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.
In this particular case, both articles do appear to be assassinations, so remnaming this and moving it to the separate assassination tree may be appropriate. Grutness...wha?02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Merge for Now These places are unlikely to have more than five mayors who were notable but, if they ever exceed expectations and get up to 5+ articles, no objection to recreating. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 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.
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.
Rename/Merge we avoid defunct as much as possible. I have to admit I am unconvinced we should have any seperation of defunct and current airlines in categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not commonly and consistently expected as a professional hazard or qualification. There may have been many years between the occupation and the death, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children.
Delete While being a businessman and being murdered are closely connected for almost all the Chaldeans killed in my fair city, I am positive we have zero articles on them. The actual businessmen we get articles on are not the local merchants who are being slaughtered, but big time businessmen who are morely likely to be killed for unrelated reasons, and so in reality this category will not cover a significant intersection. The reality is the thousands of Chaldean businessmen who have been killed in Detroit are almost all non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages[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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. We don't need any categorization by insignificant crossroads, municipalities, neighborhoods, streets, and villages. These should be grouped into larger areas, sometimes called "regional units" in templates, although that is apparently also translated as "peripheral units".
Multiple editors have tried to recategorize the articles under the parent municipality, and been reverted. Therefore, I'm proposing deletion without upmerging.
Moreover, any persons who have no references citing where they notably lived should never be categorized by such places.
Note: We have also had a problem with re-creation of these after deletion, by subtle change of the 'o' in "from", in both cases by User:Antondimak(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
Comment There is a discussion already happening in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 13. William Allen Simpson systematically removed articles from many similar categories (including these three, all of them detailed in the last discussion) and then tried to delete them for being empty. He used different reasons for removing each article (and no reason for the final five), most of them factually false. I agree that we don't need categorisation for Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages, this is not what any of these categories represent. --Antondimak (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The strategy you are suggesting (upmerging until there are enough articles) would entail a lot more unnecessary work. Trust me, I categorised all those thousands of articles, and keep the tree updated. Because of cases such as this one, it isn't easy to immediately know where a person is from just from a glance at the article, since it could refer to a smaller village or a place whose name is used for numerous other areas (both true in this case). This means that every time I add an article to a category, I will have to recheck all the articles in said category to see if a subcategory became viable. This increases the complexity of the update algorithm, and given the difficulty in checking each article that I described, this translates into a significant real-time cost. Since I'm doing this manually, this simply isn't possible. Again, the caveat in WP:SMALLCAT seems to exist exactly for cases like this. --Antondimak (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories should be always be checked for their existance before adding a category link in the article, that applies to every article. There is nothing special about Greek people why they would be an exception in this. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this was not my point, and I don't know how you got that idea, so maybe my phrasing was wrong. The threshold for a viable category is what, about 5 articles? Each time I add an article to Category:People from Heraklion, or any other such category, I will have to check all of the articles in the category, to figure out if a new category became viable, and create. This will mean we would delete all these categories (with all the navigational problems this entails, just look at the mess the last merge was), just to recreate them later. This is exactly why WP:SMALLCAT is titled "Small with no potential for growth". --Antondimak (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless reasons for why this is a bad idea, I'll bring up another one. Let's take into consideration similar . Despite ridiculous comments claiming the opposite, regional units are nothing close to resembling metropolitan areas. They are provinces. Achaea for example is a regional unit, and if we take Italy for example, a similar-level division is Abruzzo. So let's take a look at Category:People from Abruzzo. It is the equivalent of a Greek regional unit. It has a subcategory for its "Provinces", named "municipalities" in Greece. It then has a division by city, the equivalent of Greek "municipal units" (in the Greek case nearby towns and villages are also included). But sure, let's destroy the Greek structure because of a weird idea that regional units constitute metropolitan areas. --Antondimak (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter how administrative divisions in a country are called, whether it is provinces or regional units or metropolitan areas. The point is that articles are categorized at a level that allows easy navigation between a sufficient amount of articles of the same kind. While 5 articles is normally the bare minimum, ideally categories contain like 20 to 200 articles each. In most countries, categorizing people by first level administrative divisions and by cities reaches that goal. In some countries it makes sense to categorize also by second level administrative divisions. Categorizing people by small villages is a bad idea in every country, regardless of whether these villages are 3rd or 4th level administrative divisions or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are not small villages. All these lower level categorisations constitute cities or towns, including all nearby smaller towns and villages. The reason that there aren't enough articles is that there aren't enough Greek biographies at the moment, compared to other Western countries. As I have said, we're getting there. If you want proof, the same categories we are talking about