Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 4 January 6 >

January 5[edit]

Category:Safavid Empire[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. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per main article: Safavid Empire redirects to Safavid Iran. I am not sure whether this is an uncontroversial speedy rename candidate. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Venetian emigrants[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only 1. We dont categorise emigrants by city of origin. There is a seperate Category:Republic of Venice emigrants Rathfelder (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the creator I intended this to be Category:Republic of Venice emigrants. The actual article in here now is someone who was an emigrant from Italy. In general we should categorize emigrants by the first level polity they left from. There may be arguments for classifying them by recognized dependency or colony they leave, but there is no workable argument for classifying people leaving Italy anytime in the 20th-century as emigrants from a more particular area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete (effect of merge and delete is the same, in this case), per above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as now empty. Having Category:Republic of Venice emigrants (though still small) is appropriate. Should it become a cat-redirect? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure that is wise, since this category was actually being used for people who were born about 100 years after the Republic of Venice ceased to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 11 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.

Agencies of the Confederate States government[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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: removing unnecessary redundant and empty intermediate layers. The only content of this entire category structure is Category:Military of the Confederate States and its subcontent, such as Category:Confederate States War Department. Place Clichy (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American actor-athletes[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. – Fayenatic London 22:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection of two separate professions. User:Namiba 15:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That's why we have separate categories for the different unrelated professions. There is no reason for a category of actor-athlete hybrids. This is a perfect example WP:Overcategorization with current actor and athlete categories which you easily feature the article on. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No source to indicate that this is a notable topic. Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That many athletes become actors is true. John Wayne is an easy to think of example. Dean Cain is also an example that comes to mind. However I do not think this is a defining intersection. I am also not sure we are going to be able to regulate it to truly defining intersection cases. A-there are a huge number of films and television series made where athletes act in them, mainly doing athletic things though. If that is the only role, I think it would be non-defining. However we have cases like Steve Young who had a role in one episode of Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman where he played one of Lois Lane's former high school friends. He was described even as a former football player, but it is not like he was running around the field in the film. Still if this one episode in the show as a supporting character is Young's entire acting career, this is not enough to categorize by. Anyone to fit this would need to clearly meet at least the multiple "significant" roles in notable productions threshold to be put in. Do we have the resources to make sure that is done? At the same time they would also have to meet the other side of it, be a notable athlete. Since this is an American cat I guess we can use athlete broadly (except we normally do not). So if this meant to be people in athletic who were also actors or actresses, or does it mean people in sports who were also actors or actresses. If it is intent for the later, in the unlikely event we keep it it should be renamed Category:American actor-sportspeople. However that also brings up the question, how much sports do we need. I am sure there are huge numbers of people who had notable acting careers who played sports in high school, a smaller but still significant number who played in college. Basically to fit in this category we should limit it to people who we can clearly show that their role as a sports person and as an actor were both notable. However we also need to be able to create Actor-athlete or actor-sportsperson as an article that is reliable sourced and more than just a list. It has to say something substantive about the importance of the intersection of careers. I do not think this can be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've added Category:American athlete-politicians. If there are objections from anyone who has already commented, please let me know and I will create a separate nomination.--User:Namiba 21:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Namiba, I would object to including Category:American athlete-politicians in this nomination, not necessarily because I think it should be kept, but for two reasons. (1) Because it is part of the quite-extensive Category:Sportsperson-politicians by nationality, and I don't think that just one of these should be discussed in isolation, and (2) because the tree was discussed previously with a no consensus result. See here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will nominate it separately and removed it from this discussion.--User:Namiba 13:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scholars of constitutional law[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:Constitutional law scholars to Category:Scholars of constitutional law. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The latter phrasing is consistent with other members of Category:Legal scholars by specialty. (t · c) buidhe 14:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The form "X law scholars" is more concise, so I would support renaming them all to that. (t · c) buidhe 12:13, 8 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 explorers[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) 03:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As suggested in earlier CfD, who were killed for political reasons.
Note: This does not include activists who died under mysterious circumstances, such as rumoured assassination attempts or other undetermined causes.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:William Allen Simpson, would you mind condensing all of the nominations under one heading so that we can discuss them together?--User:Namiba 15:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Several of them were involved in wars and other military campaigns, and were killed because of their involvement. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, many explorers were murdered by people in the very countries that they explored, that does not count as an assassination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My expection is that "explorers" who were military and were not assassinated were simply deaths. We don't call most military fatalities "murder". We do call specific military deaths "assassination", such as Qasem Soleimani.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most people in this category weren't military and even for the few who were, like Collet Barker, it was not an assessination. He was murdered as an explorer, not as military. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apart from the triviality, it is entirely subjective. James Cook was killed while attempting to kidnap the local leader, seems to me to be self-defense. This embeds a cultural mindset that the people encountered by white-western-explorers decided to defend themselves or their autonomy constitutes "murder" or "assassination". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree with triviality in this case. Many explorers were murdered because indigenous people considered their exploration to be a threat. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both murdered and assassinated indicate victimhood; no one killed in self-defense is considered to have been "murdered" or "assassinated" so the judgment of WP seems to side with western-centrism that there was no justification for the deaths of these intruders, invaders, and enslavers. I think this is thus an opinion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Getting murdered often seemed to be an occupational hazard here and I think "assassinated" will have less clear inclusion criteria.- RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Assassination carries a specific context to the event which murder does not. Deaths during military campaigns should be purged, as not murder, but cases of murder where there is an argument that it was self-defence could stay. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 10 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 lawyers[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, create Category:Assassinated lawyers out of purged contents. I have tried to include in Category:Assassinated lawyers only those who were killed for their work as a lawyer. I have been liberal in questionable cases, so someone else might want to take a look at the contents. At the time of the close there were 9 articles in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As suggested in earlier CfD, who were killed for professional activities.
Note: This does not include activists who died under mysterious circumstances, such as rumoured assassination attempts or other undetermined causes.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe cites two articles in the previous discussion. If passed, this will likely require pruning.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If renamed, there should be a manual check whether articles still belong in the category after renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again subjective criteria; was Abe Lincoln or Alan Berg killed for being lawyers rather than being a politician and radio show host? I didn't look at the others, but the presence of these two shows the subjectiveness of this cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Purge This seems to be a more defining intersection but it will reduce the scope. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge -- This should be limited to cases where the victim was killed because he was a lawyer, not for example domestic murders by a spouse or where the victims last occupation was not the law. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most lawyers who are notable are notable for other things, so if allowed to keep this will just be used to apply to people who normally better fit in other categories. We need to use wisdom in creating categories, and there is no wisdom found in creating this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative delete — in the interest of closing, agree to deletion (as originally proposed). Buidhe has not participated in discussing his own idea. In any other case (keep or rename), this must be manually purged to match the more restrictive requirements.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge (preferably) or keep, do not delete, at minimum assassinated lawyers should be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 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.

