Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 2 December 4 >

December 3

Category:Automotive businesspeople

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. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 16:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates existing Category:Businesspeople in the automobile industry, all the articles in it are car people rather than trucks etc Le Deluge ( talk) 23:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or reverse merge, the two categories have an identical purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Combine I'll defer to others for the best name but these clearly overlap. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Combine / merge, Seem to serve the same purpose. No strong feelings over which should be the preferred name. Eagleash ( talk) 20:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Same scope. Dimadick ( talk) 22:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge No objections to merging, they have the same scope. I would suggest keeping the name "Automotive Businesspeople" as it makes the category much easier to find, as there are dozens of categories named "Businesspeople in __" to scroll through, which is how a duplicate category was accidentally created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildwillmor ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge Automotive businesspeople is just as clear, and less wordy. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:46, 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:Water Polo players at the 1955 Pan American Games

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories (lowercase p). Simeon ( talk) 23:03, 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.

Mayors in Utrecht (province)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge All For Now These places obviously had more than 5 mayors but most are likely non-notable. No objection to recreating any if they get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge all. These are all too small to be justified. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:47, 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:Suburbs in Colombo District

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 19:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer, Colombo District mainly consists of the city of Colombo, so this category can't contain anything else but Category:Suburbs of Colombo. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:39, 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:Politicians by regional unit of Greece

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The rest of Category:People by regional unit in Greece is purely geographical. Hard to see why we want to separate out politicians from different levels of geographical divisions. None of the articles in, for example Category:People from Piraeus (regional unit) contains any reference to the regional unit, which of course did not exist when they were born. See discussion below of Category:Politicians by second-level administrative country subdivision
Nominator's rationale: contains only 2 sub categories. Not enough articles about Greek politicians to populate many more. The rest of Category:People by administrative region in Greece contains only geographical categories. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:00, 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:Clans of Hao

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category with sinigle entry. The linked article does not mention Hao in the text so unclear what is about. No Clans of Hao article. Hao is a dab page with no entry for a clan noq ( talk) 11:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep hao is a term mainly used by Meitei to mean the various tribes.But in fact many research finding shows Meitei community itself included among the term hao.
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) 20:39, 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.

Heterocyclic compounds according to element

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 The Bushranger One ping only 04:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:SMALLCAT. It may actually be helpful to recategorize by group. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 09:00, 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) 20:38, 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:Destroyed landmarks in Croatia

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 19:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A pure container category, per other recent CSDs "landmark" is subjective and shouldn't be used, and the sub-cats are already properly sub-catted elsewhere. SportingFlyer T· C 20:15, 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:Formerly missing people found dead

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 19:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete as WP:NONDEF. User:Namiba 20:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not defining, someone missing for a few minutes as in "where are you honey?" and then discovered deceased seems to fit the bill but is probably a common occurrence for those who died unattended. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A temporary status that is not defining. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, once people are found dead they are no longer missing, so it is very unlikely they will be remembered as missing as a primary characteristic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We do not need to classify people by everything that happens. This is sadly far too common, and not long ter defining. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There are lots of categories relating to death which are completely superfluous. Very few people are defined by the circumstances of their death. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In many of the articles covered, people were missing for years or decades, until their remains were covered. They should not be removed from categories concerning missing people. Dimadick ( talk) 23:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Can you give some examples of articles where you think it's a defining characteristic? In the sample of articles I looked at (e.g. Etika) it isn't. DexDor (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Agree that it may be defining in case people were missing for an exceptionally long period. But where would we draw the line? We will run in an WP:ARBITRARYCAT issue with this. A list is a better solution. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Well to pick at random one case Murder of Rashawn Brazell (so not technically an article on a person at all) shows that Mr. Brazell's dismembered body was found the same month he went missing. So it seems like we have used the guideline that you were officially reported missing and then found dead. Since you can be officially reported missing after only 24-hours in some cases, many of these cases will mainly be thought of as murders, not as missing person cases turned to murders. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:53, 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:Animated television series featuring female protagonists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Convert Category:Animated television series featuring female protagonists to article List of animated television series featuring female protagonists
Nominator's rationale: Listify or Delete: As discussed at this CfD, the use of terms such as protagonist and antagonist has been contentious in the past, to the point that WP:PROTAGONIST was created as a way of addressing original research concerns. Converting this category into a list will allow sources to be provided clearly establishing that the television series belongs as a member of the list. DonIago ( talk) 19:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no objection to listification is reliable sources tell us this is a notable characteristic. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and I wonder if a list would not run into the same problem. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not a defining characteristic. "Featuring" and "protagonist" are original research editor judgment calls and seldom actually sourced or mentioned in the articles. Female characters in principal cast is fairly universal so pointless to use that as criteria. Female character as lead character is generally sourced in credits as first listed and that is likely what was desired for inclusion here. Still so common as to be pointless to categorize. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 19:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is merging all sorts of unlike things. A list would not be helpful either. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:54, 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:Yakuza films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename per current convention, to make more clear that this category is for films where the yakuza play a significant role, versus incidental appearances. DonIago ( talk) 19:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Withdrawing per Dimadick's argument below. DonIago ( talk) 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete another "films about" category without objectively-defined inclusion criteria much less any inkling of what reliable sources tell us that each film merits inclusion. If this is a notable genre, listify it and source it. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The main article is called Yakuza film, and defines it a specific genre. Dimadick ( talk) 23:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That is a reasonable oppose. I have struck my earlier support. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BlyatPutin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 2#Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BlyatPutin