were discussed last time (without a clear result). The suggestion was to merge Category:People from People from Archanes-Asterousia with its only member Category:People from Archanes, which contained a single article. The number of articles in Category:People from People from Archanes-Asterousia has tripled in half a month. The categories will return to the same form they are now, you will just make my job harder by doing this. --Antondimak (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that what the administrative divisions are called isn't important. It was just that the proposer of the merge used the argument that Greek regional units essentially constitute metropolitan areas, which they absolutely don't, to justify the merge. --Antondimak (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's why they aren't about small towns. They are about collections of some dozen towns, with usually one to three relatively major ones. The demotikes enotetes actually generally the closest thing in Greece to metropolitan areas, outside of Athens and Thessaloniki. They are collections of connected towns, often around a large one. Isn't that the definition of a metropolitan area? Again though, please let's not talk about that, wince this is just noise. The actual reason, which is valid, is simply WP:SMALLCAT, and I'm glad you're connecting your comment to that ("do not usually have many notable people"). I can assure you that this level of division does, and I will for yet another time provide as proof as proof a recent development. Category:People from Almyros (municipality) had one subcategory with two articles two weeks ago, added in July 2020. It now has four subcategories with a total of nine articles. --Antondimak (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would associate "metropolitan areas" with urban areas, not with rural areas. In this case we are simply talking about a third level administrative division. Nine articles in one category could be okay for navigational purposes but I doubt if this municipality level is viable as a whole. It is difficult to base conclusions on one example. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a sole example. In the last two days around ten more categories have become viable (reached 5 articles). One of the reasons there are some many small categories is that when it comes to the articles I translated, I prioritised those for which a new category would need to be created, all other factors being equal, so that this would get out of the way, while I would populate them more later. --Antondimak (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Rathfelder and Marcocapelle: Over my 40+ publications, I've had several Greek co-authors and collaborators. (All are now in the US.) After consultation, (regional unit) is not where we should upmerge. They are parallel to the old Prefectures, but in many cases are merely parts of larger metropolitan areas such as Athens. (I'd given an example on the previous day with Chicago, Detroit, and San Diego.) So our upmerge target should be the Region, not the regional "unit". We can probably delete all of the regional units as they become empty. In any case, as has been confirmed by Rathfelder, most of these have no WP:RS; those need to be purged again (as I'd already done previously). William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we upmerge to Greece then? Have a big category with thousands of articles... This is becoming more and more ridiculous. What did you ask of your Greek collaborators? I'm genuinely curious how you could arrive to this result. --Antondimak (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exact copy of answer from previous page, to answer to the exact same comment (this discussion is quite unwieldy): Alright at this point I will have to bring this in. I don't know who you asked, but, apart from Athens and Thessaloniki, there are no metropolitan areas in Greece, and the prefectures/regional units are nothing close to that. Ask one of them if Achaea/Aetoloacarnania/Arcadia could be considered anything close metropolitan areas. Because I was concerned about something like this happening, and since it's so obvious to a Greek person, but pretty hard to prove if the other party doesn't trust you, I asked a question over at Greek Reddit about it. Simple question: "Would you consider prefectures (we still call them that unofficially) to be equivalent to metropolitan areas, like Athens and Thessaloniki, or for example Rome, or wider regions, such as for example Abruzzo?". The result was, as expected, a unanimous choice of the second option. It's crazy I have to go so far, like the other time I had to search government documents, but I guess we're reached that place. And I'm sorry to say that, but at this point I can't even trust that what you say is true, and that you actually consulted someone. --Antondimak (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case we are talking about rural area so that is different. I am not entirely against a further upmerge, but let's take one step at a time. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Archanes is a 5,000-people town in Greece, inhabited since the Minoan civilization. I would not call it a crossroad or a neighborhood, and I disagree that people "should never be categorized by such places". In a follow-up to my comment to a related discussion, I expect the nominator to come up with a clear rationale of which categories are to be kept or deleted. Place Clichy (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator requests deletion of these three. That's very clear. The articles need to be grouped into larger areas, probably "Greece". But we won't know until we've sorted out some of these tiny ones. William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody. I read the discussion and I am confused. Generally, I think that the categories about the municipals and municipal units must stay. However, there is this possibility: a name to have been given to a municipal, to a municipal unit and to a village (the capital of municipal and municipal unit). In this case, I propose this model: "Category:Kavala (municipal)" for the municipal of Kavala, "Category:Kavala (municipal unit)" for the municipal unit of Kavala and "Category:Kavala" for the city of Kavala. I think that it is the best thing that we can do at all the categories that related. BILL1 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused because a couple of editors have discovered the principle that frequent attacks on every posting by every other person resulting in a long diatribe prevents most other editors from taking the time to read and understand. William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Support Although inconsistent with other women scientists categories, it is consistent with other fictional females by occupation, who may not all be human. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:WWF/WWE World Heavyweight Champions[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.
