Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 14 December 16 >

December 15[edit]

Category:Sportseople from West Nusa Tenggara[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per criterion R3, which while it says "recently created" WP:COMMONSENSE/WP:IAR applies here. The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful redirect category. None of the other "Sportspeople from -" categories have one of these. (Letter P missing from the word Sportspeople) Poydoo can talk and edit 23:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People frοm Arta (municipality)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:People from Arta, Greece (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: only content is Category:People from Arriana
Nominator's rationale: Empty apart from Category:People from Acheloos - which is empty.
Nominator's rationale: only content is Category:People from Archanes
Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:People from Almyros

NB there are hundreds more like this. See earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_6#Category:People_from_Fyli_(municipality). Rathfelder (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • If these are going to be merged a specific solution should be found, not automatically merged, making them almost impossible to find through navigation. People from Acheloos wasn't empty, for some reason its members were removed and I'm searching for them.
In the case they are automatically merged, let's give a more familiar example so it can better be understood what would happen. We have a category "People from California", with only on sub-category "People from San Francisco". These two would be merged into "People from San Francisco". Previously, the user could search by state of the USA, find California, and then find San Francisco. After the merge, California would be missing from the list of states, and San Francisco would be unreachable by searching by location in the USA, and going down the tree. It would only be found by specifically searching by city in the USA (and it would also be linked back to itself). --Antondimak (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People from Acheloos isn't empty anymore. --Antondimak (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only article Efi Thodi doesnt mention Acheloos. Antondimak seems to have done this to save the category. Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check the history before assuming bad faith. She is from Vrangiana, which is in the municipality of Acheloos, but the article was incorrectly edited, because of the assumption that she was from Karditsa. I reverted that edit. --Antondimak (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vrangiana appears to be in Agrafa (municipality). Rathfelder (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agrafa isn't even that near Karditsa, you have found a different settlement, albeit with a similar name. Vragkiana is definitely in Acheloos. Anyway, if you need to be convinced of Greek geography, here is the source, page 127 of 408. You can also check the Greek version of the Efi Thodi article. But I think this much mistrust is uncalled for. --Antondimak (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that we have lots of articles about people from California. We build categories upwards, starting from the articles, not downwards from the geography. And certainly as far as municipalities which share the name of the town nobody will be looking for the municipality. Rathfelder (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Municipalities are provinces, not actual municipalities, it's just a translation issue. Archanes-Asterousia doesn't exactly share the name, but I get it. There articles about people from these areas, just less than about people from California. If they are merged this way, it would be hard to find "People from <Greek city>" by searching "People from Greece by location". --Antondimak (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - these are downmerges, from a category to a subcat, very rarely a good idea. There are thousands of categories, many created by Rathfelder, whose only content is a single subcategory - not a problem. (Empty categories can be tagged as empty.) Oculi (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to regional units instead of downmerge. Antondimak and Oculi are right that the link with regional unit will be lost when downmerging, moreover Oculi is right that downmerging is never a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons previously stated. If merged, I propose downmerging, so that no information is lost, but with the supercategories of both are transferred to the new one. Therefore the harm to navigation would be minimised. --Antondimak (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These municipalities did not exist when most of the people were alive. They were established in 2011. The editors say the subject came from the nearest town, just as they say, where I live, that people come from Manchester when, in terms of local government, they actually come from some less well known local place. These municipal categories will stay empty. And NB the decisions in respect of Category:People_from_Fyli_(municipality) and Category:People from Katerini (municipality) were to delete them. What's different about these? Rathfelder (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is different is that in their case there was not adequate discussion of what would happen, just a vague "merge", without an actual plan of what would happen, and the consequences of that. These municipal units did exist before 2011. What didn't exist before 2011 are the municipalities. Before 2011, today's municipal units were called municipalities, which is in accordance to how the rest of the world names administrative divisions. Today's "municipalities" are more like provinces. You can say you are from Manchester, but nobody says they are from Fyli when they are from Ano Liosia for example. These modern "municipalities" are, as I have said before, more like "provinces". The categories could go further down into