Category:Poisonous plants

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 19:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Whether something is poisonous (can be fatal or extreme irritant to humans) depends upon how it is prepared, the amount consumed, how vulnerable the human is etc. Hence, it's not a good characteristic to categorize by.  In some if the articles in the category (e.g. Agave) there is little/no mention of the plant being poisonous.  Note: there is List of poisonous plants.  See previous CFDs e.g. minerals and fish. DexDor (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and precedent. Even plants on our everyday table may have toxins that may harm susceptible people. Potatoes come to mind. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Almost everything is poisonous if taken in sufficient quantity. It's just that the sufficient quantity varies between things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Poisonous is subjective, dependent on dose and potentially negated by preparation techiques. Nicotiana tabacum is in the category and is consumed daily by around 1 billion people with essentially no deaths due to acute toxicity (cancer deaths from chronic use are common, but that doesn't seem to be what the category is about). Many culinary herbs could be toxic if consumed in far larger quantities than is typical. Other plants in the category that are commonly consumed with no problems at normal doses (and leaving cancer aside) include: Areca catechu, Boldo, Lablab, Mentha pulegium, Phytolacca americana Pimenta racemosa, Ruta graveolens, Sambucus, Silybum marianum, and Solanum nigrum. Plantdrew ( talk) 16:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is too species-dependent. Some plants that are relatively safe for humans, such as chocolate, are poisonous to other animals. (The list is specific to humans and domestic animals.) – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is not really defining to plants, especially because as pointed out in the nomination lots of factors can effect this. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:55, 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:Korea Image Awards Winners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 19:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD, no corresponding article for Korea Image Award or similar, no indication of notability and there's no mention of the award in the main text of several of the included articles. Le Deluge ( talk) 18:15, 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.

Imperial Russian people of Polish descent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#Imperial Russian people of Polish descent

Imperial Russian people of Baltic German descent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#Imperial Russian people of Baltic German descent

Imperial Russian people of Georgian descent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#Imperial Russian people of Georgian descent

Russian Empire people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People of the Russian Empire, etc, but using "from" rather than "of" for historians, geographers, geologists and emigrants per siblings. – Fayenatic London 13:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Full list of renames implemented

The following were added as speedy housekeeping by admin action; most were originally created by the nominator, some during the course of this discussion:

The following were also processed in error, as they were separately listed above, or on other log pages, but are now all relisted on the January 26 log:

