Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 24 January 26 >

January 25[edit]

Category:Jewish Ukrainian mathematicians[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. All of the categories are otherwise appropriately categorized in mathematician categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. No suggestion that being Jewish had any particular influence on the work of these mathematicians. Rathfelder (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Merge if Removed I'll defer to others if religion is a defining intersection here but, if not, they should be merged to all parents rather than a straight delete. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both — all it took was one look at one article, and it is obvious this is trivial overcategorization. How can somebody be in several atheist categories, several more Jewish categories including descent, and three different Jewish FOOian mathematicians? Judaism had no inflence on mathematics. Parents such as Category:Jewish Ukrainian scientists and Category:Jewish Italian scientists are also likely on their way to deletion.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parents. The articles should most definitely be kept in Category:Ukrainian mathematicians and Category:Italian mathematicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:GHETTO, if people in these categories were notable as Ukrainian or Italian mathematicians, they should have been kept there in addition to the ethnic subcategory. This merge target is therefore not necessary or automatic. Place Clichy (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Ukraine this has not been implemented carefully. At least merge manually before deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 26 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:Watco Companies[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) 00:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with renaming of parent article Watco Companies to Watco. ACendex (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note "companies" might be a good idea to keep so as to make clear what this refers to. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated to match the main article, per WP:C2D, which I don't find ambiguous. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Watco, while WP:C2D does not apply (the article has just been moved boldly without an offically announced name change of the company), the references make clear that this is the common name indeed. If ambiguous, it should become Category:Watco (company) but I do not expect that this is necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Marcocapelle, all the while WP:C2D does not apply. --Just N. (talk) 20:08, 31 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.

Samanid governors[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) 00:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, one or two articles in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 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:Sauces of the mayonnaise family[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) 05:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation Spudlace (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Not a food family. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 28 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:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States by city[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/merge, but keep Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in Washington, D.C.‎‎ Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: [I am nominating this and all child categories, FYI] Category-creep. Where or why people died is hardly ever a defining characteristics RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
discussion of nomination
  • Procedural comment 1, if you intend to nominate the subcategories too, you need to list them and tag their pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment 2, presumably you intend to merge the city categories to their respective state categories, rather than deleting them altogether. Right? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, deletion is the proposal, for the reason listed. I have stuff to attend to off-wiki for the time being so if anybody can help with listing all the subcats then that would be welcome. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose straight deletion of subcategories, since the state categories are not nominated we should not remove content from the states tree while it does belong there. No objection to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Should I procedurally withdraw this and renominate the whole category tree? Whether state or country level, it does not change that this is not a defining characteristic (except maybe in the case of that Chinese doctor in Wuhan who died of it, but even then...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be best. Totally understand having conflicting off Wikipedia commitments but, in the mean time, I don't think leaving this open is likely to gain traction. Once you have time, renominate with the subcategories presumably as a merge proposal to each state. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was thinking of taking the whole tree back up to the parent category, which appears to be Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic by country (the logic is the same - except in a few fringe cases, this is not a defining characteristic and adds to category creep, and except for a very few pages all of them are just BLPs [of recently decease persons] who happened to die of COVID - sad, but not a defining matter which will help readers looking for the articles), but anyway best to first test the waters with this and then I'll see if its worth the effort to renominate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: A common reason to break down by state is to avoid what would be a unwieldy national category due to size. Since the death rate in the US remains high, it may make sense to hold off to see where we end up. (I'm not for or against such a merge at this point; just thinking out loud.)- RevelationDirect (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: To clarify, as should be obvious from my rationale (WP:COPDEF), what I meant was nominate the whole category tree from Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic by country down for deletion; again per the rationale I proposed. However, withdrawing this now that many people have expressed support for the (wrong, cause I picked the wrong parent category) proposal is a bit of a bureaucratic mess, so I'll just let this run it's course and renominate the whole category tree in a week's time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per updated nom. This level does not aid navigation and, if flushed out, will indicate more where major hospitals are located. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all categories below state-level to the state level, but oppose deleting the Washington, DC category. I disagree strongly that cause of death is not a defining characteristic; Category:Deaths by type of illness has a few dozen subcategories and thousands of pages although it looks like COVID-19 deaths are not within that tree. Currently, about one-fifth of every person whose death is attributed to COVID-19 died in the United States, and many states' total deaths outnumber many entire countries' totals (e.g. NY 42k, CA 38k, TX 36k, FL 26k, IL 21K, versus Russia 69k, France 74k, Iran 58k, South Africa 42k). It makes sense to subdivide deaths from COVID-19 in the United States by state, even though categorization at the national level may be sufficient for other countries. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 10:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Where or why people died is hardly ever a defining characteristics" The cause and location of a death is always defining, unlink things like occupation or religion. Dimadick (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree. The place of death may be a random place unrelated to that person's life, e.g. in a hospital. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 28 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:World War II books[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) 00:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is mostly self-explanatory, but the current title is confusing and suggests the category may be for books written during WWII. We probably need to rename all entries in Category:Books by war but I don't have whatever script is handy for the mass nom so I am starting with this and hope that someone with the right script can CfD the rest of those categories for renaming as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The target is less in dispute. Whether The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe goes here will not change with this move, because it was written and published several years after the war. Personally I would say the film made about 15 years ago would go in the film category, although even these WWII was very much just background setting. I would however argue that the book WWII is too much ignored opening line background to be defining. Even the film it is open either way. Since The Lord of the Rings was written in part (although not published) during World War II, there is a way to understand this category that would lead us to class it as a World War II book. Classying The Fall of Gondolin as a World War I word would be interesting to argue, since Tolkien when he first wrote it used images that some feel are inspired by tank and trench warfare, some argue that the engines the goblins come in are inspired by tanks for example and see the dragons as an artistic representation of flame throwers in WWI, however that work was not actually published until this century. We categorize books by year of publication, and by theme (broadly defined), we want to make sure we do not start categorizing them by general events going on at the time they were written.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, less ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while the target is less ambiguous, it still has the "about" problems of how much about the subject must it be and who tells us that it's at least that much? Take The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe mentioned above. The whole reason why the kids were evacuated was the blitz (certainly "about" WWII), but other than the evacuation the book is mostly about happenings in Narnia and such (which, allegorically may be characterized as the triumph of good over evil, but many sources describe that in terms of Jesus not of Churchill). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I agree that this should cover books where World War II is a topic or setting, not to include every book written between 1937/1939 and 1945. The article name ca help better define the scope. Dimadick (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, less ambiguous. --Just N. (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.  // Timothy :: talk  17:00, 1 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.

