Contents

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 19

February 19[edit]

Category:SGpedians' notice board members[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:SGpedians' notice board memberstoCategory:WikiProject Singapore members

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board is a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Per nom. I'm cautious about moving user pages but that seems reasonable in this case. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, the pages were merged per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Singapore/2020_archive#Merger_proposal. – Fayenatic London 09:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who participate in Mathematics Collaboration of the Month[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who participate in Mathematics Collaboration of the Month (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Collaboration of the Month is marked as historical. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't improve the encyclopedia by collaborating on this if we no longer do it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia abuse response volunteers[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia abuse response volunteers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Abuse response is no longer an active process. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't improve the encyclopedia by collaborating on this if we no longer use it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No encyclopedic value in these categories. Orientls (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use igloo[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who use igloo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: According to Wikipedia:Igloo, Igloo is no longer functional due to the API that it runs on no longer being supported. Users are advised to try these alternatives. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom/WP:SNOW. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't improve the encyclopedia by collaborating on this if we no longer use it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No encyclopedic value in these categories. Orientls (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

VandalProof categories[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who use VandalProof (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedian VandalProof moderators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: According to User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof, Vandalproof is no longer in use. Please consider using Huggle instead * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't improve the encyclopedia by collaborating on this if we no longer use it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No encyclopedic value in these categories. Orientls (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No encyclopedic value in these categories. Orientls (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian WikiElves[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedian WikiElvestoCategory:Metapedianist Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:WikiElf, WikiElf is a broad term for an editor who in various degrees works behind the scenesatWikipedia.. These two categories seem to cover the same scope. I would also be okay with deleting the category without merging, or converting it back to a redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian WikiPrincesses[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedian WikiPrincesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per the category description, A Wiki princess (orWikiPrincess), is someone who enjoys the riches of Wikipedia's knowledge without contributing to it, and uses the Wiki primarily for socializing. Neither a category listing users who do not contribute nor one listing users who (mis)use the wiki for socialization serve any collaborative function. Wikipedia:WikiPrincess also implies that WikiPrincesses can be involved in back-end discussions, however that's already covered by Category:Metapedianist Wikipedians * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pppery: For clarification: "Neither a category listing users who do not contribute nor a category listing users who don't contribute" – intended tautology or a copy-paste error? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Copy-paste error. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added "See also Category:Metapedianist Wikipedians" to the project page and templates. – Fayenatic London 18:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving historic warbirds[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving historic warbirds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Nom per WP:SMALL and WP:NARROWCAT; there are simply not many warbird crashes meeting WP:GNG, the number is unlikely to grow significantly, and similar crashes can be adequately linked in the "See also" section of each respective article. Carguychris (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Irish Anglican priests[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 2#Category:Irish Anglican priests

People of Zhejiang descent[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People of Zhejiang descent
• Propose deleting Category:People of Wenzhounese descent
• Propose deleting Category:Hong Kong people of Wenzhounese descent

Nominator's rationale: delete, usually we do not categorize people by provinces or cities that their ancestors lived in. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion and this earlier discussion, @Johnpacklambert, Carlossuarez46, William Allen Simpson, Fayenatic london, Place Clichy, Prisencolin, and Peterkingiron: pinging contributors to those earlier discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not the normal way of categorizing by ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom and per my usual objections to descent categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the usual objections of Carlossuarez46 to descent categories. As most people have 4 grand-parents, 8 great-grand-parents etc, this would swiftly become unwieldy if fully implemented. (Boris Johnson gets into just 2 descent categories; one wonders to what extent he is influenced by his Turkish roots. Donald Trump in contrast has none although his German and Scottish roots are well-known.) Oculi (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment currently is WP:SMALLCAT, however no objection to recreation.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there were more people categorized here I believe it would be a valid category: see Wenzhou#Business_culture:

    Due to both Wenzhou's cultural and geographical remoteness and its lack of natural resources (land, minerals, etc.), the Chinese central government has left the people of Wenzhou relatively autonomous. Away from the center of the political and economic stage, its people are more independent, self-reliant, and generally more business and family oriented. Numerous books have been published about the business sense of people from Wenzhou. Hence, when China switched from its planned economy to its so-called capitalist economy with Chinese (socialist) characteristics in the late 1980s, its people adjusted well to the new system and took advantage of it. A popular common saying calls Wenzhounese the "Jews of the Orient" (东方的犹太人).[citation needed] Wenzhounese have been stereotyped by other Chinese as real estate speculators. China Daily notes that investments from Wenzhounese buyers play a disproportionately large role in the increased property prices all over China.[104]