  • Comment I just discovered we also have Category:Austrian Empire people, it was just not under Category:People by former country. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose unless all of the subcategories are nominated; they have not yet been. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • This is par for the course obstructionism. There are an insanely high number of categories, probably in excess of 100 all told. It is a tedious process to nominate even one category for renaming. I am trying to nominate everything but there is a huge amount of stuff here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I'm not obstructing anything. You are free to nominate as many as you choose, but I am stating my opinion that they should not be changed unless all of them are changed. This is a fairly common opinion that is often expressed in big nominations. Making big changes sometimes requires a large amount of work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
        • You are being obstructionist. You are intentially making this category bigger so that you can ide behind your proceduralism to enforce the existing system and make it too hard for any editor to actually change things to the way they ought to be. That is the very definition of obstructionism. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
          • I have no idea what you are talking about. You're certainly not assuming good faith. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply
          • @ Johnpacklambert: I suppose you would not have been satisfied with leaving half of these categories in the old format, would you? So that's basically the same thing that GOF aims for. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply
            • And to be clear, I support the proposal if all of the categories are nominated. So I'm hardly being "obstructionist". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. johnpacklambert, the nominator, has created Category:Russian Empire people as a fork and has begun categorizing it with subcategories. Can we hold off on this until we see what form we are going to to use? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support Clearer scope. Dimadick ( talk) 23:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support As long as whole tree is nominated. SFB 04:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am not nominating any of the military related subsections. That is because the force categories seem to have articles like Imperial Russian Navy. I think that particular set of issues needs to be considered seperately. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Looking at today's Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories, it looks like someone is emptying Imperial Russian categories this week. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Most if not all of those categories had 1 or 2 entries. I really do not see the point in preserving such small categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Johnpacklambert, if you disagree with the existence of a category, you should nominate it for deletion, not empty it. And you certainly should not be emptying out "Imperial Russian FOOs" categories and replacing them with "Russian Empire FOOs". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Which is not at all what I was doing. I was emptying the people to parent categories because I makes no sense to have 1 or 2 entry by occupation categories for a given nationality. Obstructionists who assume bad faith on the part of others would not at all realize this. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Well, I found and redirected a number of new "Russian Empire FOOs" categories to the corresponding "Imperial Russian FOOs" categories. You created the new ones and populated them after nominating the "Imperial Russian FOOs" categories, so you can't exactly claim you weren't aware of them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support, now that JPL has completed the necessary nominations. Good Olfactory is correct, please respect the process. If there were too many, it might have been better to nominate the parent, then work your way down the tree.
    1. In any case, all the others in Category:Former empires in Europe seem to be <FooBarian> Empire, so this is a decent match.
    2. However, there are quite a few that should be merged. Category:Imperial Russian Armenians + Category:Imperial Russian people of Armenian descent. These (and the others) should only be in a combined descent category. And I'm fairly sure those categories need a lot of purging.
    3. Where are the Russians of Orthodox descent? If it's not notable for Orthodox, it's probably not notable for Jews.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 00:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I would suggest waiting to make a decision on the two Armenian related categories for a seperate discussion. There is a broader discussion on the issue in progress, and it is clear that some feel in some countries the Citizen of country x+Armenain form works (Lebanon is probably the modern country where there is the strongest argument for it. Likewise the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union all have strong reason for us to use this form. With historical Armenian areas under the control of the Russian Empire (more so than either the Soviet Union or modern Armenia, some of what was the Russian Empire and mainly Armenian is now in Turkey), even if an Armenian was living in St. Petersburg, Moscow or Kiev, they would still be able to travel home to ancestral areas of pure Armenianess at will. So I think it is the Category:Russian Empire people of Armenian descent we don't need. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Great, please remove all the "descent" categories that should not be currently under consideration here.
        William Allen Simpson ( talk) 15:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Jewishness is an ethno-religious category, so comparing it to Russian Orthodoxy is just not accurate. Also keep in mind that ERGS rules say that we do not categorize by something that is overwhelmingly common. Thus we would never make a category Category:English people of English descent. I have reservations about Jewish descent, especially applied pre-1900. Pre-1900 the idea people could cease to be religious Jews and still in some sense be Jews was not really accepted. So having a Jewish parent or once Jewish parent while not in any way yourself being Jewish was not really defining at the time. The think is Category:People of Jewish descent is a multi-national category. I think at one time I managed to get it deleted, arguing that for these people the fact that they are just of this descent, and do not in any way fit the designation "Jewish", meant that it was inherently non-defining. However others felt such a need to categorize by it the category came back. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Russian Orthodoxy is also an ethno-religious category. The main body would normally be Orthodox Catholic, but the Russian Orthodox split themselves. Around here, the Russian Orthodox community actually send their children to a Russian-only speaking school.
        William Allen Simpson ( talk) 16:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I'm glad there is something we agree upon. Category:People of Jewish descent was deleted in 2007, 2009, and 2011. But let's start here. There is nothing notable about having Jewish ancestors in the Russian Empire. As opposed to actually being a Jewish rabbi.
        William Allen Simpson ( talk) 16:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
        • I don't question that as a justified move. However I think to do it you would need to create a seperate nomination to get it done. If I recall correctly there is only one person in that category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment At present Imperial Russia is a redirect to Russian Empire. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support It's an improvement in my book (better scope and wording). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 05:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • As far as I can tell the scope is not meant to be changed at all, although the scope is more clear from the new name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support clearer scope overall and consistency with other categories. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 02:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Admin question: there is consensus now to change from using "Imperial" to "Empire", but as so much work has gone into this nomination, can we first check whether to use "Russian Empire people" which is like 7 "Empire" siblings in People by former country (ignoring one newly-created duplicate), or "People of the Russian Empire" which is like 34 "Empire" siblings? – Fayenatic London 10:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply
I think "X of the Russian Empire" is the more idiomatic phrasing for these categories, but either outcome is an improvement so happy to support either. SFB 11:08, 20 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:Diseases in the trenches