Indigenous politics in Asia[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) 00:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: in their present state, these categories serve as containers for categories about politics of various autonomous regions in India and other Asian countries. Notably, Category:Indigenous politics in China has no other content but children Category:Politics of Tibet and Category:Politics of Xinjiang. Regardless of the degree in which the inhabitants of Andhra Pradesh, Tibet and Kurdistan can be considered indigenous, not all politics of these regions fall under the description of indigenous politics. They also have very, very little in common. I do not think that these container categories help navigation in any way or serve any clear purpose. The indigenous peoples categories are probably more useful for ethnicity-themed content, rather than spreading or diffusing them in a geographic scheme. Place Clichy (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indigenousness in Asia is a not easily defined thing, and in a place like Assam to treat all politics as somehow indigenous just does not work. I would argue that "indigenous" only somewhat works as a category in the Americas and the broad pacific region, it is too disputed to be used as a way to categorize in Asia or in Africa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per actual content, the nominated categories contain politics subcategories of first level country divisions, that is much more than just ethnic politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are these categories would be very offensive and be disrespectful to other tribes in the areas if these categories were to be kept? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete amorphous and impossible to define; we even have folks stating that the millions of people in Shanghai are ethnically indigenous when it was a mere fishing village less than two hundred years ago and those millions are not the descendants of those few. By that logic, English, Spanish, French, Swedish, and Dutch are indigenous to the Americas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ill-defined scope. The list of indigenous peoples in Asia contains several unsourced entries. Dimadick (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:14, 31 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 philosophers[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
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT after purging of all those who were not murdered based upon philosophy. It was empty, but one article was later moved from its existing Category:Assassinated German people and Category:Assassinated educators. This person was not murdered based upon philosophy, or because he was an educator, therefore not assassinated; at trial it was established he was murdered by a jealous former student.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the stated rationale by William Allen Simpson that "This person was not murdered based upon philosophy". Moritz Schlick's murder is not separable from the fact that he was a philosopher: the murderer, Johann Nelböck, was Schlick's doctoral student in philosophy, and the woman involved was also a philosophy student. Whatever the murderer's exact intention was, Schlick's status as a philosopher is inseparable from this crime. "This personal conflict was doubtlessly rooted on the one hand in the Borowicka-Schlick affair and on the other hand in the opposing views Prof. Schlick and the accused held on the problems of philosophy as well as in the accused's assumption that Prof. Schlick was trying to interfere with his career for this reason." Stadler, Friedrich (2015). "Documentation: The Murder of Moritz Schlick". The Vienna Circle: Studies in the Origins, Development, and Influence of Logical Empiricism. Vienna Circle Institute Library. Vol. 4. Cham: Springer-Verlag. pp. 597–631. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16561-5_13. ISBN 9783319165608. Also, I moved the Schlick article between categories at William Allen Simpson's own request to make the language consistent (murdered vs. assassinated): see Talk:Moritz Schlick § Recent edit about Schlick's death. Biogeographist (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:OCTRIVIA: Conflict over a woman has nothing to do with philosophy, even though both were philosophy students. The unproven conjectured affair is not prominently mentioned in the lead of the biography, neither is it a dedicated subsection of the biography.
  2. Conflict over future career opportunities is WP:NONDEFINING for a philosopher (or any other career). There is no documentation of details about any differences of philosophy in the article. There is no evidence that differences of philosophy were prominently discussed at trial, nor that the conviction was based upon differences of philosophy.
  3. Since he was not killed for his military or political activities, he was not assassinated.
  4. It was a simple (although notorious) murder, and he's currently in both Category:People murdered in Austria and Category:1930s murders in Austria.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC) and 19:22, 25 January 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how WP:OCTRIVIA applies. It says: "If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely that it is a trivial characteristic." There is no way this could be omitted from Schlick's biography; it's not trivial. Also, William Allen Simpson omitted, in his previous comment, a factor mentioned in Stadler's chapter cited above (this time italicized for emphasis): "This personal conflict was doubtlessly rooted on the one hand in the Borowicka-Schlick affair and on the other hand in the opposing views Prof. Schlick and the accused held on the problems of philosophy". Biogeographist (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [heavy sigh] Sometimes, I use numbered points for clarity, but in this case I'd thought normal reading abilities would suffice. I've numbered them for future readers.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: William Allen Simpson changed his comment, so his comment that exists now is not the one to which I responded. I stand by my original point that Schlick's murder is not separable from the fact that he was a philosopher. As I am not an expert on the evidence of the case, this could be wrong, but I cited a reliable source that supports it. Biogeographist (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The numbered sentences are in the exact same order. It is not my fault that you attributed OCTRIVIA to murder and/or philosophy in later sentences. I've recapitulated the relevant elements of OCTRIVIA and NONDEFINING for convenience.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've clarified that what you meant to communicate by invoking WP:OCTRIVIA didn't come through in the first version. Point made. Whose fault it is doesn't matter. Regarding WP:NONDEFINING, unfortunately I think Schlick's murder has become something of a defining characteristic for him, connected to his position as a philosopher. The murder is not currently mentioned in the article's lead because the lead is underdeveloped: it's only one sentence. In contrast, for example, in the Moritz Schlick quick reference in Oxford Reference, which is about the same length as the Wikipedia article lead section should be, the murder is prominently mentioned. Biogeographist (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even that article doesn't connect his murder to his philosophy.