Nominator's rationale: This category includes individuals who held the title under the auspices of the World Wide Wrestling Federation (WWWF), so the category name should reflect this. McPhail (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category includes individuals who held the title under the auspices of the World Wide Wrestling Federation (WWWF), so the category name should reflect this. McPhail (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: To me this looks like a case of WP:OCMISC. I'm happy to be corrected if being from an unknown gens is defining for the individuals, but I can't see the characteristic mentioned in the (admittedly, just a handful of) articles I have looked at. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is textbook WP:OCMISC. No objection to converting this to an hidden admin talk page category if this is just a matter of improving articles, rather than this gentes information being lost to history. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category, and all subcategories, potentially fail WP:NONDEF. The mere fact that a fictional work is set in a fictional location is almost never something to prominently mention, and is often implied by something being part of the fantasy genre (that isn't urban fantasy or something similar). The entire category tree was largely the work of one user who also made numerous other cats that were nominated for deletion in the past. ZXCVBNM (TALK)03:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: That already exists within the parent category Category:Atlantis in fiction where it should be, it was added to this parent category later. Ergo, it can continue to exist as it was originally. The fact that it was tacked onto other existing categories shouldn't preclude its deletion.ZXCVBNM (TALK)05:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: That would make sense if anything in the category tree specified that it referred to specific fictional locations, as opposed to basically any fictional location - which is how it is currently used. And in any case, if it were used in that manner it would need to be totally reorganized to the point of recreation anyway. An addendum: Atlantis is not considered a fictional location, but a mythological one.ZXCVBNM (TALK)06:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Alright, glad we could reach an agreement. The "___ set in fictional locations" categories can also be kept and renamed to "____ by fictional location". But the overly specific ones like "Works set on fictional moons" should be gotten rid of (probably by merging into their respective parent category).ZXCVBNM (TALK)06:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note to the closing admin that if this ends up being the result, the categories would become strictly container categories and therefore all articles within them that are not in sub-categories should be removed.ZXCVBNM (TALK)07:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The setting is often defining for any work, and the nomination seems to be motivated by hostility towards the category's creator. Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is non-defining. The fact that a fictional name is used for the setting tells us little about the work. In many cases this is done to avoid saying too much about a real place, or because the work wants to avoid being too pinned down. It's a Wonderful Life is not somehow different because it is set in a fictional place in New York than a real town. Superman being in fiction Metropolis and Smallville and Batman being in fictional Gotham are not quantitatively different than Spiderman who is set in the real New York City. It gets even more complex when some of the places are real and some are fictional, which is a very common occurance. Avengers all over the place jumps from very real places like New York and London to very fictional places like Wakanda and Sakovia. There are hundreds of reason works are set in fictional locations, and to treat the fact the location is fictional as a unifying characteristic is just not right. If you think broadly about this, you can have just as fantastic a story set in London, New York or Cody, Wyoming as in some made up place, and some works set in fictional places and totally and completely works of realiztic fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Mild support. "Magister equitum" is certainly more common nowadays, but the terms can still be used interchangeably, and sometimes ought to be just for the sake of variety. Readers are very likely to search under the English phrase as well as the Latin one, so the current title and any similarly unambiguous ones should still redirect to this article, whatever its title is after this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 Colombo Plan is a regional intergovernmental organization representing countries in the Asia-Pacific region which encourages economic development. One of their programs provides scholarships for Asian students to study at a university abroad, and the articles are already in the alumni category for that school. I'm sure the award was defining for those promising young people but Wikipedia doesn't have articles on promising young people. By the time these people are notable, the award is no longer defining and only gets a passing mention usually in the education, or awards sections in articles like J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Seah Kian Peng or any others you want to click on. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 Olmsted Scholar Program is an American scholarship for young military personnel to attend foreign language and other studies at colleges abroad, and the articles are already in the alumni category for that school. I'm sure the award was defining for those promising young people but Wikipedia doesn't have articles on promising young people. By the time these people are notable, the award is no longer defining and only gets a passing mention usually in the education, awards or early career section in articles like John Abizaid, Carlisle Trost or any others you want to click on. The current contents are now fully listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this amounts to an overcategorization by source of funding. The one we have that is justified is the Rhodes Scholars, but that is because they are sub-units of a particular school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Films by audience