communities, but that is the point where the problem you mention appears, since most communities are so small that people from them could say they are from the equivalent municipal unit (in the rest of the world called a municipality), as is the example with Efi Thodi above. There is no category "People from Vrangiana", because that is a community, formerly a small town and now a village. So she is in the wider category of "People from Acheloos". --Antondimak (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an encyclopdia, not a directory. We dont build category structures in the hope that they will be populated. We establish categories when there are enough articles to populate them. Rathfelder (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:People from Archanes is no longer Category:People from Archanes-Asterousia's sole member, as the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Qatar is from Asterousia, and there is now an article about him. There are articles like this being created often, and they are another reason to keep the current provincial supercategories, as even those which have a single municipal subcategory are often expanded. --Antondimak (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not alter the fact that these categories, and many similar, are effectively empty.Rathfelder (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does "effectively empty" even mean? --Antondimak (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only content is an eponymous subcategory. There are also loads of similar categories with only one or two articles. We generally look for at least 5 articles to make a category viable. Rathfelder (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this case requiring at least 5 articles would make the structure un-searchable by geography. Anyway, in the case that just the eponymous sub-categories are contained, I'm not completely opposed to merging, we just have to do it in a way that both preserves the information and makes it navigable. --Antondimak (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, we need to do that by upmerging, as noted earlier. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles all say the people come from the town, not the municipality. Rathfelder (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would not preserve the information. The only way I see to maybe preserve both is what I proposed earlier, which would be a type of downmerging while keeping all the supercategories. But I still think it would be better it there was no merge at all, and for two of the proposals the rationales aren't true anymore. --Antondimak (talk) 22:06, 22 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.

Internal exiles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 09:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Latvian exiles in the Russian Empire to Category:Russian Empire internal exiles
  • Upmerge Category:Ukrainian exiles in the Russian Empire to Category:Russian Empire internal exiles
  • Upmerge Category:Polish exiles in the Russian Empire to Category:Russian Empire internal exiles
  • Upmerge Category:Russian exiles in the Russian Empire to Category:Russian Empire internal exiles
  • Nominator's rationale I am half wondering if we need these categories at all. All internal exile categories so far either cover people who had this happen to them under the Russian Empire or under the Soviet Union. Does this not happen in any other country, or do we just not categorize by it. Even worse though, these categories are imposing post-Russian Empire classifications on the Russian Empire. For example these was no Latvia or Ukraine as a distinct unit under the Russian Empire, the areas were split between multiple governorates which also incorporated areas outside the modern nations boundaries (do not get started on Ukraine with its currently disputed boundaries). Also in both polities the ethnonyms Ukrainian or Latvian only applied to a small part of the people there during Russian rule. In Ukraine the Jews saw themselves as their own ethnic group, there were lots of Russian, lots of Poles in some part of modern Ukraine, and the line between Ukrainians, Ruthenians and Belorusians was unclear, more imposed after the fall of the Russian Empire than before, plus in some areas there were also lots of Romanians, Greeks, Tatars and others. In Latvia there were some Russians, but the upper class would all have described themselves as ethnically German. With the Polish one, if someone wants we can try and sort out anyone who really belongs in Category:Kingdom of Poland expatriates in the Russian Empire, which would be 18th-century people from the Kingdom of Poland who were in this case I guess kicked out of Poland to the Russian Empire (assuming that it happened, I have doubts we have any articles on people who would fall under that category who are currently in this category. We should use that name to avoid miscategorization. The last category violates one of our basic rules, we do not have this type of people by ethnic group in a polity named after that ethnic group category (thus we do not have Category:French people of French descent or Cateogry:Spanish people of Spanish descnet (we probably should not allow Category:Israeli Jews as a direct category, but the ethno-religious nature of Judaism makes such things tricky.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The modern term Internally displaced person seems to fit their status but I'm not sure if it works in this historical context. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — already termed Russian Empire, so no change needed. No idea what "internal exile" means?!?!
    1. Latvians, Polish, Russian, and Ukrainians all considered themselves members of those places in that era.
    2. Just because they were temporarily conquered doesn't mean they lost their identity or language. And eventually gained it back!
    3. Russians in exile have to be exiled from somewhere to somewhere.
    4. Also, JPL made and populated the target category around the time of this nomination. We'll need to investigate where they were originally. What a mess....