The people of Wenzhou are thought to be equipped with business sense and a commercial culture more dominant than anywhere else in China. Wenzhou has two economic characteristics: it was the first to launch a market economy, and it continues to have an active and developed private economy.[105]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talk • contribs) 2021-02-19 22:18:13 (UTC)

• Delete — and record in WP:CATNAME#Heritage.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While some of these might arguably be identifiable subcultural groups for those that live in thee areas, it doesn't appear to be defining in the descendants of those people. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:17th-century executions by Germany[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 2#Category:17th-century executions by Germany

Category:Stinc Team Members[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Stinc Team Members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: No article for the Stinc Team rap group so shouldn't have derived categories. Le Deluge (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete also because there is only one article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly not aiding navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:South Australian Railways locomotives 1–3[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:South Australian Railways locomotives 1–3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous 1-article WP:SMALLCAT, the individual locomotives lasted less than 20 years before being scrapped so are unlikely to get articles of their own. Le Deluge (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:C2F, one eponymous article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the locomotives would have been the subject of an article according to their class letter, such as D class, which applied to virtually all South Australian Railways locomotives after (if I recall correctly) the 1880s and is the basis on which they are described in Wikipedia. However, they were never allocated to a class because, as the inaugural trio of motive power of the South Australian Railways, they preceded the class system. That's why the title of their Wikipedia article is "South Australian Railways locomotives 1–3". They are, therefore, an element of a larger on-going categorization that is based on locomotive classes. SCHolar44 (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there were multiple articles involved here, we'd absolutely consider the merits of the category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:C2F. Not part of a C2C, it is the only such subcategory of Category:South Australian Railways steam locomotives, where it is also an article.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

People from Kilkis (regional unit)[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Kilkis (municipality)toCategory:People from Kilkis (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from ChersotoCategory:People from Kilkis (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from KroussatoCategory:People from Kilkis (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from PaioniatoCategory:People from Kilkis (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from AxioupolitoCategory:People from Kilkis (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from GoumenissatoCategory:People from Kilkis (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Livadia, KilkistoCategory:People from Kilkis (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from PolykastrotoCategory:People from Kilkis (regional unit)

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Kilkis (24,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Goumenissa is an interesting case here. It now has 5 articles, 3 of which are from the town of Goumenissa proper (its "community"), and the other 2 are from the municipal unit. A "municipal unit" is a collection of "communities", which are traditional settlements.

It is difficult to decide where to draw the line of what is a "populated place", but I would put it at the municipal unit level, not the community level. And here are my reasons:

Municipal units are of such a size that people don't usually distinguish between the communities. It is common for families to be "scattered" between different communities within a municipal unit. It is also common for only one community in a municipal unit to operate an essential service, like say, a school, especially in the more rural areas, and for the entirety of municipal units children to attend school in this one community. Furthermore, a lot of these communities are physically connected, with the distinction only being made for historical/administrative reasons.

In light of all this, I believe communities are more fit to be considered "suburbs" than independent settlements. And "populated place", when it comes to categorisation by location in Greece, should refer to municipal units, not communities.

