Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 19 January 21 >

January 20[edit]

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of train stations[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) 01:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer, all subcategories (except for one redirect which shouldn't be categorized anyway) are named "Wikipedia requested images of ..." '* Pppery * it has begun... 23:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 16:20, 21 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:Roman Catholic presidents of the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS and WP:SMALLCAT. Category only including John F. Kennedy, and the recently sworn in President Biden. While I agree that certain religions can be semi-defining in some cases for large groups of politicians, this specific religion is too small for its own individual category. It's possible this category can be renamed to Category: American Roman Catholic Politicians to cover a bigger page scope for now. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. Elizium23 (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The above clause does not apply, because each president of the United States already has an article. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is trivia. The religion of presidents is a matter for discussion in article article body, not diffusion of categories. Place Clichy (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial and the definition of what SMALLCAT was written to prevent.--User:Namiba 01:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:American Roman Catholics, they are not known for pro-Catholic politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too small a scope. Nigej (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "American Roman Catholic politicians" per nom. I agree with Elizium23 that SMALLCAT is not a valid argument for deleting this category because it specifically excepts categories with "realistic potential for growth". Kennedy's religious affiliation was important to his life, with anti-Catholic sentiment seen as hurting his chances when he ran for POTUS in 1960, so (at least for Kennedy) I dispute other people's claim that religion was irrelevant to Kennedy as a person and as a president. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are no great structure of categories for presidents by religion, although an argument may be made for such (per WP:OCEGRS) a decision we need not make, so WP:SMALLCAT applies and this goes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — follows the trope that there is a religious stigma associated with Papists, that they will follow the Pope's orders. We don't categorize stigmas. Also, the US Constitution explicitly says “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there hasn't been any specific objection against merging to Category:American Roman Catholics so far. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are already in sub-categories of American Roman Catholics. The issue should be whether to categorize politicians by their religion.--User:Namiba 14:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mine is/was a specific objection to any proposed merge or rename. Both of the 2 existing entries are/were already in Category:American Roman Catholics by state, so there is no need to merge into a parent.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SMALLCAT is irrelevant here, but I think that religion is a trivial aspect of secular rulers. Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to what people here think, the religion of these two individuals is never treated as trivial. There are huge numbers of religble sources that cover their religion in detail. Wikipedia should not reflect our own personel views and biases, but what is said in reliable sourcing, and reliable sources cover the religion of both these individuals very, very, very extensively and in very great detail. The above commentators are also ignoring the quasi-ethnic nature of religion in the United States, especially in the case of Roman Catholicism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why there are extensive sections about it in their respective articles, with all due context, nuance and reliable sources. This is the way to conveniently cover the topic, rather than a category. Place Clichy (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my nominating rationale. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:11, 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:People of Shanghainese descent[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) 00:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, a non-defining characteristic, sometimes mentioned in passing, sometimes not at all (e.g. Joyce Cheng). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is follow-up on this nomination, @Johnpacklambert, Carlossuarez46, William Allen Simpson, Fayenatic london, and Place Clichy: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In theory we might want to merge the Hong Kong category somewhere but Category:Hong Kong people of Chinese descent covers too much of the population to be worth even having.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, that is a container category, so we can't merge there. I still stand by my first statement on the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Regional Chinese subcultures in Hong Kong are probably a defining matter for cultural items, such as neighbourhoods, restaurants, museums, festivals, cultural associations etc. but not so much for biographies. Legitimate questions can indeed be raised if splitting categories for Chinese ancestry people (or any nation) by region or city is a good idea, and also if Chinese ancestry is defining for anybody from a place with overwhelming Chinese population, such as Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan. We do not have (and should not have) Berlin people of Bavarian descent, New York City people of Nebraska descent or similar inter-regional migration people categories within the same nation. Place Clichy (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is definitely a semblance of Shanghainese diaspora culture in places where the emigres have settled. Google books results Particularly regarding theCategory:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent, there is an associated article page on this precise subject which has existed since 2006. --Prisencolin (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Another "descent" category to which I regularly object (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories). But this suffers further from some misconception that "Shanghainese" is a definable ethnicity. We would never have Category:Los Angeles people of Bostonian descent or anything akin to that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Carlossuarez46: Let me ask you what you even think ethnicity is? Your analogy comparing Chinese cities to the US is erroneous because the populations of regions, provinces, and individual cities have had distinct identities for thousands of years, differing in culture, language, and even genetics. In any case Hong Kong wasn't even part of China for the greater part of a century so it could literally be said to be an emigree population.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Prisencolin: Our article on Shanghai says "Originally a fishing village and market town, Shanghai grew in importance in the 19th century due to trade and its favorable port location." From a fishing village to millions of people only happens through movement of people. So whatever ethnicity you want to put on "Shangainese" it's only about a hundred years deep. So someone whose family moved to Shanghai in 1901 and left in 1949 is no more "Shanghainese" than someone whos family moved to Boston and lived there for a similar period. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shanghainese" as a term is often is a more recognizable stand-in term for the peoples of of surrounding provinces of Jiangsu and Zhejiang (which many people in Shanghai have ancestral origins).--Prisencolin (talk)
  • That would only make sense for folks speaking "mutually unintelligible sub-dialects". But that's not the definition given at this time.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @William Allen Simpson: What exactly do you mean by this? Shanghainese diaspora in Hong Kong definitely spoke Shanghainese at least in the first generation, and it is unintelligible with Cantonese nor Mandarin.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom, not an ethnicity.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @William Allen Simpson: it doesn't need to be an ethnicity per se, it's certainly a WP:DEFINING characteristic. From the article: "Shanghainese people also came to play a significant role in commercial and financial links between mainland China and Hong Kong. The major mainland Chinese commercial presence in Hong Kong up to the 1980s comprised the state-owned banks; a high proportion of their upper management were of Shanghai origin."--Prisencolin (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be defining for the people in these categories when it would be a primary element of their biography. But that is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the article: "Most Shanghainese are descended from immigrants from all over China. Only a minority are Shanghai natives, those with ancestral roots in Shanghai." Even that admission is missing WP:RS.