People of Abruzzese 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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 14 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 revolutionaries[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) 03:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As suggested in earlier CfD, who were killed for political reasons.
Note: This does not include activists who died under mysterious circumstances, such as rumoured assassination attempts or other undetermined causes.
Category:Executed revolutionaries is separate.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to the dictionary "Assassination is the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons." I think the two conditions, political figure and political reasons, are usually satisfied in the case of murder revolutionaries, so I have no problem with this nomination, although I don't see a real necessity for it either. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support They typically are killed because of their political activities. Dimadick (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and purge Hélène Rytmann, per LaundryPizza03. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely subjective; one person's "murder" is another's "protecting the state". An argument could be made that the lady killed in the capitol building yesterday would fit into this category, while an argument could be made that the death was something other than "murder" (self-defense, perhaps) and she was nothing but a lawbreaker killed in the act of her lawbreaking. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge Hélène Rytmann, per LaundryPizza03. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:15, 9 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 animal activists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Will split as suggested, and will be deleted as empty. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Already in Category:Assassinated activists tree.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only reason to agree with this nomination would be for consistency's sake. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Activism is political activity. Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose an outright rename, of the 7 articles in the category 2 are clearly not about an assassination and 2 others are not certain. I am open to alternative solutions. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a problem. By the rules, we aren't supposed to prune the category before renaming. It's fairly clear that we shouldn't categorize animal activists who happened to be murdered for some other reason. There's a well-populated tree for assassinations for political reasons. Then prune....
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done removing all who were not assassinated for their activism, merely murdered for profit or by family members.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:18, 7 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 activists[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; applicable articles can go in Category:Assassinated activists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not 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.
Category:Assassinated activists‎ is in a separate tree.
See also: related rationale about suicides by occupation:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @William Allen Simpson: I am definitely not supporting violating the rules, I am proposing something in the discussion. It is up to the closing admin to determine if there is consensus for this proposal, and if so, to implement it in some way. Please revert your emptying. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 7 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 judges[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; applicable articles can go in Category:Assassinated judges. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not 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.
Category:Assassinated judges is in a separate tree.
See also: related rationale about suicides by occupation:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Most of them were by IRA, and were already in an assissinated or terrorism category.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:33, 7 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not 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) 12:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Their expression of ideas could very well be the cause of the murder. Dimadick (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Rename This is a defining category for philosopher similar to what User:Dimadick said about how the person philosopher's views could have gotten killed such the famous philosopher Socrates, who was executed. This is not like the occupation or profession in this category is unrelated and undefining to the adjective here. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no point in making speculations, by just reading the articles it becomes clear that this is not actually the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be defining, it must be commonly and consistently applied to the profession. Obviously not the case.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The hypothesis that their expression of ideas could very well be the cause of the murder is not substantiated by the articles that are in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial intersection. per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Some of these seem to have been killed for their views or where those views became mixed up in politics. This is not a trivial intersection, but those cases where it is trivial should be purged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Peterkingiron & Dimadick, if a philosopher's death is caused in part by their views and profession, than their said philosophical profession is directly relevant to their death. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:20, 12 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.

Murdered writers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not 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) 12:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Although I think you are wrong comparing "murder writes" to "writers who committed suicide", as I think deleting that category was a huge mistake. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not think this is trivial, and the sources usually cover the topic. Dimadick (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Trivial intersection. Again, a writer is killed in a road rage incident, or in a mass shooting, or in a deliberate plane crash - nothing defining about that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Usually coincidental so it's a trivial intersection. -RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 9 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:Similarity and distance measures[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Category:Similarity and distance measures

Category:2021 births[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: When someone of note is born this year, this category can be recreated. No need for placeholders even though it is an eventual certainty. Just have to wait until that time. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI This happened last year, too (see WP:CfD/Log/2020 Jan 1). I'm not sure what the rush is. That one was recreated in May when there was something to populate it with. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category definitely is not warranted at the moment as no notable celebrity births have occurred. No reason to just have a dormant placeholder category for months. So a temporary deletion for empty category maintenance. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, create when someone born this year becomes notable and has an article. Majavah (talk!) 07:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Majavah....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete a category that we know 99% for sure that we will need in the end. I agree that it should not have been created yet, but once created, deleting it is an exercise in futility. Debresser (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, back until 2017 there is only one article in every category (once plus a redirect). It may take many months or maybe longer than a year before this category will become populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not needed right now, but can always be recreated later if necessary (i.e. someone born in 2021 is notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia). GiggityGiggityGoo! 21:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete (and merge most of 2010s siblings). Very few people become notable at birth. The latest to have a population of more than 5 (apart from redirects) is 2011. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There will be notable people who will be notable at birth this year just like any other year. Subscribe to me (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So just recreate it when that happens. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:20, 14 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:RIAJ Reco-kyō Chart number-one ringtones[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: My how time flies...I nominated this category 10 years ago (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 7#Category:RIAJ Reco-kyō Chart number-one singles, and I still believe that no matter how many ringtones of a song are sold, reaching number one on a ringtone chart is not a defining aspect of a song. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as category creator) - Categories for #1 singles are a relic of the past. --Prosperosity (talk) 03:08, 16 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:New Year films[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:Films set around New Year. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "New year films" alienates films that have a significant portion of the movie around the subject of New Year's eve and day or a significant portion of the motion picture takes place during New Year's Eve/day. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection whatsoever to the category and list both being moved to "...during..." Grutness...wha? 03:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:GVC Holdings[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) 03:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D. Passotrein (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the company was renamed 9 December 2020. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for Now The main article was boldly moved but, so far, it appears to be non-controversial. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:22, 9 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:Sons of Confederate Veterans awards[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) 03:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
No conceptual objection to an award by organization category but there is only one article here: Confederate Medal of Honor (Sons of Confederate Veterans). The Sons of Confederate Veterans article doesn't mention any other awards so I don't think there's any growth potential but no objection to recreating the category later if I'm wrong and it ever gets up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Award‎[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management is a two-year business college in New Delhi that gives out a Lal Bahadur Shastri National Award to Indian businesspeople. Most of the winners don't have a Wikipedia article and, for those that do, the award is mentioned in passing with other honors because it's not defining. We have a Catch-22 where, when the award is defining enough for a category, they aren't notable enough for an article and, when they're notable enough for an article, the category is no longer defining. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_5&oldid=1004062194"