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are just plain wrong. There was no Latvia and much more so no Ukraine to be identified by. Now you are just spouting nonsense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • JPL, your shenanigans have lost all credibility with me. "We" wikipedians have rarely (if ever) used the definition of polity that you ascribe. We use the terms that people commonly use(d) about themselves. When the Moscovites overran Ukraine, the Ukrainians did not suddenly think, "I'm now a Russian Empirian, I'll give up my language and culture." Likewise, Polish. If you've got citations to the contrary, you'll need to produce them in your tenditious arguments.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We categorize people by the country they are citizens or subjects of. These categories are not about language or culture by citizenship and who you are subject to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert, I don't think that what you say is universally the case. We categorize people by what they commonly used for themselves, even if they were subject to some "higher" empire or "polity". A person who lived in present-day Ukraine during the days of the Russian Empire can legitimately be referred to as a "Ukrainian person" (as well as a person of the Russian Empire). When multiple editors start to say the same thing to you, it may be time to take notice and reconsider. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • there was no Ukraine under the Russian empire. This is not like the situation under the Soviet Union. There were a bunch of units within the Russian Empire, many of them with boundaries transcending the modern country. Many of the residents would have seen themselves as Russians. Others as Jews or Poles. This is a clearly case on anachronisticly trying to impose the present on the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, JPL believes historians are wrong. "In the last three centuries the population of Ukraine experienced periods of Polonization and Russification, but preserved a common culture and a sense of common identity." Ukraine is attested to 1187. People continued to call themselves Ukrainians. In particular, the Cossacks, who appended "of Ukraine" in the mid-17th century. The Russian Empire census had a class called Ukrainian. JPL is nit-picking that the region was split among various governorates during the Russian Empire.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or keep, probably the former. You can't really be in exile within the country you are living in, and that does not change when you do not like that you live in that country. However merging as nominated solves nothing. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After thinking about this more, this whole structure needs to be deleted. We do not categorize by such levels of internal movement because it is so common and not clearly defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The categorization by citizenship or who you are a subject of is really the only workable way, because otherwise someone like Volf Bronner who ethnically was Buryat would not be easily put in any nationality category. It would also make a category like Nigerian medical doctors unneeded, and we would have a true mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Russian Empire (like Ottoman Empire) contained multiple ethnicities. The Empire was in the habit of banishing dissidents into exile in Siberia. Being a person so banished is significant and worthy of a category. Possibly it does not need to be split by ethnicity. It is not the same as internally displaced people, who are generally refugees, not people sentenced to exile for a period. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why should we merge all the ethnicities of the Russian Empire into a single category? It makes no sense. Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Peterkingiron. As stated before, the categories above contain notable people who were banished and exiled mostly to Siberia for their national and/or political views.--Darwinek (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that it is useful and helpful to keep the four nationalities separated rather than lumping them all into one. They are all subcategories within the same proposed target, so we're not really losing any coherence by keeping it as is, and we're gaining a subcategorization that is not trivial. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 19 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.

Imperial Russian emigrants to Finland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#Imperial Russian emigrants to Finland

Immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 09:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — The main article is Thirteen Colonies. This is reflected in the structure Category:Thirteen Colonies.
    • These categories were renamed from "migrant" to "emigrant". Now JPL is complaining that they were only migrating, not "e"migrating.
    • Whether or not JPL likes it, people actually wrote at the time that they were emigrating (to the Colonies, to Australia, etc), and there are plenty of citations.
      1. My Scottish ancestors, in fact, wrote immigrant (and other variations in spelling) dates in the family Bibles.
      2. Actually, my Scottish forebears were rather famously opposed to the "United" Kingdom itself, and didn't consider themselves subject to the "English" crown. His "British" polity has no basis in reality.
      3. The only time that I've visited Scotland, my distant relatives insisted on my going to the Battle of Culloden site (which I'd never heard of before that). Conflicts still not forgotten after centuries, longer than the United States has existed.
    • Moreover, I'm tiring of this presentist argument. We should stop trying to figure out a scheme for things as they might have been named at the time.
    • This is for navigating, not historical classification. Somebody who moved to a place that is Delaware now is how we should categorize it. If Delaware changes its boundaries, then we can change to match.
    • Finally, we shouldn't be wasting so much time on where Delaware's (or any other) boundaries were in the 16th-18th centuries. There was no agreement, that's why they rather famously had lawsuits and the drawing of the Mason-Dixon line.