          William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @William Allen Simpson: that's the current population of Shanghai, which has had a large out-of-province population since the 1980s. If we're talking about say, a the category of Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent, the latter applies better. In any case even if this isn't an "ethnicity" however you want to describe it, it's still a WP:DEFINING characteristic of many of the people to which this applies. Consider the following passage, which also contains a list of people akin to this category:

            "There is one other important migrant Chinese group in Asia and that is the Shanghainese of Taiwan and Hong Kong. They fled mainland China in 1949 in the wake of Mao’s Communist takeover. Many were successful industrialists in Shanghai but left with little of their wealth intact. They started anew and today some of the wealthiest families in Hong Kong and Taiwan are actually old Shanghainese families, whose ancestral dialect is Shanghainese"

            Michael Backman, Charlotte Butler Big in Asia 25 Strategies for Business Success 2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talk • contribs) 2021-01-27 02:14:04 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Categories for Cantonese, and some southern provinces with their own languages (called 'dialects' - but actually quite different from Mandarin) might have ethnic descent categories, but not Shanghai. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still say the only sub-categories we should have for Chinese descent should be based on the 56 recognized ethnic groups of China. In Chinese terminology Cantonese is not a recognized ethnic group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnpacklambert: The PRC ethnic group classifications are known to be fraught with oversight and bureaucracy. For instance many groups which anthropologists and the groups themselves determine to be a distinct group are not counted by this system, there are also arbitrary distinctions of some groups, for example Bouyei people consider themselves a part of the Zhuang, but it seems during the 50's the Guizhou province government decided to go their own way in counting these people. (see: Unrecognized ethnic groups in China--Prisencolin (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are entire books on written on the subject of Shanghainese emigres in Hong Kong, hopefully the closing admin considers this before any of the knee-jerk delete votes in this thread.
    • Wong, Siu-lun (1988). Emigrant Entrepreneurs: Shanghai Industrialists in Hong Kong. Department of Sociology and Director Social Sciences Research Centre Wong Siu-Lun.
    • Goodstadt, Leo F. (2010), "The Shanghainese: Colonial Allies, Colonial Heirs", Uneasy Partners: The Conflict Between Public Interest and Private Profit in Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, ISBN 978-988-8028-09-2

--Prisencolin (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • This just means that Shanghainese people in Hong Kong is a perfectly valid article, it does not imply anything about the definingness of the category characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not definitive as opposed to the hundreds of other descent categories out there? Give me a break, a few of the sources out there even gives a list of people akin to that in the category. This category is actually more definitive than the majority of descent categories out there. Most if not all the people in this list are connected to the business community, and the politicians and entertainers on the list undoubted used their connection (guanxi) to the Shanghainese emigree community to achieve success in their fields. The example given in the first post of Joyce Cheng is actually a highly illustrative of this: Chen's mother Lydia Sum began her career with Shaw Brothers pictures, a company originally formed in Shanghai and known to work with people from the Yangtze Delta Region (founder Run Run Shaw did not even speak Cantonese for years). Further, ancestral homes were a common item to fill on identity forms in Hong Kong prior to 1997 (and remains commonplace in Mainland China today, so there is even a legal basis for "Shanghaineseness" among certain Hongkongers.