I'm from Kastelli, Heraklion, so I will use that example. Kastelli, Polythea, Archangelos and Mathia are some of its communities. Most children in all these four communities attend school in Kastelli. My grandfather is from Mathia, my grandmother from Kastelli (her father was from Kastelli and her mother from Polythea), and my aunt from Polythea. They aren't considered to be from different places, seeing as you can go from one place to the other by foot. Polythea is actually physically a part of Kastelli, just a few minutes' walk from the other side of the town. --Antondimak (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In every country it may be usual to have family members living in neighbouring villages, that does not change the fact that they are separate villages. Family members may also live in a village just across the border of a municipal unit, why would they bother about an administrative border? Place of living of family members is simply not a good criterion to distinguish populated places. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's one of the things I use as an example. Many communities are also physically linked as I said, and Athens was merged, where we had far more "independent" areas. --Antondimak (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as a good start — This is another that could benefit from going one level higher, Category:People from Central Macedonia, because there are so few candidates. Should be categorizing from the top down, not the bottom up. Most of these aren't notable for having been anywhere other than Category:Greek people by occupation, but we can prune.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge All for Now Without objection to recreating categories later if they get up to 5+ articles. (Category:People from Goumenissa is actually at 5 but I question 2 of the entries per the above by Antondimak.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Input on whether we should consider communities of municipal units to be "populated places" would be appreciated, since this will be important in future nominations. There has already been a decision in the case of Athens, where different communities weren't considered distinct populated places, but the rest of Greece (apart from the Thessaloniki) is different and there should be a clear decision in this case. --Antondimak (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. These categories are for small villages and settlements (most with only a small number of residents) and are unlikely to ever have many articles within them. They can be recreated on an as needed basis if there ends up being "enough" articles to populate them. Until then, this merger makes sense to me. Grk1011 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

People from Larissa (regional unit)[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Agia, Larissa (municipality)toCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Agia, LarissatoCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from MelivoiatoCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Elassona (municipality)toCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from ElassonatoCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Karya, LarissatoCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from LivaditoCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from TsaritsanitoCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Farsala (municipality)toCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from FarsalatoCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Kileler (municipality)toCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from KrannonastoCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Nikaia, LarissatoCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Larissa (municipality)toCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from GiannoulitoCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from KoiladatoCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Tyrnavos (municipality)toCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from AmpelonastoCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from TyrnavostoCategory:People from Larissa (regional unit)

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Larissa (147,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as a good start — This is another that could benefit from going one level higher, Category:People from Thessaly, because there are so few candidates. Should be categorizing from the top down, not the bottom up. Most of these aren't notable for having been anywhere other than Category:Greek people by occupation, but we can prune.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge All For Now Wow, these are really small and don't aid navigation. While it's unlikely with this one, no objection to recreating any if they ever reach 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. These categories are for small villages and settlements (most with only a small number of residents) and are unlikely to ever have many articles within them. They can be recreated on an as needed basis if there ends up being "enough" articles to populate them. Until then, this merger makes sense to me. Grk1011 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

People from Lesbos[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Mytilene (municipality)toCategory:People from Lesbos
• Propose merging Category:People from EvergetoulastoCategory:People from Lesbos
• Propose merging Category:People from Gera, LesbostoCategory:People from Lesbos
• Propose merging Category:People from PlomaritoCategory:People from Lesbos
• Propose merging Category:People from West LesbostoCategory:People from Lesbos
• Propose merging Category:People from Agia Paraskevi, LesbostoCategory:People from Lesbos
• Propose merging Category:People from Eresos-AntissatoCategory:People from Lesbos
• Propose merging Category:People from KallonitoCategory:People from Lesbos
• Propose merging Category:People from MithymnatoCategory:People from Lesbos
• Propose merging Category:People from Petra, LesbostoCategory:People from Lesbos
• Propose merging Category:People from PolichnitostoCategory:People from Lesbos

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Mytilene (30,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:People from Eresos-Antissa now has 5 articles. Doesn't it also help with navigation since in contains Category:Ancient Eresians, which would otherwise be out of place in Category:People from Lesbos? --Antondimak (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Ancient Eresians is already part of Category:People from Ancient Lesbos, that is a good place for it for the time being. We can tackle the small ancient categories in a later stage. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Ancient Eresians can belong to multiple categories. And if "People from area A during time B" doesn't belong in "People from area A", I don't know what does. If Ancient Eresians was to be removed from People from Eresos-Antissa, then its members should also be added to People from Eresos-Antissa. --Antondimak (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, ATM Category:People from Eresos-Antissa has only 2 articles. Apparently moving around during discussion.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 5 actually. --Antondimak (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as a good start — Very reasonable island category within Category:People by island in Greece. Should be categorizing from the top down, not the bottom up. Most of these aren't notable for having been anywhere other than Category:Greek people by occupation, but we can prune.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Most/Keep & Rename West Lesbos/Neutral on Eresos-Antissa Generally these are small cats that don't aid navigation so support nom. Category:People from West Lesbos is at 11 articles if the subcats are alternatively upmerged but the cat name should match West Lesvos. Finally, the contents of Category:People from Eresos-Antissa are in flux so I'll defer to other editors. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. These categories are for small villages and settlements (most with only a small number of residents) and are unlikely to ever have many articles within them. They can be recreated on an as needed basis if there ends up being "enough" articles to populate them. Until then, this merger makes sense to me. Grk1011 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Topics in fiction by work[edit]