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) 00:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I don't have a strong view on this, but it either needs to be moved into the Category:20th-century disease outbreaks‎ hierarchy, renamed to Category:Diseases associated with warfare or similar - or just deleted as a WP:SMALLCAT. Le Deluge ( talk) 17:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Trench warfare per WP:SMALLCAT or else rename to Category:Diseases associated with warfare as a clearer category name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- While both are identified with WWI, neither is specific to it. The fever is a lice-born disease, while the foot was first identified in 1812. If kept, rename to Category:Diseases of trench warfare. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Trench fever became notable during World War I, but the main article indicates that it was not a new disease. It has been found in the remains of people who lived between the 1st and the 19th century. Would World War I be defining for it? Dimadick ( talk) 23:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Although possibly best known for WWI these diseases aren't specifically about WW1. Thus, the relationship between the diseases and WW1 should be (just) by normal text/links. Category:Foot diseases etc are sufficient categorization. DexDor (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this connection is not defining to the diseases in question in a way that they are worth categorizing by. Nor does it make them a distinct group. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:09, 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:Politicians by second-level administrative country subdivision

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) 00:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This intermediate category appears only to work for the USA. I cant see why we need to keep Category:County officers in the United States in a third level subcategory. In other places administrative levels dont seem to be used in the same way. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:39, 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:Banijay Group

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. MER-C 15:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Since the completion of Endemol Shine Group in July 2020, Banijay Group has been simplified its name as Banijay. Ridwan97 ( talk) 07:06, 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:SCIRA commodores

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Category:SCIRA commodores

Category:Hydroelectric power plants in the United States by state

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Every other type of similar category is "stations" i.e. "Geothermal power stations", "Natural gas-fired power stations", "Oil-fired power stations", master category "Power stations" etc. jp× g 00:41, 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:Hunter Marine

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. MER-C 15:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: If the article Hunter Marine was removed, this category would be categorizing exclusively articles about specific Hunter Marine boat models. I suggest renaming and then removing the parents Category:American boat builders and Category:Yacht building companies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 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:Recipients of the Order of Charity (Ottoman Empire)

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 19:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When prominent female leaders visited the Ottoman Empire, the Order of Charity (Ottoman Empire) was given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, Alexandra of Denmark and Princess Victoria Louise of Prussia are not remotely defined by this award. There wasn't a list so I created one here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:05, 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:Recipients of the Indira Gandhi Peace Prize

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 19:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD)
The Indira Gandhi Prize is meant to promote world peace which is certainly a worthy cause but the award does not seem defining for Mikhail Gorbachev, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Doctors Without Borders, Parliamentarians for Global Action or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Thoe articles mention the award in passing with other honours, if at all but most tellingly the Václav Havel article discusses not winning the Nobel Peace Prize more prominently than actually winning this award. The recipients are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:05, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_3&oldid=1007580034"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 2 December 4 >