      William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you want us to put people who moved to Jerusalem in 1890 into the emigrants to Israel category? That would be the effect of your proposal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strawman. I don't see how this is related to the United States or the Thirteen Colonies. But then, that would be rather strange, as only part of the Jerusalem metropolitan area is currently in the state of Israel, and according to the official United Nations partition plan, none of it is in Israel.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, Latter-day Saints who left Iowa for Utah Territory in 1852 would have also viewed themselves as emigrating, but that does not meant that their movement then meets any sustainable criteria for being international movement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently, you think the word "emigrating" means international movement? It just means from a place of residence. But in case of broad agreement, we should rename all the emigrant categories back to "migrant from".
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.
  1. I think the greater specificity is useful, and as noted it fits into the Category:Thirteen Colonies tree. For people researching the history of the places that are now the United States, this is a useful category. In such research, it would be less useful if people who emigrated to what is now Canada were mixed in. Of course, someone might be researching B.N.A. as a whole, in which case the proposed categories would be useful. On balance, I'm inclined to stick with what we have, primarily because of #2 below.
  2. The categories are well populated. To rename and populate them properly would require merging the corresponding categories of Category:Immigrants to pre-Confederation Canada, which are well populated in their own right. This has not been proposed here.
  3. I think it's fair and well within common usage to call someone who moved from, say, Europe to the Thirteen Colonies as an "emigrant"/"immigrant", even if both places were subject to the British Crown at the time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the dictionary definitions:
  1. Emigrant is a noun, meaning "one who leaves one's place of residence or country to live elsewhere."
  2. Migrant, a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am sympathetic to the idea that there is an obvious messiness in these categories and it is true that "Kingdom of England emigrants" etc. is an ugly formulation. However, it reflects the fact that, before the Acts of Union 1707, there really was a meaningful difference between the two. I would suggest preserving something along the lines of Category:English (pre-1707) emigrants to British North America/Thirteen Colonies, etc. It is simply untrue that two states in a personal union are under the "same ultimate control". Equally, why "Massachusetts Bay Colony" not just Massachusetts? Brigade Piron (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the current names match both WP:COMMONNAME and the existing category tree. Good Ol'factory explains well the reasoning behind all of this. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- because Thirteen colonies necessarily refers to the period before 1783 (or 1776), whereas a category referring to Canada largely refers to 1763-1860s, slightly earlier for Nova Scotia. Furthermore, it is not helpful to have split it further at 1707, when they were English (not British) colonies. However "Kingdom of England", Scotland, Ireland should be merged into equivalent "England", Scotland and Irealnd categories. The Dutch category needs to be considered carefully, since it may well cover Dutch emigrants in the period before the British captured New Amsterdam. We might retain a British North America category but solely as a container (perhasp including list articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Thirteen Colonies have their own article. British North America (1783-1907) covered concerns an entirely different region and era. Dimadick (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose for all the excellent reasons stated above by others in opposition. This deletion would only confuse navigation by interested readers to the underlying articles. Hmains (talk) 01:47, 25 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:Children of Sunni monarchs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, merging contents to Category:Children of monarchs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge to Children of monarchs category. Being a child of a monarch is a defining characteristic, but the parents' religion is not. In addition, much of the content presently in the category is *very* questionable: for the children of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ali is claimed by both Sunni and Shia, and for the rest, the term 'Sunni' is very debatable during the early Islamic decades. Judging from other recent edits by the category creator, this category appears to be part of an effort to 'claim' early Islamic figures, including the Alids, for Sunni Islam. Constantine ✍ 19:41, 15 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 physicians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Physicians of the Russian Empire. This has already been implemented because the nominator also included this category in the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_3#Russian_Empire_people. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Imperial Russian physicians to Category:Russian Empire medical doctors
  • Nominator's rationale in all English usage medical doctor is a perfectly clear and good description of this. Well, I would argue more conforming to common name would be Category:Russian Empire doctors (medical), but I think that is needlessly odd in formation. Physician is not an acceptable term for British usage, it is much more restricted there, but medical doctor works perfectly in American usage, so we should avoid needlessly forcing English variation titles, and just use medical doctor throughout.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a subcategory of Category:Russian physicians. If John Pack Lambert wants to rename all the medical categories then let him nominate them all. Creating inconsistency, as he repeatedly, does is disruptive. Rathfelder (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should not be a sub-category of Russian physicians. That should only refer to people connected with the polity formed in 1991. So that should not be relevant to this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the way things are going, if this is kept it will be the only category using the Imperial Russian formation, so keeping it is not at all a viable option.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge — medical doctors didn't exist in Imperial Russia. Unless somebody can find a reputable source for a Russian to English translation for the historical awarded degree of "medical doctor" ("meditsinskiy doktor"), that we can cite in each article. Otherwise, the category is null.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upmerge to what? are you suggesting that these people were not Doctors (medical) in the way that this term is used, and they should be directly in Category:Imperial Russian people or what?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm hoisting you on your own presentist petard. The verified gynecologists et alia can certainly be in their own categories under Russian people, but they should not be called medical doctors. Because leeches. And barbers.