    Schlick was murdered by one of his graduate students. In some accounts the student is described as mad, but others speak of jealousy, revenge for a failed doctoral thesis, and even political motives.

    We don't categorize based upon conjecture.

    Schlick's own philosophical output was relatively modest.

    For goodness sake, arguing about an unimportant non-notable philosophy professor?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moritz Schlick is a "non-notable philosophy professor"? LOL. A book that was just published a few months ago: Edmonds, David (2020). The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9780691185842. ISBN 9780691164908. JSTOR 10.2307/j.ctv10crcwr. OCLC 1142895324. The start of the book description: "On June 22, 1936, the philosopher Moritz Schlick was on his way to deliver a lecture at the University of Vienna when Johann Nelböck, a deranged former student of Schlick's, shot him dead on the university steps. Some Austrian newspapers defended the madman, while Nelböck himself argued in court that his onetime teacher had promoted a treacherous Jewish philosophy." Biogeographist (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He only had 3 pubs, one of them posthumously. (Speaking as somebody with 45+ pubs.) He wasn't Jewish, so he wouldn't be a Jewish philosopher. He's basically known because of his Circle colleagues, he had an affair with a student, and he was killed in public, followed by a salacious trial of the murderer. The People Magazine version of notability.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moritz Schlick "only had 3 pubs"? Not true. See the bibliography of his publications in the Stadler book that I cited above: there are more than 45. He's only known because of his Circle colleagues? Not true. See the intro by Herbert Feigl and Albert Blumberg to the 1974 English translation of Schlick's General Theory of Knowledge, e.g.: "At all events, history will record Schlick as a trailblazer in the theory of knowledge and the philosophy of science. No other thinker was so well prepared to give new impetus to the philosophical questings of the younger generation. Though many of his students and successors have attained a higher degree of exactitude and adequacy in their logical analyses of problems in the theory of knowledge, Schlick had an unsurpassed sense for what is essential in philosophical issues." And the fact that he wasn't Jewish doesn't change the fact that philosophy played a key role in his murder, as recorded in primary and secondary sources. It's telling that you haven't cited any sources to substantiate your claims in this discussion. Biogeographist (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC) and 03:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just citing your source (above), that clearly says "relatively modest", only 3 pubs total, one of them posthumously. None of the others are online. Also, that puff piece quote could be right out of People (or maybe Playboy).
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the "quick reference" that I mentioned doesn't say "only" 3 pubs as you claimed, just 3 examples, and one of them is a collection of his papers! And you're taking "relatively modest" out of its context in the Who's Who in the Twentieth Century from which it came: the "relatively" must be relative to other notable philosophers, not to all philosophers, otherwise there wouldn't be an entry on him at all. Take another source, for example, the Moritz Schlick entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (an entry which, by the way, is separate from the Vienna Circle entry, which it wouldn't be if Schlick were non-notable apart from the Circle). The start of the SEP article says: "Although Moritz Schlick (1882–1936) made a lasting mark in the philosophical memory by his role as the nominal leader of the Vienna Circle of Logical Positivists, his most lasting contribution includes a broad range of philosophical achievements. Indeed, Schlick’s reputation was established well before the Circle went public." Biogeographist (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also disagree that WP:SMALLCAT applies, because this category meets the exception of being "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" within Category:Murder victims by occupation and because the category "does have realistic potential for growth" since unfortunately in demented times (a reference to Karl Sigmund's book Exact Thinking in Demented Times about Schlick and the rest of the Vienna Circle) we could very well see more philosophers murdered in part (or in whole) because of their philosophy, in contrast to something like Category:Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor that obviously has no potential for growth. Biogeographist (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally addressing the actual nomination. In reality, most of this contentious categorization scheme has been recently deleted after discussion. If there are in fact many philosophers murdered for their non-religious (and non-political) philosophical views, we should have seen more by now. Nevertheless, this isn't SMALLCAT forever; this is SMALLCAT for now.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything I wrote above addresses the nomination. If you think the discussion of Schlick is irrelevant then you should have omitted the topic from your nomination. Biogeographist (talk) 19:54, 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:Sports in Mandatory Palestine[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. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. Since Mandatory Palestine was a British territory, I suggest merging to the category with British English usage. Keeping a redirect would be a good idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:32, 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.