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Topics in fiction by worktoCategory:Fictional elements by work

Nominator's rationale: These are not topics in the sense of Fiction by topic. This category (which I created a few years ago) belongs rather in Elements of fiction. Note: I recognise that the wording "Fictional elements" is ambiguous, but there are extensive sibling hierarchies using that naming pattern. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, "topics" is definitely not appropriate here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nominated by creator.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism[edit]

The result of the discussion was: rename. There is no consensus which title is preferable, Category:Swaminarayan HinduismorCategory:Swaminarayan Sampradaya, however there is a clear consensus that both are better than the status quo. I've chosen to rename to Category:Swaminarayan Sampradaya for consistency with the article with both having the same amount of support. I would suggest that the next step be an RM for the article. If the page is moved it is clear that the scale would tip in favor of Swaminarayan Hinduism with several people citing consistency as the reason for their preference. Another CfD is not necessary to move this category in that case. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Swaminarayan sect of HinduismtoCategory:Swaminarayan Hinduism

Nominator's rationale: The term 'sect’ has a negative connotation and I have proposed a category name change to ‘Swaminarayan Hinduism.’ The new title has a general definition and there is an Oxford University Press published book titled ‘Swaminarayan Hinduism’ and another one published by Cambridge University Press titled ‘Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism’, so Swaminarayan Hinduism is a term that seems accepted by scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1203 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

• Alt renametoCategory:Swaminarayan Sampradaya, per article title Swaminarayan Sampradaya. (Although honestly I think the capitalization of sampradaya is not needed.) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the original proposal. Swaminarayan Sampradaya is fine for the article's title because the word 'sampradaya' is explained. However, the category title needs to be easily recognizable, so Swaminarayan Hinduism makes more sense. It does not require the explanation of the term 'sampradaya.' Moksha88 (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt RenametoCategory:Swaminarayan Sampradaya to match Swaminarayan Sampradaya per WP:C2D. (If there is no consensus for that, then rename as nominated.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, the original proposal. Alike Moksha88's convincing statement of grounds. --Just N. (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt renametoCategory:Swaminarayan Sampradaya. There are plenty of categories whose meanings will not be evident to some readers. We don't need to micromanage and try to anticipate which categories these will be. As long as Swaminarayan Sampradaya is in the category (and perhaps a Template:Catmain link at the top), I don't see a problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per the definition of 'sect' the swaminarayan movement doesn't fit. I support the renaming to align with other similar religious movements. For example, ISKON would not be a 'sect' of Hinduism. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to either- but, as a parent is Category:Vaishnava sects, it is still being labelled a sect. I slightly prefer Category:Swaminarayan Sampradaya, as Swaminarayan Hinduism redirects to Swaminarayan Sampradaya. Oculi (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with the original proposal, Swaminarayan Hinduism is commonly used by academics. Additionally, as Moksha88 notes, sampradaya would be an unfamiliar term to most people. Harshmellow717 (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If "Swaminarayan Hinduism" is commonly used by academics it would be recommendable to rename the article to Swaminarayan Hinduism. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt RenametoCategory:Swaminarayan Sampradaya to match main article per WP:C2D. If the main article is moved, we'll follow.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I support the renaming to Swaminarayan Hinduism. Actionjackson09 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I support this proposal. Skubydoo (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not sure why there is such support for including "Hinduism" in the category name. If you examine ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Hindu denominations and all its subcategories, none of them are named "TRADITION Hinduism". The proposed name is redundant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Stanley family (NZ rugby)[edit]

The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Stanley family (NZ rugby)toCategory:Stanley family (rugby)