          Bottom line is If you delete this category you are depriving readers of a clean method of navigation that only the category system can provide. (copy edits for some spelling/grammar errors)--Prisencolin (talk) 19:54, 27 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:Korean-American fashion designers[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 to Category:American people of Korean descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Looking at the sources, this appears to be a studied intersection but the name does not match the consensus. User:Namiba 16:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is where we disagree. Only those notable for being American women of Korean descent should be in that category. Adding these egregiously non-notable trivial intersections anywhere else is a violation of our expectations. If you personally want to find and categorize the notable individuals, that's not an automated process.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:19, 22 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:American librarians of Korean descent[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. 00:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCEGRS. User:Namiba 15:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The intersection does not seem to be defining (WP:OCEGRS). Place Clichy (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I do not think anyone could at this time create a reliable sourced, more than just a directory article entitled American librarians of Korean descent and that is one of the requirements for creating an ERGS category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — if they are notably of Korean descent, they'd already be in that category.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If the person categorised was an American expert in Korean literature and curating such as a librarian, it might be notable. Cataloguing Korean libraries was an aspect of her work, which might warrant a renamed category, such as Category:American librarians of Korean literature or is that too specific? Wew would still probably only get one article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I challenge anyone to write American librarians of Korean descent and make it a broad reliable sourced based article that is more than just a list. When you do so ping me, otherwise we need to delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 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:American sportspeople of Syrian descent[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; not clear if there is consensus to not merge and delete outright, so I am defaulting to merge to preserve the categorization information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCEGRS. This is not an intersection consistently recognized in sources. User:Namiba 14:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The intersection does not seem to be defining (WP:OCEGRS). Place Clichy (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. These American x-occupation of y-descent categories have proliferated way too much. Some days I think we should make it more difficult to create new categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another useless descent category violating WP:OCEGRS and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT among others. (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — if they are notably of Syrian descent, they'd already be in that category.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge being of Syrian descent is not defining to occupation. Unless you are willing to create American actresses of Syrian descent and place Terri Hatcher in it. I have one argument that at a subconscious level this was defining to some of the actions they had her to as Lois Lane in the Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman episode "Pheremone My Lovely", but I am not convinced the writers/directors who decide to have Hatcher dancing in a belly dancer outfit even knew she had Syrian ancestry, and there are 0 incidents in the show that in any way except for those trying to hard to find them indicate that Lois Lane is meant to as a character have Syrian ancestry. The reality is there are huge numbers of people who emigrated to the United States from the Ottoman Empire, coming from its province of Syria, and their current descendants either see themselves as Armenians, based on the ethno-religious identity as such, or if they were among those people who would now generally be considered Arabs have in almost all cases only partial descent due to the over one century of intervening time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 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:Yacht rock[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) 00:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not useful to have a category for a musical genre invented as a joke, about which there is no consensus what falls within its stylistic bounds - even among self-styled experts. The current population of the category reflects the confusion (e.g., "Take it Easy", which the inventors of the term "yacht rock" will go to their graves insisting is not yacht rock). Fundamentally unverifiable, because subjective, and so unsuited to category sorting. Chubbles (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: even if this were kept, the name needs changing... it should be Category:Yacht rock songs (note there is already Category:Yacht rock albums). The nominator is correct that there is a great deal of debate about what "yacht rock" is or isn't, or if it even exists. "Baker Street" is included in this category, for example, but Rolling Stone only talks about a yacht rock band playing it as part of their repertoire [1], which doesn't necessarily make it yacht rock itself, and Stereogum emphatically denies that the song is yacht rock at all [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Richard3120 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I, personally, think the Yacht Rock albums category (which I was unaware of) should be upmerged; can we add that to this discussion? Chubbles (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagged and added as requested. – Fayenatic London 22:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Yacht rock compilation albums also exists... would this need to be tagged separately, or will it automatically be deleted as a subcategory of Category:Yacht rock albums? Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Apologies, I see now that it is already included in this deletion discussion. Richard3120 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The term is too broadly and even ill defined to make this a defining characteristic of any particular song. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: these categories were previously deleted in 2008 per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_5#Category:Yacht_rock. – Fayenatic London 18:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a critically defined genre. It'd be like having a category on "mallcore", "butt rock", "bro-country", or any other derogatory, loosely-defined subgenre name. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:11, 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:Cenla Broadcasting[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) 01:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Company owns a bunch of stations in one radio market but is not notable enough for a category. The company article was prodded and the company navbox TfD'd in 2019, and if I was aware of this category when I did the prod, this would have been CfD'd then. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:32, 20 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:Destroyed landmarks in the United Kingdom[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) 00:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, these are all buildings and structures, the category does not distinguish itself from its parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge "Landmarks" is too vague, as opposed to having demolished buildings from a specific heritage register. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. "Landmark" is subjective, as shown by the inconsistent way in which the landmark categories are populated. Place Clichy (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the ":Destroyed landmarks" are indeed "buildings and structures" but they were often destroyed (eg by fire) and not demolished (which I tihnk implies a deliberate act), so there's a potential naming problem. Otherwise merge seems a good option. Nigej (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd raised that demolished/destroyed issue in a previous nomination, but was !voted down, probably because I'd tried to raise too many related issues comprehensively. Categories are too easy to spam, and too hard to fix.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up see this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I looked at the contents to see if there was anything that was not a "building or structure"; and there was not. There is scope for a sub-category for destroyed prehistoric remains, covering megaliths, stone circles, etc. The distinction between destroyed (e.g. by enemy action or fire) and demolished does not seem to me a real one. Furthermore, I would question whether some were landmarks: they seems more like notable former buildings. In UK one can sometimes give road directions as to turning at certain pubs at road junctions, but are gthose pubs truly landmarks? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 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:Nazis who served in World War I[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) 00:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Generally this is WWI military personnel who later became Nazis. The intersection is not defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure they all serve in the German military during World War I?--User:Namiba 14:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The German category is a parent, so heritage is already implied, even though not always correct. 22 are in Category:Austro-Hungarian military personnel of World War I, list available with this Petscan request. Out of 210 other members, 109 are already at the root of the target category, and 25 others in a subcategory (redundancy removed). Another 32 are in Category:Recipients of the Iron Cross (1914), which was in principle not awarded to either civilians or non-Germans. An additional 18 are in Category:20th-century Freikorps personnel, in principle all Germans. The remaining 26 (Friedrich Bethge, Ernst Biberstein, Werner von Blomberg, Philipp Bouhler, Ernst Buchner (curator), Josef Bürckel, Walther von Corswant, Rudolf Diels, Artur Dinter, Wilhelm Grimm (Nazi politician), Heinrich Haake, Otto Hellmuth, Paul Hoenscher, Karl Holz (Nazi), Wilhelm Koppe, Robert Ley, Arthur Nebe, Erich Neumann (politician), Wilhelm Ritterbusch, Ludwig Ruckdeschel, Josef Terboven, Fritz Wächtler, Adolf Wagner, Josef Wagner (Gauleiter), Gustav Adolf von Wulffen and Falk Zipperer) were all Germans in 1914-18. Only the 22 Autro-Hungarians should therefore not be merged to the target category imho. Place Clichy (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as coincidental. Place Clichy (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Since the Nazis do not even form until after World War I this is a misguided and largely inaccurate category. It should be renamed Category:Future Nazis who served in World War I, but the precedent is a bridge we do not want to go down.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge AFAIK, there were no Nazis serving in WWI as the party was formed afterward. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename Many historians have highlighted the role of ex-servicemen's World War I experiences in inspiring them to become Nazis, starting, of course, with Hitler himself.[3] But also including many others.[4] Not a trivial intersection at all. If not kept, listify. (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the hypothesis that a list would be the better course of action, would there be a reliable source that could be used to feed and check this list? I wouldn't trust the current state of the category to start the list as it seems to have been fed pretty randomly. Also, there were many other WWI veterans in other European countries that did not create a Nazi party. The whole aftermath of WWI in Germany is an important contributing setting to the rise of the Nazis, who only even really took off after the crisis of 1929. Place Clichy (talk) 23:31, 27 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:National Hockey League Ice Dancers squads[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) 00:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Ice Dancers, the term "Ice Dancers" is not in use (and it's unclear whether it was ever in use). The current category consists of cheerleading squads of NHL teams. Pichpich (talk) 01:54, 20 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:Recipients of the Order of Wen-Hu[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) 00:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lowest one still above the sash
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of Wen-Hu was a military award from the Republic of China awarded to foreign recipients. The high ranking British, U.S. and Japanese officials that make up this category are about evenly split between those that mention the award in passing and those that don't mention it at all, so it doesn't seem defining. (British Missionary William Edward Soothill is the sole exception here since he was not high ranking and the article discusses the reason for winning the award.) Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka Giichi can be seen here with the award. All of the category contents are now listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow, nice catch for the illustration. This should your great knowledge in medals and decorations. I would probably not go as far as to define the award as one awarded to foreign recipients – even if some foreigners received it, it is quite a leap to infer that it was primarily created to honour visiting diplomats and not a domestic award that was also used for this purpose. However there is no indication in the main article of how meaningful this Chinese WWI decoration was. Place Clichy (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. This award was given to (non-notable) Chinese recipients. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 21 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:Recipients of the Order of Carol I[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) 00:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders visited the Kingdom of Romania, or vice versa, the Order of Carol I was given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Farouk of Egypt, Leopold II of Belgium and Edward VIII are not remotely defined by this award. The only Romanian recipients are royalty and a few high ranking officials. The category contents are located right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 20 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_20&oldid=1006468211"