Mayors of places in Connecticut[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) 00:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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) 06:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. None of these categories are large enough to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now no objection to recreating later if they ever get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:19, 31 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:Wikipedia pages with discretionary sanctions editnotice[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 as proposed. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Naming consistency across Category:Pages with editnotices subcategories. This will require updates to the templates (and they should probably also be moved, which I am capable of doing). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:59, 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:Tropical cyclone intensity articles[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) 00:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A week or so ago @BenKuykendall: decided to move the various intensity articles, we have for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific tropical cyclone basins into Category:Lists of tropical cyclones by intensity from Category: Tropical cyclone intensity articles. This is a fair move, however, all of the lists should have been moved into the new category, since they are all lists of tropical cyclones by intensity. This would mean that Tropical cyclone intensity articles would be an empty category and should therefore be deleted as a duplicate category. However, something tells me that it is better to bring it here rather than go through the speedy deletion process Jason Rees (talk) 03:59, 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:Academic Libraries at the University of British Columbia[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:University of British Columbia libraries. No consensus on upmerging. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category name is redundant (almost by definition, all UBC libraries are academic libraries) and the only other by-institution subcategory of Category:Academic libraries in Canada uses the form "FOO libraries": Category:University of Toronto libraries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge unless someone can find a case of a library at a university that is in no way an "academic library".John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per nom. Shorter title that doesn't lose any info. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Universities will not normally have non-academic libraries. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:24, 31 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:Brazilian Portuguese children's songs[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 Category:Brazilian Portuguese children's songs to Category:Brazilian songs and Category:Children's songs; merge Category:Ecuadorian Spanish children's songs to Category:Ecuadorian songs and Category:Children's songs. It wasn't super clear that this is what users were advocating for (as opposed to a rename as proposed), but we'll go with it.. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are unnecessarily specific and there are no existing category trees for Brazilian Portuguese or Ecuadorian Spanish works as far as I can see. It would open them up more to convert them from language categories to country categories in Category:Children's songs by country. MClay1 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I meant specifically for those language children's songs. MClay1 (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge No reason to categorize by both country and by specific language. Dimadick (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- these refer to the majority language of these countries. If the topic were Quechua songs, it would be appropriate to include the language. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dimadick and Peterkingiron, it's unclear whether your !votes are for renaming as originally proposed or merging as proposed by Marcocapelle. Please clarify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 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:Murdered sex workers 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 to Category:Sex workers murdered in the United States. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think both forms are understandable in meaning, but the proposed name is certainly better English. This would also match the parent category Category:People murdered in the United States (not Category:Murdered people in the United States). (Category was recently nominated for deletion, with a "no consensus" result.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the targer makes the meaning less ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This categorizes articles by the location of the murder, not that these sex workers actually worked in the United States. Dimadick (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:27, 31 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:Errors reported by other category header templates[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) --Trialpears (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCMISC JsfasdF252 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but we had better redirect it unless BrownHairedGirl can provide a full list of templates where this is coded. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept, ought the name be prefixed by "Wikipedia" as it is purely an internal category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I've listed them on the Talk. This seems a work in progress. Most are country or year or both. Just a note that any future splits should have Wikipedia prefix, although none have Wikipedia currently in Category:Wikipedia category cleanup. I've confidence that BHG can handle it.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JsfasdF252 (talk) 01:09, 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:University of California, Davis fellows[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) 00:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCMISC and WP:SMALLCAT)
In 2005, UC Davis appointed Wayne Rosing as a "fellow" which was an unpaid consulting role for a specific telescope project (citation). There are no other articles in the category and the other "fellowships" I found for UC Davis were basically scholarships for graduate students (citation) and any notable recipients of that would already be in the alumni cat. Right now, the only thing this category does is prevent any loose articles from being in the parent category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Fellows generally can exist in various contexts. They can be researchers of similar status to lecturers, but without teaching responsibilities. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:30, 31 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:Fellows of the Academy of Experts[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) 02:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V and WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC and WP:OCAWARD)
The Academy of Experts (TAE) is a British trade group and professional organization for paid expert witnesses in court. That organisation article makes no mention of having fellows. Conversely, William Marslen-Wilson is the only article in this category and it makes no reference of being a fellow, the TAE, or even being an expert witness. Normally I suggest listification for honours but there's not much here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep None of "organisation article makes no mention of having fellows", "the only article in this category" or "[article] makes no reference of being a fellow" (the latter in any case false) are reasons to delete a category; all are errors of omission in our content, and can be fixed by improving said content, for which we have WP:NODEADLINE. It takes second to verify online that such fellowship exists, and is prestigious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still I do not see how this is a defining characteristic of the article in this category. William Marslen-Wilson is a British neuroscientist for sure, but most other category designations can be removed in the spirit of WP:PERFCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving the TAE article. Working on a list of fellows within that article might be a better approach than this category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate -- The website says "Fellowship will be conferred on those who are able to demonstrate an appropriate high standard of professional competence in their profession or calling. Candidates for Fellowship will have wide knowledge and experience as an Expert, Advisor or witness and knowledge of legal procedures and the laws of evidence." There must be more out there. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate seems the right proposition. --Just N. (talk) 20:33, 31 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_25&oldid=1007179357"