December 3

Category:Automotive businesspeople

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. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 16:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates existing Category:Businesspeople in the automobile industry, all the articles in it are car people rather than trucks etc Le Deluge ( talk) 23:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or reverse merge, the two categories have an identical purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Combine I'll defer to others for the best name but these clearly overlap. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Combine / merge, Seem to serve the same purpose. No strong feelings over which should be the preferred name. Eagleash ( talk) 20:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Same scope. Dimadick ( talk) 22:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge No objections to merging, they have the same scope. I would suggest keeping the name "Automotive Businesspeople" as it makes the category much easier to find, as there are dozens of categories named "Businesspeople in __" to scroll through, which is how a duplicate category was accidentally created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildwillmor ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge Automotive businesspeople is just as clear, and less wordy. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:46, 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:Water Polo players at the 1955 Pan American Games

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories (lowercase p). Simeon ( talk) 23:03, 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.

Mayors in Utrecht (province)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge All For Now These places obviously had more than 5 mayors but most are likely non-notable. No objection to recreating any if they get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge all. These are all too small to be justified. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:47, 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:Suburbs in Colombo District

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 19:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer, Colombo District mainly consists of the city of Colombo, so this category can't contain anything else but Category:Suburbs of Colombo. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:39, 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:Politicians by regional unit of Greece

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The rest of Category:People by regional unit in Greece is purely geographical. Hard to see why we want to separate out politicians from different levels of geographical divisions. None of the articles in, for example Category:People from Piraeus (regional unit) contains any reference to the regional unit, which of course did not exist when they were born. See discussion below of Category:Politicians by second-level administrative country subdivision
Nominator's rationale: contains only 2 sub categories. Not enough articles about Greek politicians to populate many more. The rest of Category:People by administrative region in Greece contains only geographical categories. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:00, 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:Clans of Hao

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category with sinigle entry. The linked article does not mention Hao in the text so unclear what is about. No Clans of Hao article. Hao is a dab page with no entry for a clan noq ( talk) 11:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep hao is a term mainly used by Meitei to mean the various tribes.But in fact many research finding shows Meitei community itself included among the term hao.
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) 20:39, 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.

Heterocyclic compounds according to element

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 The Bushranger One ping only 04:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:SMALLCAT. It may actually be helpful to recategorize by group. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 09:00, 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) 20:38, 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:Destroyed landmarks in Croatia

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 19:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A pure container category, per other recent CSDs "landmark" is subjective and shouldn't be used, and the sub-cats are already properly sub-catted elsewhere. SportingFlyer T· C 20:15, 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:Formerly missing people found dead

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 19:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete as WP:NONDEF. User:Namiba 20:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not defining, someone missing for a few minutes as in "where are you honey?" and then discovered deceased seems to fit the bill but is probably a common occurrence for those who died unattended. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A temporary status that is not defining. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, once people are found dead they are no longer missing, so it is very unlikely they will be remembered as missing as a primary characteristic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We do not need to classify people by everything that happens. This is sadly far too common, and not long ter defining. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There are lots of categories relating to death which are completely superfluous. Very few people are defined by the circumstances of their death. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In many of the articles covered, people were missing for years or decades, until their remains were covered. They should not be removed from categories concerning missing people. Dimadick ( talk) 23:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Can you give some examples of articles where you think it's a defining characteristic? In the sample of articles I looked at (e.g. Etika) it isn't. DexDor (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Agree that it may be defining in case people were missing for an exceptionally long period. But where would we draw the line? We will run in an WP:ARBITRARYCAT issue with this. A list is a better solution. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Well to pick at random one case Murder of Rashawn Brazell (so not technically an article on a person at all) shows that Mr. Brazell's dismembered body was found the same month he went missing. So it seems like we have used the guideline that you were officially reported missing and then found dead. Since you can be officially reported missing after only 24-hours in some cases, many of these cases will mainly be thought of as murders, not as missing person cases turned to murders. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:53, 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:Animated television series featuring female protagonists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Convert Category:Animated television series featuring female protagonists to article List of animated television series featuring female protagonists
Nominator's rationale: Listify or Delete: As discussed at this CfD, the use of terms such as protagonist and antagonist has been contentious in the past, to the point that WP:PROTAGONIST was created as a way of addressing original research concerns. Converting this category into a list will allow sources to be provided clearly establishing that the television series belongs as a member of the list. DonIago ( talk) 19:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no objection to listification is reliable sources tell us this is a notable characteristic. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and I wonder if a list would not run into the same problem. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not a defining characteristic. "Featuring" and "protagonist" are original research editor judgment calls and seldom actually sourced or mentioned in the articles. Female characters in principal cast is fairly universal so pointless to use that as criteria. Female character as lead character is generally sourced in credits as first listed and that is likely what was desired for inclusion here. Still so common as to be pointless to categorize. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 19:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is merging all sorts of unlike things. A list would not be helpful either. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:54, 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:Yakuza films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename per current convention, to make more clear that this category is for films where the yakuza play a significant role, versus incidental appearances. DonIago ( talk) 19:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Withdrawing per Dimadick's argument below. DonIago ( talk) 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete another "films about" category without objectively-defined inclusion criteria much less any inkling of what reliable sources tell us that each film merits inclusion. If this is a notable genre, listify it and source it. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The main article is called Yakuza film, and defines it a specific genre. Dimadick ( talk) 23:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That is a reasonable oppose. I have struck my earlier support. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BlyatPutin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 2#Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BlyatPutin