        William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Imperial Russian to Russian Empire, as less ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename. Retain the word used by Category:Russian physicians and the majority of the subcategories of Category:Physicians by nationality. I'm fine with Category:Russian Empire physicians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - JPL, please rethink how you nominate and !vote for these categories, it's to the point I expect your submissions at CfD to be in some manner contrary and, on enough occasions to not be surprising anymore, nonsensical. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This has subcategories for psychiatrists, surgeons, etc, who are medics but not physicians. I do not care if it is Imperial Russia or Russian Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change of Imperial Russian to Russian Empire, as less ambiguous. --Just N. (talk) 16:41, 22 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:Danielle Johnson (musician) albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A speedy rename request based on criteria C2D was opposed at WP:CFDS: "Danielle Johnson released 2 studio albums with the moniker Computer Magic and Danz CM will be used for the third album. A more inclusive category is the existing one, Danielle Johnson (musician)." The convention is to follow the name of the article; so the current name is only appropriate if the article's name is changed to "Danielle Johnson (musician)" as well. Much like how Category:The Chicks albums was moved recently from "Dixie Chicks albums" even though all but their most recent album were released under the Dixie Chicks moniker. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • OK. In that case move the category.Deepblue1 (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: category name should be the same as the name used for the artist's article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: category name should be the same as the name used for the artist's article. --Just N. (talk) 16:42, 22 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:Rightly Guided Caliphs of Sunni Islam[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete G5, User:IslamMyLoveMyLife. Favonian (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: pointless category, this is exactly the same as the Category:Rashidun caliphs Constantine ✍ 16:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category does not only refers to the Rashidun caliphs but also the two Ummayad caliphs. CalligrapherAR (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The category creator has just now removed the Rashidun caliphs and left Mu'awiya and Umar II in. Umar II is sometimes considered to be 'rightly-guided' due to his piety, but this is far from universal; and it most certainly does not apply to Mu'awiya, one of the most controversial figures in Islamic history. The category creator is engaged in a bout of highly dubious category-making (such as adding Shi'a imams as "Sunni scholars"!!!!). Constantine ✍ 16:19, 15 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:Speeches by writer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contents seem to all be speeches made by named individuals eg "speeches by Margaret Thatcher", "speeches by Bill Clinton", not necessarily speeches written by them. Shouldn't this category be "speeches by orator" or "speeches by speaker"? Dumelow (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, they were orators for sure, but it's not always that clear if they wrote the speech themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We do not categorize speeches by speechwriter. Dimadick (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:45, 22 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:Train drivers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivia category mostly comprising of politicians who were previously train drivers, certainly not defining. Unless there is a relevant category this could be merged to, should be deleted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this nom ignores the subcats, which are by no means trivial. Category:British train drivers consists for the most part of actual train drivers, notable as such. If the nom feels strongly about 'politicians who were previously train drivers' then such could be purged. Oculi (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing to delete Category:British train drivers, only Category:Train drivers. Perhaps you are in favour of moving the contents of the category. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Only recently discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 14#Category:Railroad engineers Rathfelder (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is defining for one having been an engineer, and - as mentioned - this is also a "generic" parent cat for more specific subcats. We don't knock out a generic parent from a by-nationality tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Sampling this, I found the content was something of a hotchpotch, including a NZ politician who had operated a stationery engine (and was an engine driver, not not a train driver) and a German engineer who built bridges (better, a civil - or military - engineer); also an Australian politician who had come into politics as a railway trades union leader (for whom it was certainly relevant). I suspect that it has been renamed from railway engineer, which may explain some aberrant content. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Parent category to a category tree. Dimadick (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as being base category to a cat tree. --Just N. (talk) 16:48, 22 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:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The multimetric Hot Country Songs chart was introduced in 1958. The category contains many songs (e.g. Back Street Affair, Birmingham Bounce, The Cattle Call) which topped one or more of the separate (most played in jukeboxes / best sellers in stores / most played by DJs) country charts which the magazine published prior to 1958. It also includes songs (eg Ridin' Roads) which topped the Country Airplay chart introduced in 2012 alongside the Hot Country Songs chart but which did not top Hot Country Songs. Therefore the current title is inaccurate. Creating separate categories for all of those charts would IMO be overkill, so it is better that the existing category be renamed to indicate that it encompasses songs which topped any one of Billboard's country song charts -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I thought we did not allow categories for record chart listings, being a variety of category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. --Just N. (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American anti-communists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete without prejudice to re-creation, either with this name or "activists". – Fayenatic London 22:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: When I saw this added to Marty Robbins because "he wrote a song against communism", my antennae twitched in the direction of WP:NONDEF. I decided to pick five pages from the first 200 articles and see what came up:

Now, clearly this is defining for some people included in it, and it is part of a well established "anti-communists by nationality" tree. But it's pretty obvious that this has become filled with non-defining cruft and at the very least needs a good cleaning, to the point it may be best if it's blown up and started over. The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do not think we should classify people as "anti-x". There are much better ways to classify people. For example a lot of people in Category:Soviet anti-communists and related categories better fall under our category for this in the White Movement. This category tree is just getting too broadly applied, and we do not need this. These people are all adequately categorized without it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being anti-communist at some point in one's life in the US isn't defining; it was the prevalent viewpoint. Also seems like WP:OPINIONCAT even if it were. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above but without objection to "re"create Category:American anti-communist activists or similar. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Bushranger's explanation, this category needs a purge from people who are not anti-communists. This is not a reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such is always a good reason, when the terms are understood so broadly to allow such mass categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while supporting Marcocapelle's proposal as well. --Just N. (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — doesn't distinguish between totalitarian communism and American communism.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: either keep or all of the categories in Category:Anti-communists_by_nationality should be nominated for deletion. It doesn't make sense for some nationalities to have such a category and not others, assuming the corresponding category is non-empty. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:E153:1D6C:DD60:6712 (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Destruction is not a way forward in this case. Reading and purging can be accomplished without too much effort. In most cases, the category is perfectly appropriate and supported by article text showing actions taken in this regard. This is part of a category structure found under Category:Anti-communists by nationality Hmains (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anti-communism is a defining feature of many persons and organizations. Also, it doesn't make sense to delete the category only for the US. A purge of articles may make sense though, specially when anti-communism is not discussed in the articles at all. --MarioGom (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am sympathetic to the view that the category is currently over-used. The easy way to deal with this is to delete and start over, but I don't think it would be the most effective way. Purging the category would be most effective in retaining the category for articles that "deserve" it. However, this is hard, because the category is so big, so the work is daunting. But there are a lot of jobs in Wikipedia that need done that are daunting. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLOWUP comes to mind. Under the large perception that people who are not Anti-communists are not true Americans, this can be applied to just anybody, and it was. Place Clichy (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but allow re-creation. I have struck my previous comment. I am not convinced that anyone will do the work required to limit the category as it should be. So I think the category in its present form should be deleted, but its re-creation of it should be allowed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 29 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:Corneal transplant recipients[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:TRIVIALCAT)
The only article currently in the category is actor Mandy Patinkin where the procedure gets a passing reference. I can't say this category lacks growth potential though because, according to the Corneal transplantation main article, over 100,000 corneal transplant procedures are completed each year. This seems way too common to be defining and is usually one of many medical procedures someone may undergo in their lifetimes. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not very defining. We dont categorise people who wear spectacles or lenses. Rathfelder (talk) 20:38, 15 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:Human body diagrams[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT)
This category was created in 2009 and the only article is Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man and I can't think of an individually notable 2nd article, let alone a 5th. There are, of course, many individual notable drawings of the human form but I don't think they meet the definition in the Diagram article. No objection to recreating later if I'm wrong and we ever get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 15 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_15&oldid=1004056312"