separating being murdered from careers, murder seems to be an occupational risk for at least a subset of these articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as distinct from the spate of 'murdered X' snow-deletes we've gotten here lately. Murdered criminals are much more likely to have their deaths connected with their field than many of those. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vaticidalprophet. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "murdered" as used here is ill-defined as several have never been solved and their killing well have been in self-defense or otherwise justifiable. We have many "deaths in custody" categories which accurately portray what is essential in the connection; being convicted of a crime and years later and unrelated to that crime one is killed is a trivial intersection. Take today's honoree as an example: he was convicted of driving without a license in 1960, found to have violated probation and sent to prison for that offense and years later assassinated by a sniper's bullet in 1968; in Wikipedia parlance a "murdered criminal". smh Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Their criminal activities are often the cause of their deaths. Dimadick (talk) 13:25, 19 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:Murdered nobility[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) 01:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not commonly and consistently expected as a professional hazard or qualification. There may have been many years between the occupation and the death, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person 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, such as their number of children.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:55, 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:Murdered royalty[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not commonly and consistently expected as a professional hazard or qualification. There may have been many years between the occupation and the death, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person 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, such as their number of children.
See also: related rationale about suicides by occupation:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked a number of articles and some were murdered by royal family members, others were murdered by a crowd. Neither of which really satisfies "assassination". Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is a clear connection between the office they held and the manner of their death. Dimadick (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Murder is likely to relate to their royal status. Both Edward II of England and Henry VI of England died in prison in suspicious circumstances that may have been murder according to modern jurispridence. I suspect this will apply in many cases in other countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, regardless the exact circumstances, these murders are nearly always related to their royal status. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 24 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:Journalists killed while covering the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)[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, though it was trending towards do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There hasnt just been one war in Afghanistan. No obvious reason to exclude the journalists killed in the earlier wars. Rathfelder (talk) 15:49, 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:Economy by industry[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. The strength of the arguments made by Marcocapelle and Place Clichy are far more convincing than those in opposition to this merge. There is little utility in keeping the categories separated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per actual content, the category contains industries. "Economy by industry" is not what the category contains. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming to Category:Industry (economics) by type is an acceptable alternative. It is not just economic topics by industry, it is all topics by industry. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the name Category:Industry (economics) by type not very convincing. An industry as such already is a classification of economic units (typically companies) according to some criteria, in other words it contains companies of a certain type. And on the other hand I don’t see which non-economic topic one would group meaningfully by industry. I’m open to other suggestions, but up to now have no alternative I like. --S.K. (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original nomination satisfies that objection. I do not quite understand what is against it anyway: both the subcats and the articles are about industries, so why not have them together in one category? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the subcategories are WP:TOPICCATs containing “arbitrary” content related to an industry and not just articles describing industries. But a defining condition of WP:SETCATs like Category:Industries (economics) is that they themselves AND their subcategories only contain articles describing industries. --S.K. (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then it is no longer a strict set category. How bad is that? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the set Category:Industries (economics) provides additional value. If you’ve followed the filling of the category, it involved quite a bit of work to collect all the articles ABOUT industries from the category tree below Category:Industry (economics). It depends on the usage pattern of the category. In your example a person is interested in the cosmetics industry, while in Category:Industries (economics) the user might be more interested in a overview of industries in general. The clear separation of the categories helps supporting both access patterns. --S.K. (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The overview as such has no value, categories exist for the sake of navigating between related content. In this case it is about content regarding industries. Whether the content is in an article or in a subcategory is entirely secondary. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 19 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:White supremacist politicians[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) 01:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost every politician from Europe and its diaspora communities could be included into one or more of these categories. As such and per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, these are subjective. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_26#Category:Racist_people, which is mentioned in the guidelines, as an example as to why these should be deleted. They also violate WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:BLP. User:Namiba 14:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I have read some articles to check if there was an alternative more objective commonality between these politicians, but I could not define one. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment White-supremacy is less an opinion than a worldview (like one's political orientation, economic outlook, or religion). If these go, I would expect to see "socialist", "capitalist", "Catholic" and party affiliation categories to go as equally impelling action on their adherents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A subject might agree that they are Catholic or even a socialist in many cases, but rarely does anyone admit that they are a white supremacist. Terms like this are so loathed by most of society that even their supporters usually call themselves "racial realists" or a supporter of "European Identity Politics." George Washington owned hundreds of enslaved people of African descent. Does that make him a white supremacist? Abraham Lincoln publicly declared himself against "social and political equality of the white and black races" and organized the largest public execution of indigenous people in US history. Should he be categorized as a white supremacist? This is why categories like this cannot exist. There is far too much ambiguity and they are too controversial.--User:Namiba 12:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:American white supremacists currently includes 200 articles. If we're being consistent, should't it be deleted too? I do wonder about the individuals that are consistently defined as white supremacists though. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said for white supremacy. It's so broad that most politicians in US history could fit into it one way or another. White supremacists are not just Klansmen or Confederates.--User:Namiba 13:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further vote below after further thought. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all except Category:White supremacist governors where it appears only subcategory Category:American white supremacist governors could ever be populated. The submitted statement for deletion "Almost every politician from Europe and its diaspora communities could be included int [sic] one or more of these categories" is provably false and unworthy of consideration. These are not opinion categories, but action categories as the included politician and American state governor articles show white supremacy as the basis for their government legislation and policies. Hmains (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What actions qualify for categorization as a white supremacist? When does racism turn into white supremacy? Which US president from 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries should not be included in this category? The difference between a racist and a white supremacist is difficult to differentiate. For politicians like Abraham Lincoln, his policies included both white supremacist ones and more racially egalitarian ones. How should he be categorized?--User:Namiba 19:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When it is difficult to decide on categories in WP, WP editors typically place content into all the relevant categories. If it is difficult for WP editors, it must be even more difficult for readers and since the purpose of categories is to help readers navigate to articles, we are thereby helping diverse sets of readers reach the underlying articles from multiple starting points. Hmains (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and Restructure: We can Keep Category:White supremacist politicians as a container (only, and tag it accordingly). It only has two articles, which can go into subcats (and are probably in the right ones already). Delete Category:White supremacist governors which has nothing but an American subcat, making it an unnecessary level. I would prefer to see the American governors and politicians Split into (1) pre-Civil War advocates of slavery; (2) Confederate politicians (or they might be added to (1)); (3) Segregationists, up to and including George Wallace of Alabama, who fought a rearguard action against integration; (4) recent white supremacists. I suspect the latter is to a considerable extent a recent phenomenon, coming to the fore in the last four years, since a recent president failed to condemn violence at a rally. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category as applied is being used too broadly to include too many people, many of whom did not lend much political capital to advancing "white supremacy" at all. We do not categorize people merely by political views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The inconsistent (or insdiscriminate) way in which these categories are applied makes them completely useless. I have found articles in this category where the subject of the article is said to have racial prejudice against Slavs and Eastern Europeans. These populations are undeniably white in every definition of the term. Besides the anachronism of using "white supremacist" in a context where this term does not and cannot apply, how can you be a white supremacist and an anti-white racist at the same time? Even restructuring or purging would not make these categories worth keeping. I suggest that white supremacy be treated through articles and categories about specific topics and movements, and that biographical categories be only used for members of specific movements. Being a leader or member of a KKK or Neo-Nazi outfit is much more defining than the labels used for the nominated categories. Place Clichy (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    reading Category:American white supremacist politicians one finds 8 subcats that are properly grouped therein. Hard put to think of another name that would provide such necessary grouping. Same for the 7 subcats of Category:White supremacist politicians Hmains (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These categories are a mess. For party members such as Category:National Front (UK) politicians, the main article describes this party as far-right and fascist, so it is actually very easy to think of another name that is actually more defining. Seeing the category string between Know Nothing→Know Nothings→Know-Nothing members of the United States House of Representatives, the second category (for members of this 19th-century party) is in already in Category:American white nationalists whereas the third is in Category:American white supremacist politicians, so it makes you wonder how entering the US House of Representatives makes the label change from nationalist to supremacist. I notice that the parent category is already in Category:American nationalist parties, which is probably the best way to describe them. The main article states in its first sentence that this party was anti-Irish, and you cannot be anti-Irish and white supremacist at the same time. I also see that Category:Confederate state governors is found here through 3 different routes, and once again the Confederate label is more precise, more correct and more defining for Confederate politicians than white supremacist. The notion of white supremacism in politics is completely anachronistic before the 1950s-60s civil rights movement, except for violent groups organized along this agenda such as the KKK. Place Clichy (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It amuses me to see our European colleagues think that:
  1. Irish are white. Not until mid-1900s, in the US, officially.
  2. Italians are white. Again, not in the US until recently, where they were called Mediterraneanoid to distinguish them from Caucasoid.
  3. Slavs are white. Actually, the word "slave" comes from "slav", and they've never been considered white in the US to this day.
  4. Obviously, you were sheltered from Spics, Wops, Polacks, and other Papists. And my parents who called them these things, and who voted for Trump.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Red X Off-topic: it "amuses" me to see our American colleagues think that Hispanics are not white, or that the child of someone white and someone black is black, rather than, depending on your cultural environment and with the difficulty of translation, mixed, mulatto, coffee-with-milk, métis etc. These are merely cultural conventions, races of course do not exist biologically. And don't worry, there has been plenty of intra-European racism and assorted slurs throughout history, and not always linked to immigration: when the word Boche was quite prominent in France, that was not a reference to the non-existent German immigrant workforce there. We've not been "sheltered" from anything unfortunately. Place Clichy (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all — While some of the membership might consider it Proudly, usually these are pejorative.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why are some of these categories being emptied by Hmains? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    because I made a mistake; all are repopulated; sorry about that. Hmains (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is quickly devolving into a way to attack others. There are too many willing to hurl this as an attack without really justifying at all for us to use it as a way to describe anyone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 2 February 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:Newspapers published in Qajar Iran[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (Closed with the discussion immediately below this one.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, it contains only a single subcategory. There is no need for a dual merge, the subcategory is already in Category:Magazines published in Fars Province. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, the triple intersection is not appropriate. Keep and populate from the current sub-cat. – Fayenatic London 07:22, 18 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:Fars magazines in Qajar's era[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 to Category:Newspapers published in Fars Province, reparent it; also copy contents to Category:Newspapers published in Qajar Iran. (Closed with the discussion immediately above this one.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Matching parent categories Category:Magazines published in Fars Province and Category:Qajar Iran. Qajar Iran was an Iranian empire ruled by the Qajar dynasty from 1789 to 1925. The combined name is a little awkward so I am bringing it here rather than using WP:C2C. – Fayenatic London 18:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I do not object, I assume this category becomes empty when the parent category is populated, per alt proposal in the nomination above this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant to come back to this one after the above. Will revisit tomorrow. – Fayenatic London 22:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, the triple intersection by medium, location and time is not appropriate. After checking the contents, I now think we should rename to Category:Newspapers published in Fars Province (over a current redirect), copy the contents to the Qajar Iran parent, and reparent this category. – Fayenatic London 07:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, this is a small variation of your second alternative of yesterday. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 18 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:Mayors and regents of places in Papua[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) 01:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the two categories have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 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.

Municipal councillors in the Netherlands[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) 01:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
more categories nominated
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) 10:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now While there would have been more than five councillors, most would be non-notable. No objection to recreating any if they exceed expectations and get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:21, 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.

Elections in Washington, D.C.[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) 03:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two-part modifier, the second of which is comma-separated, makes for awkward names. Proposed format follows parent categories Category:Elections by city in the United States and Category:Political events in Washington, D.C.. Top category (of the proposed ones) has a mix of the current format and the new proposed format. An alternative could be to use "District of Columbia" as prefix instead of "Washington, D.C.". HandsomeFella (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (amending my rationale) Per almost all other categories in category tree Category:Washington, D.C.. Furthermore, current construct violates WP:COMMA, and adding a comma to fix that would make already awkward names even more awkward. While the proposed new names don't conform with "by-state" categories, that's less relevant, because
  1. DC is a district, not a state,
  2. conformity with the main (eponymous) category tree is more important, and
  3. whichever format you choose, there is sometimes no way of obtaining total conformity.