Category:Poisonous plants

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 19:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Whether something is poisonous (can be fatal or extreme irritant to humans) depends upon how it is prepared, the amount consumed, how vulnerable the human is etc. Hence, it's not a good characteristic to categorize by.  In some if the articles in the category (e.g. Agave) there is little/no mention of the plant being poisonous.  Note: there is List of poisonous plants.  See previous CFDs e.g. minerals and fish. DexDor (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and precedent. Even plants on our everyday table may have toxins that may harm susceptible people. Potatoes come to mind. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Almost everything is poisonous if taken in sufficient quantity. It's just that the sufficient quantity varies between things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Poisonous is subjective, dependent on dose and potentially negated by preparation techiques. Nicotiana tabacum is in the category and is consumed daily by around 1 billion people with essentially no deaths due to acute toxicity (cancer deaths from chronic use are common, but that doesn't seem to be what the category is about). Many culinary herbs could be toxic if consumed in far larger quantities than is typical. Other plants in the category that are commonly consumed with no problems at normal doses (and leaving cancer aside) include: Areca catechu, Boldo, Lablab, Mentha pulegium, Phytolacca americana Pimenta racemosa, Ruta graveolens, Sambucus, Silybum marianum, and Solanum nigrum. Plantdrew ( talk) 16:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is too species-dependent. Some plants that are relatively safe for humans, such as chocolate, are poisonous to other animals. (The list is specific to humans and domestic animals.) – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is not really defining to plants, especially because as pointed out in the nomination lots of factors can effect this. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:55, 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:Korea Image Awards Winners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 19:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD, no corresponding article for Korea Image Award or similar, no indication of notability and there's no mention of the award in the main text of several of the included articles. Le Deluge ( talk) 18:15, 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.

Imperial Russian people of Polish descent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#Imperial Russian people of Polish descent

Imperial Russian people of Baltic German descent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#Imperial Russian people of Baltic German descent

Imperial Russian people of Georgian descent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#Imperial Russian people of Georgian descent

Russian Empire people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People of the Russian Empire, etc, but using "from" rather than "of" for historians, geographers, geologists and emigrants per siblings. – Fayenatic London 13:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Full list of renames implemented

The following were added as speedy housekeeping by admin action; most were originally created by the nominator, some during the course of this discussion:

The following were also processed in error, as they were separately listed above, or on other log pages, but are now all relisted on the January 26 log:

