Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 27

< November 26	November 28 >

November 27

Category:7th-century Catholic Church councils

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:7th-century Catholic Church councils to Category:7th-century Christian church councils

Nominator's rationale: merge, we categorize Catholic and Eastern Orthodox councils separately only after the year 1054. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target Category:7th-century Christian church councils has been nominated for renaming to Category:7th-century church councils. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Certainly merge but would not merging both to Category:7th-century church councils be even better? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Pre-Great Schism. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to alternate name Category:7th-century church councils per nom & Peterkingiron; in the 7th century only Christians had "church councils". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No such thing as a Catholic Church prior to 1054. Dimadick (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2130

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) 02:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:2130
Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in 2130
Propose deleting Category:Works set in the 2130s
Propose deleting Category:Films set in the 2130s
Propose merging Category:Films set in 2130 to Category:Fiction set in the 2130s and Category:Films set in the 22nd century

Same reason as this batch. The only page in these categories is The Black Hole (1979 film). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. No need to merge, the article is already in Category:Films set in the 22nd century. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Only the decade is needed, not the specific year. Dimadick (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marquisate of Bodonitsa

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Marquisate of Bodonitsa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only the eponymous article and a subcategory. The subcategory in itself is sufficient, it also contains a link to the main article in the header of the page. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a second level polity, not a sovereign one. In principle I support this, but the sub-cat is not currently adequately linked to the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since added as a header for the subcategory. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Now Certainly doesn't aid navigation today and the 1 article and 1 subcategory are already well categorized. If the direct article count every grows to 5+, no objection to recreating. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Sunderland, Tyne and Wear

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Category:People from Sunderland, Tyne and Wear

Category:Screenplay (TV series)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Category:Screenplay (TV series)

Category:People from Most (Most District)

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:People from Most (city), following the new name for the article Most (city).. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Most (Most District) to Category:People from Most

Nominator's rationale: There are some other places called Most, but they are much smaller and there are no articles about people from them as far as I can see. Rathfelder (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional oppose, in category names we add as least as much disambiguation as in article titles (sometimes more). This oppose is valid unless there is consensus to rename the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Most (Most District), Category:Most (Most District). There is Most District as well. Oculi (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of cities with districts of the same name, Category:People from Salzburg (state) for example, but we dont do this to them unless there is a real prospect of confusion. Rathfelder (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose for Now~~ I'm not thrilled with the main article name, Most (Most District), but that's a topic for an WP:RM. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will withdraw this request and see if we can agree to rename the article. Rathfelder (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per main article and there are other places called "Most" namely Most, Kardzhali and Möst, Khovd however I would agree with moving to Category:People from Most (city) if the main article is moved which is an alternative proposal in the RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Defer to RM~~ at Talk:Most (Most District), whether I agree with the outcome or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Alt. Rename to Category:people from Most (city) per WP:C2D since the main article was just renamed to Most (city) through a formal WP:RM. Based on that conversation, I believe the nominator supports the alt rename but they can confirm: @Rathfelder: - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy with that. Rathfelder (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mosques converted from churches by the Republic of Turkey

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Category:Mosques converted from churches by the Republic of Turkey

Category:Archaeology on stamps

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. Take article through normal creation process. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Category:Archaeology on stamps to article Archaeology on stamps

Nominator's rationale: I don't know if there's an article to be made here, but it certainly shouldn't be a category Le Deluge (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this was probably not meant to be a category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support decategorising and delete: The commons already has this category Category:Archaeology on stamps. The basic topic would require a lot of work and research to make into an article and per its current prose has no notability nor enough content to even warrant a stub. To start the prose in 1972 and not comment about the 1867 stamp, misses out most of the last 160 years of stamp issues. ww2censor (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Articlise if anything. Certainly not a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. 22:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete There is not enough here to justify an article. If someone wants to create an article they should take it through the normal article creation process, we should not be rushing that process here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Planners

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Category:Planners

Category:Body donors

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. Ruslik_Zero 20:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Body donors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Body donation to science is reasonably common enough such that it is not defining for individuals who do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what happens to one's earthly remains seems defining in some way. We have a whole tree of where people are buried (including at sea). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should disclose that I find nearly all of that tree also non-defining. But, with the exception of sea burials which I've been debating nominating, at least a graveyard is fixed to a particular place. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not create a cohesive enough group to justify categorizing it considering the huge number of people who this would apply to. We already have way too many categories, this would just lead to more unneeded categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining e.g. for Tyra Vaughn. DexDor^(talk) 07:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Medal of Gratitude

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Medal of Gratitude

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)

When foreign leaders or celebrities visit Albania, or vice versa, the Medal of Gratitude (Albania) is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Richard Gere, Admiral James G. Stavridis and Pietro Mennea are not remotely defined by this award. (There is one person in this category who is well known as an Albanian translator, Robert Elsie, but his article is already well categorized under Category:Albanian translators.) The winners of this award are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background In the past, we've deleted similar categories for high ranking visitors here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners‎

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

What is now known as the Regeneron Science Talent Search is an annual American science competition and, undoubtedly, these are promising young students who were defined by this award in high school. But Wikipedia doesn't generally have articles on promising young students per WP:NACADEMIC and these articles exist because these students grew up and went on to do other things in their lives that made them notable. 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, this high school category is no longer defining. The winners are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.