Nominator's rationale: "Rugby" is probably a sufficient disambiguator here. Some of the members of the family are Australian, and some played for Samoa. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — wondering how this was not noticed by the creator, who initiated the category with all three national sportspeople categories. Also wondering what marvelous process GoF used to find this beastie.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Allen Simpson: newly created categories queue. There is consistently all sorts of gems in there. CFD can't really keep up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:American academics whose Native American status is seriously disputed[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. The members (Ward Churchill, Andrea Smith (academic), Elizabeth Warren) might perhaps be listed in a relevant article. – Fayenatic London 08:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American academics whose Native American status is seriously disputed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: "Seriously disputed" is a subjective measure. In any case, having the truth of ethnic heritage doubted by someone is not really a defining characteristic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain I created the category with a focus on ethnic identity among academics, a circle in which there is a lot discussion of people's identity and therefore their right to say, teach, or study certain things. This is not about people in general, just academics. If the phrase "seriously disputed" is not acceptable, we can discuss an acceptable alternative. There are several more academics whose claims of Native American ancestry are disputed, but they do not yet have pages in Wikipedia. I disagree about "having the truth of ethnic heritage doubted by someone is not really a defining characteristic." Not going to fight about it if I am outvoted. Pete unseth (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In this case the people have all come under notability for this, and have been widely attacked for in the view of many people perpetrating frauds, and in the view of some illegitimately taking advantage of affirmative action programs. I almost wonder though if this would be better covered by a list, as long as we can agree to exclude the individuals on the list from any category that would imply in any way that they may actually be Native American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per WP:OPINIONCAT which says "Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals")." Seems clearly in the the "opinions or allegations about the person by other people". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — WP:NONDEFINING, WP:OPINIONCAT, and WP:SMALLCAT.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible alternative - This could be relabeled slightly differently as "American academics whose Native American status is disproved". I had originally used the "weasel words" thinking that it would allow articles about academics whose status might be less clear. The three academics included have all had their status disproven. Would the category be acceptable if the title was altered like this? Pete unseth (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A dispute over someone's ethnicity is not a good topic for a category. We have Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent for cases were the descent is in doubt. Dimadick (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here the descent is not in doubt. Here is was 100% a case of fraud by these charlatans and liars.13:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
• Keep Wikipedia needs to expose this group of charlatans and fraudsters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP needs to "expose" people through a category? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per William Allen Simpson. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also per Johnpacklambert’s comments demonstrating the propensity to use this category to retaliate against living people. That has no place on the project. Per WP:BLPCOI: Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Disputed status of any kind is a poor basis for a category. It invites abuse. Rathfelder (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well these people have already abused the system taking positions and influence from people who really have the ethnicity and stealing benefits intended for people of this real ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Former government ministers of Australia[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete but merge contents to Category:Government ministers of Australia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Former government ministers of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: What is the purpose of this category when they are already subdivided into the ministries while they were in office? Snickers2686 (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no purpose. Moreover there is no tree Category:Former government ministers. Oculi (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we categorize people by what they have been, we do not split by what they are versus what they were. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge, they are not all sub-catted by dept, e.g.[1]. – Fayenatic London 17:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for noticing, I had not checked this. Then merge to Category:Government ministers of Australia insofar not already in that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MergetoCategory:Government ministers of Australia then perhaps split by decade. Present/former category splits are deplored and there was a considerable effort some years ago to eliminate such. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Critics of the Russian Empire[edit]