  • Comment I just discovered we also have Category:Austrian Empire people, it was just not under Category:People by former country. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose unless all of the subcategories are nominated; they have not yet been. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • This is par for the course obstructionism. There are an insanely high number of categories, probably in excess of 100 all told. It is a tedious process to nominate even one category for renaming. I am trying to nominate everything but there is a huge amount of stuff here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I'm not obstructing anything. You are free to nominate as many as you choose, but I am stating my opinion that they should not be changed unless all of them are changed. This is a fairly common opinion that is often expressed in big nominations. Making big changes sometimes requires a large amount of work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
        • You are being obstructionist. You are intentially making this category bigger so that you can ide behind your proceduralism to enforce the existing system and make it too hard for any editor to actually change things to the way they ought to be. That is the very definition of obstructionism. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
          • I have no idea what you are talking about. You're certainly not assuming good faith. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply
          • @ Johnpacklambert: I suppose you would not have been satisfied with leaving half of these categories in the old format, would you? So that's basically the same thing that GOF aims for. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply
            • And to be clear, I support the proposal if all of the categories are nominated. So I'm hardly being "obstructionist". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. johnpacklambert, the nominator, has created Category:Russian Empire people as a fork and has begun categorizing it with subcategories. Can we hold off on this until we see what form we are going to to use? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support Clearer scope. Dimadick ( talk) 23:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support As long as whole tree is nominated. SFB 04:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am not nominating any of the military related subsections. That is because the force categories seem to have articles like Imperial Russian Navy. I think that particular set of issues needs to be considered seperately. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Looking at today's Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories, it looks like someone is emptying Imperial Russian categories this week. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Most if not all of those categories had 1 or 2 entries. I really do not see the point in preserving such small categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Johnpacklambert, if you disagree with the existence of a category, you should nominate it for deletion, not empty it. And you certainly should not be emptying out "Imperial Russian FOOs" categories and replacing them with "Russian Empire FOOs". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Which is not at all what I was doing. I was emptying the people to parent categories because I makes no sense to have 1 or 2 entry by occupation categories for a given nationality. Obstructionists who assume bad faith on the part of others would not at all realize this. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Well, I found and redirected a number of new "Russian Empire FOOs" categories to the corresponding "Imperial Russian FOOs" categories. You created the new ones and populated them after nominating the "Imperial Russian FOOs" categories, so you can't exactly claim you weren't aware of them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support, now that JPL has completed the necessary nominations. Good Olfactory is correct, please respect the process. If there were too many, it might have been better to nominate the parent, then work your way down the tree.
    1. In any case, all the others in Category:Former empires in Europe seem to be <FooBarian> Empire, so this is a decent match.
    2. However, there are quite a few that should be merged. Category:Imperial Russian Armenians + Category:Imperial Russian people of Armenian descent. These (and the others) should only be in a combined descent category. And I'm fairly sure those categories need a lot of purging.
    3. Where are the Russians of Orthodox descent? If it's not notable for Orthodox, it's probably not notable for Jews.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 00:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I would suggest waiting to make a decision on the two Armenian related categories for a seperate discussion. There is a broader discussion on the issue in progress, and it is clear that some feel in some countries the Citizen of country x+Armenain form works (Lebanon is probably the modern country where there is the strongest argument for it. Likewise the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union all have strong reason for us to use this form. With historical Armenian areas under the control of the Russian Empire (more so than either the Soviet Union or modern Armenia, some of what was the Russian Empire and mainly Armenian is now in Turkey), even if an Armenian was living in St. Petersburg, Moscow or Kiev, they would still be able to travel home to ancestral areas of pure Armenianess at will. So I think it is the Category:Russian Empire people of Armenian descent we don't need. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Great, please remove all the "descent" categories that should not be currently under consideration here.
        William Allen Simpson ( talk) 15:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Jewishness is an ethno-religious category, so comparing it to Russian Orthodoxy is just not accurate. Also keep in mind that ERGS rules say that we do not categorize by something that is overwhelmingly common. Thus we would never make a category Category:English people of English descent. I have reservations about Jewish descent, especially applied pre-1900. Pre-1900 the idea people could cease to be religious Jews and still in some sense be Jews was not really accepted. So having a Jewish parent or once Jewish parent while not in any way yourself being Jewish was not really defining at the time. The think is Category:People of Jewish descent is a multi-national category. I think at one time I managed to get it deleted, arguing that for these people the fact that they are just of this descent, and do not in any way fit the designation "Jewish", meant that it was inherently non-defining. However others felt such a need to categorize by it the category came back. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Russian Orthodoxy is also an ethno-religious category. The main body would normally be Orthodox Catholic, but the Russian Orthodox split themselves. Around here, the Russian Orthodox community actually send their children to a Russian-only speaking school.
        William Allen Simpson ( talk) 16:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I'm glad there is something we agree upon. Category:People of Jewish descent was deleted in 2007, 2009, and 2011. But let's start here. There is nothing notable about having Jewish ancestors in the Russian Empire. As opposed to actually being a Jewish rabbi.
        William Allen Simpson ( talk) 16:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
        • I don't question that as a justified move. However I think to do it you would need to create a seperate nomination to get it done. If I recall correctly there is only one person in that category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment At present Imperial Russia is a redirect to Russian Empire. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support It's an improvement in my book (better scope and wording). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 05:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • As far as I can tell the scope is not meant to be changed at all, although the scope is more clear from the new name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support clearer scope overall and consistency with other categories. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 02:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Admin question: there is consensus now to change from using "Imperial" to "Empire", but as so much work has gone into this nomination, can we first check whether to use "Russian Empire people" which is like 7 "Empire" siblings in People by former country (ignoring one newly-created duplicate), or "People of the Russian Empire" which is like 34 "Empire" siblings? – Fayenatic London 10:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply
I think "X of the Russian Empire" is the more idiomatic phrasing for these categories, but either outcome is an improvement so happy to support either. SFB 11:08, 20 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:Diseases in the trenches