Two-part modifier, the second of which is comma-separated, makes for awkward names. Proposed format follows parent categories Category:Elections by city in the United States and Category:Political events in Washington, D.C.. Top category (of the proposed ones) has a mix of the current format and the new proposed format. An alternative could be to use "District of Columbia" as prefix instead of "Washington, D.C.". HandsomeFella (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
And if you go to Category:Washington, D.C., you'll be hardpressed to find any category whose name doesn't end with "in Washington, D.C." or "of Washington, D.C.".
The fact is that in some cases there seems to be no way of avoiding inconsistent format altogether, see for instance Category:North American national association football teams, where the American and Canadian teams use "soccer" and the Mexican team uses "football". So our choice is in effect, do we want inconsistency plus awkwardness, or is it better with just (somewhat less) inconsistency?
Furthermore, per WP:Copyedit#Punctuation, "D.C." needs to be set off by a closing comma, so if we follow that, we just add to the awkwardness. The proposed format is way better.
HandsomeFella (talk) 22:48, 16 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) 17:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using District of Columbia (no Washington) as suggested alternative. Washington is just the largest of the cities in the district. When it becomes a state, or becomes a very small district with the remainder in Maryland (as has already been done in Virginia), we can discuss a better naming scheme then.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that will have to wait for a discussion on the entire DC category tree. Right now we should focus on fixing current awkwardness/inconsistency. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Armbrust: I have amended my rationale for this proposal. This probably could have passed as a C2C speedy if I had used that rationale from the start. Do you agree, and if so, what can be done about it? HandsomeFella (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 10:16, 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:History of European art music[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 29#Category:History of European art music

Category:Democratic Federation of Northern Syria[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) 01:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. Charles Essie (talk) 05:02, 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:Journalists killed in 2018[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) 01:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we want a load of occupational categories by year of death? Rathfelder (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow it seems strange, as all of the journalists in that category are murdered journalists, which imo are Category:Assassinated journalists. But what is the difference between a murdered and an Category:Assassinated journalist? Lotje (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"People who were victims of an assassination, the act of killing a prominent person for either political, religious, or monetary reasons."Rathfelder (talk) 13:17, 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:Urdu-language journalists[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2, both writing in the language of their own country. Categorising people by language only makes sense if they dont use their native language. Rathfelder (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question. I think with "-language" is more common than without so then it should be a reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 18 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:Judaeo-Spanish-language journalists[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) 01:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one. Rathfelder (talk) 00:11, 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:Lamdan Prize 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) 01:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:SMALLCAT
The Lamdan Prize was a municipal award given by Ramat Gan, Israel to children's book authors from 1954-1983. Within the articles, the award is generally mentioned in passing as part of a list of other honours so it doesn't seem defining for S. Yizhar, Amos Bar or any other article you want to click on. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 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:Freemen of the City of London[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. As noted by the nominator, they are already in a list. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Freedom of the City of London was originally like a medieval business license that allowed members of livery companies to enter the City of London on business and pay no taxes, including tolls on London Bridge. (Here is an adorable video of a shepherd taking sheep across London Bridge in a re-enactment.) Later it could be purchased by individuals and then it morphed into a diplomatic souvenir for foreign visitors to London. Today, it is a combination local Key to the City and nostalgia award.
That long history and different usages leads to a strange mish mash of a category and I'm trying to imagine the Wikipedia reader who would want a direct navigational path from Princess Diana to President Ulysses S. Grant and then to funky mixmaster Smurfie Syco. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article where they are grouped so it's easier to navigate than this category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We previously deleted freemen cats for other cities right here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while this may not be positioned as an award, for practical purposes it serves as such nonetheless. And it is surely non-defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- Originally this referred to those free of one of the city livery companies, by descent, apprenticeship or purchase. In 1835 (per headnote) the city corporation decided to grant freedom itself. By this stage the trading privileges attached to freedom had largely decayed, so that this is essentially an award category, but we should have a list, which could usefully give additional details of the award. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_17&oldid=1073192918"