The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 08:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Critics of the Russian EmpiretoCategory:Critics from the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: This is a person-by-occupation category, not a person-by-opinion category. It is for critics from the Russian Empire, not individuals who were critical of the Russian Empire. This ambiguity is a good reason to break from the standard formatting of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:People of the Russian Empire. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - cf Category:Historians from the Russian Empire. Oculi (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• RenametoCategory:Russian Empire critics. These category names would be clear and simpler if we used that form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does 'Russian Empire critics' distinguish between 'critics of the Russian Empire' (not necessarily Russian), 'critics from the Russian Empire', not to mention 'Russian critics of Empires' (not necessarily the Russian one)? Oculi (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, that would be contrary to the decision at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 3#Russian Empire people
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was not a decision, that was an 11th-hour imposition of a super vote by an administrator who piggy backed on my hard work of nominating over 100 categories as people snipped at me and mocked me. It is a clear example of how the work horses who actually get things done in Wikipedia have their work torn out from under them and destroyed. Yes I am very, very, very mad about the very wrong way that was handled. Super votes and last minute impositions by people who did not do any of the work need to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and Comment when I first saw this nomination, I expected this category to hold folks who were critical of the Russian Empire; happily not. But that brings up the bigger question: how are "critics" categories in Category:Critics exempt from WP:OPINIONCAT? "Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue..." There are jobs (film critics, art critics, wine critics, etc.) that are notable - and are, rightly so, the subcats of this nomination. But it is the the "critics of" categories in Category:Critics that I doubt the validity of under OPINIONCAT. Take a few as examples: Category:Critics of Arab nationalism‎ (5 articles) isn't that an opinion category about an issue - whether done tastefully or high brow or otherwise; Category:Critics of Confucianism‎ (1 article, a guy who is critical of basically all religions but his own). Many thinking people following any religion have some criticism of incompatible other religions. Then, of course, we have 3 articles who are just "critics" presumably some curmudgeonly sorts in some editor's opinion? This tree is in serious need of pruning. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The critics in this category is refering to artistic and related critics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nominated Category:Cultural critics from the Russian Empire. Category:Critics parent Category:Activists by issue was added in 2015, needs to be split. The proper parent is Category:Cultural critics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this alternative, critic and cultural critic should not be confused. In the long run the critics categories that are neither related to critic nor to cultural critic should be listified and deleted per WP:OPINIONCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Cultural critics from the Russian Empire to match parent. These people did not criticise the Empire of which they may have been loyal citizens, but its art, literature and theatre. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nominator). Count me against naming it Category:Cultural critics from the Russian Empire. These are not cultural critics, they are critics. "Cultural" in this context does not mean the arts, music, theatre, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Good Olfactory, Marcocapelle, and Carlossuarez46: then we need to decide on something to distinguish this category, so that we can clearly and easily sort out the crap. Category:Cultural critics is currently a child of Category:Critics, a child of Category:People in arts occupations. If that's wrong, it needs to be fixed. Many of the Category:People in arts occupations are "Art foo". But Category:Art critics is only visual arts, not music and theater.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Allen Simpson, changing the use of "critics" is a much broader issue. I think it's beyond the scope of this discussion. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Critics by nationality is extensive and the subcategories use the form "FOOian critics". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good Olfactory, that's why I'd written "something to distinguish this category" [emphasis added]. But perhaps it must be the other way around. We could restrict Critics to be only Category:People in arts occupations such as visual arts, music, and theater; segregating Category:Activists by issue into another tree? What would it be named?
      William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree these sorts of critics are different than many of the "critics of" categories which ought to be discussed somewhere, some time. A wine critic isn't a temperance activist, e.g. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Clearer scope.07:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
• Renametocateogry:Critics from the Russian Empire. I do have to wonder if a term like "cultural cricitcs" might be better. However the parent cat is Category:Critics, so if we want to change to cultural critics we should do that rename at that level.I would probably support it, but in Wikipedia we should properly notify at the level of change, and so should not undertake that change without giving notification.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Art critics, literary critics, and theatre critics are not cultural critics. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The CW cable-only affiliates[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:The CW cable-only affiliatestoCategory:The CW affiliates

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Broadcast station categories Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Not likely to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk)

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:Order of Naval Merit Admiral Padilla[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Order of Naval Merit Admiral Padilla

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

When high ranking foreign military leaders have an exercise or joint mission with the Colombian military, the Order of Naval Merit Admiral Padilla is given out as souvenir. US General Peter Pace, Indian diplomat Chandrika Prasad Srivastava, and US Admiral Elmo Zumwalt are not remotely defined by this award. (The stated purpose of the award was to recognize Colombian naval personnal but the only Colombian in this category is Fernando Tapias Stahelin who is well categorized under Category:Colombian generals.) There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are listed right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more over categorization by award. Why do we only get 2 nomination a day?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: It's a sustainable pace for me and, more importantly, it leaves other editors clamoring for more! - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your persistence! Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Order of Saint Elizabeth[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Order of Saint Elizabeth

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

The Order of Saint Elizabeth was female order from the Kingdom of Bavaria, although none of the 3 articles in this category are Bavarian women. 1 article mentions this award in passing and 2 don't mention it at all so it doesn't seem defining. (There are more articles we could add but they aren't defined by the award either.) The recipients are already listed right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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