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) 00:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I don't have a strong view on this, but it either needs to be moved into the Category:20th-century disease outbreaks‎ hierarchy, renamed to Category:Diseases associated with warfare or similar - or just deleted as a WP:SMALLCAT. Le Deluge ( talk) 17:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Trench warfare per WP:SMALLCAT or else rename to Category:Diseases associated with warfare as a clearer category name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- While both are identified with WWI, neither is specific to it. The fever is a lice-born disease, while the foot was first identified in 1812. If kept, rename to Category:Diseases of trench warfare. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Trench fever became notable during World War I, but the main article indicates that it was not a new disease. It has been found in the remains of people who lived between the 1st and the 19th century. Would World War I be defining for it? Dimadick ( talk) 23:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Although possibly best known for WWI these diseases aren't specifically about WW1. Thus, the relationship between the diseases and WW1 should be (just) by normal text/links. Category:Foot diseases etc are sufficient categorization. DexDor (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this connection is not defining to the diseases in question in a way that they are worth categorizing by. Nor does it make them a distinct group. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:09, 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:Politicians by second-level administrative country subdivision

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) 00:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This intermediate category appears only to work for the USA. I cant see why we need to keep Category:County officers in the United States in a third level subcategory. In other places administrative levels dont seem to be used in the same way. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:39, 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:Banijay Group

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. MER-C 15:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Since the completion of Endemol Shine Group in July 2020, Banijay Group has been simplified its name as Banijay. Ridwan97 ( talk) 07:06, 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:SCIRA commodores

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Category:SCIRA commodores

Category:Hydroelectric power plants in the United States by state

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Every other type of similar category is "stations" i.e. "Geothermal power stations", "Natural gas-fired power stations", "Oil-fired power stations", master category "Power stations" etc. jp× g 00:41, 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:Hunter Marine

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. MER-C 15:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: If the article Hunter Marine was removed, this category would be categorizing exclusively articles about specific Hunter Marine boat models. I suggest renaming and then removing the parents Category:American boat builders and Category:Yacht building companies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 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:Recipients of the Order of Charity (Ottoman Empire)

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 19:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When prominent female leaders visited the Ottoman Empire, the Order of Charity (Ottoman Empire) was given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, Alexandra of Denmark and Princess Victoria Louise of Prussia are not remotely defined by this award. There wasn't a list so I created one here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:05, 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:Recipients of the Indira Gandhi Peace Prize

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 19:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD)
The Indira Gandhi Prize is meant to promote world peace which is certainly a worthy cause but the award does not seem defining for Mikhail Gorbachev, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Doctors Without Borders, Parliamentarians for Global Action or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Thoe articles mention the award in passing with other honours, if at all but most tellingly the Václav Havel article discusses not winning the Nobel Peace Prize more prominently than actually winning this award. The recipients are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:05, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_3&oldid=1007580034"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE