Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 17 December 19 >

December 18[edit]

Category:Suicides by method[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/do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Even less defining than suicides by occupation. Rathfelder (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, this discussion can only be closed after all subcategories are tagged and listed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle's comment. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite agree, but I'd like to know if the idea has any support before I spend a lot of time and effort doing that. Can we discuss the idea in principle first? Rathfelder (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The total amount of suicides in history is too large to have them all in one category. So as we need to subdivide them by at least one criterion, I think that by method is one of the better candidates, as it is directly related to the suicide topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder: why do we even need to categorize by type of death? This is rarely if ever defining.--User:Namiba 15:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with that when it comes to death by most diseases, but suicide is pretty defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand the epidemiology, method is entirely context driven, not defining for the subject. So suicides by jumping off Clifton Suspension Bridge would mean something. Doctors who swallow pills, Category:Suicide bombing certainly, but otherwise I see this as less defining than by occupation. Cant we just have Category:Suicides by country. Or maybe by the cause? Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently we have by method, by location and by occupation. There is no tree by cause, which is not surprising, that would be hard to define. It is surprising that there is not even a tree by nationality of the subject, instead there is a tree by location, which seems less relevant (in case someone commits suicide abroad). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have at least one cause. As I wrote in an earlier CfD:
    • Do we really want to categorize the reason for suicide? After all, a few categories like Category:LGBT-related suicides will likely be fairly prevalent, but depression-related is inexplicably missing?
    • Moreover, why do we categorize suicides by Continent, and Country, and City?
  • We also categorize Death by Continent, and Country, and City. But the "suicide by" trees aren't merged with the "death by" trees.
  • We do have many Category:Deaths by cause. All the way down to Category:Road incident deaths, which could also be murders or suicides.
  • A simpler approach might be limited to "yyyy death" or "yyyy murder" or "yyyy suicide", Category:Deaths by cause with "Suicides by method" and "Murders by method" merged in the same tree there, and "death by location" limited to city. The city can be under country, and the country under continent. Kill all the other intersection trees. This is navigation, not intersection statistical tables.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds very reasonable. It does require someone to start a tree of yyyy suicides though. This proposal may require an RFC. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, you are too much in a hurry.Category:Nazis who committed suicide by method‎ should initially be merged to Category:Nazis who committed suicide‎ since that parent category still exists. Moreover this merge does not solve the existance of the by-method subcategories of Nazi suicides. Finally there should be a manual check that every article in every of its subcats is in a yyyy suicide category. Similar comments will apply to every of these nominations. This requires a very careful approach in order to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done tagging. Excellent thoughts! Agree that this doesn't fix Nazi sub-sub-categories; those will need to be unravelled later. Agree about ensuring every article should already be in Category:Suicide by year. That should be true in any case, and can be done now! Do we have an available bot?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another example why this is not easy: Category:Suicides by firearm‎ and parent Category:Deaths by firearm‎ are both subcatted by country. This implies you have to nominate all country subcategories. Don't fix this right now though! The point is that it is far better to start with separate nominations each dealing with one cause, and to think each nomination thoroughly through. Moreover you'd better start with the easiest causes (easy in terms of category tree complexity). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I understood that we had also agreed to eliminate "by country" (above). But that should be a separate nomination. I'd thought this was easiest (only 16), as we've already had agreement and it would nicely group the by country for later nominations.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder, Lugnuts, and Namiba: I've tagged the subcategories, now that we figured out where to put them. This is the simplest first step, followed by other steps for subcategorization intersections later to avoid WP:TRAINWRECK. What say you?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dont think this scheme really works. Deaths by hanging on a gallows are much more defining than the DIY sort, and self-immolation is very different from other deaths in fires. I think I prefer a geographical/nationality based breakdown. But Category:Suicide bombers should be kept, because that really is defining. Very few of the others are notable because of their suicide. Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all been prepared for choosing those individual methods.
    1. So you want to keep Suicides by self-immolation‎ and delete Deaths from fire?
    2. And keep Suicide bombers subsubcategory, but delete parents Suicides by explosive device and Deaths by explosive device‎?
    3. Also delete Suicides by hanging‎ instead of merging?
  • That will leave a lot of them without a cause of death, so I'm not sure it won't be problematic later on. Any others?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Death categories are defining. Dimadick (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody denies that. The question at stake is if we should delete some and keep others. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose some suicides are notable for their method; some aren't. I also dislike the upmerge proposal above, why do individual biographies of Nazis belong in Category:Nazis by cause of death? And I think a meaningful difference can be drawn between those who die by various causes and those who suicide by those causes; particularly as we tend to categorize by cause of death as that which ends a life not as that by which someone chooses to end one's life. For some categories it's clear (not sure suicide by cancer is possible), but with the various deaths that are "accidental" (see Category:Accidental deaths tree) we'll end up separating these out as suicides (like executions and murders) are not accidental. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which means if you are killed in some other way, you only go in one category for dying in that year. But if you kill yourself we put you in two categories for dying in that year. Does this even make sense? We used to have an assasinations by year category, but we deleted that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose some suicides are notable for their method; some aren't. --Just N. (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the above proposal would make many categories relating to how people died large and difficult to navigate. Talking about specific problematic categories should take place on individual nominations if appropriate. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:32, 11 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:Films about nuclear accidents and incidents[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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category appears to be intended for fictional nuclear incidents. I note that it has Category:Nuclear accidents in fiction as a parent category, so either this category's name should be clarified or the tree needs to be restructured a bit. Alternately, the latter category could be created (and most entries moved to it), as a subcategory of the former. DonIago (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, two articles and the subcategory are about a real accident instead of a fictional accident. Besides the category is too small for further subcatting. Rather expand the scope to also allow non-fiction. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you support removing "Nuclear accidents in fiction" as a parent category then? I'm amenable to that option, just forgot to bring it up in my OP. DonIago (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct. When allowing non-fiction, that parent category should be removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Marcocapelle. Dimadick (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above, I'll give it a couple more days in case other options present themselves. Otherwise I'll plan to withdraw this CfD and remove the fictional parent category. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete another "about" category with the usual problems: objectively defining how much about the subject must the film be and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 19:02, 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:Italian painters by city[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) 03:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Fooish" categories are generally reserved for national categories. People from Foo is generally used for anything below that level, and is used in all the other subcategories of Category:Italian people by occupation and city. No obvious reason why Italian painters should be treated differently. The various categories contain comments along the lines of "This list encompasses Italian painters of the School of Brescia who during 1400-1900, demonstrate influences from both Venice and Milan." and "This category encompasses painters active in the Northern Italian city of Cremona". This is a bit confusing. If it's sensible to subcategorize by schools of painting then I think the categories should make that clearer. Perhaps they could be called "Painters of the Brescian School", along the lines of Category:Schools of Japanese art? And at present Category:Painters from Milan redirects to Category:Milanese painters, so its not clear what we are supposed to do with those who were not "active in Milan between 1400-1800". NB I know nothing about Italian painting so would be grateful for guidance from those that do. Rathfelder (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the whole Italian painters by city tree has been formatted this way. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Meanwhile the nomination has been expanded.) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to Support as long as redirects are left from the existing names, which are what one might have thought of as the graceful and obvious labels, as opposed to the systematic but sadly lowest-common-denominator style names that are proposed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We dont think any of these mean something other than a geographical description?Rathfelder (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to end the tyranny of demonyms. Down with this kind of thing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support I am not certain whether Neapolitan refers to Naples the city or the Kingdom of Naples, and whether Venetian refers to Venice the city or the Republic of Venice. All the others are probably limited to categorization by city of origin. Dimadick (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these are just geographical categories the blurbs need to be removed. Rathfelder (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per WP:C2C. --Just N. (talk) 19:05, 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:Suicides by occupation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#Category:Suicides by occupation

Category:Baseball venues in the Texas Panhandle[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) 03:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT (1 article). User:Namiba 14:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, also it concerns a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unless the category can be properly populated, it serves no purpose. Dimadick (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Dimadick's commentary. --Just N. (talk) 19:07, 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:Murdered Milanese mobsters[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) 03:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 Milanese mobsters in total, one was murdered. Hopefully there wont be many more. Rathfelder (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now With no objection to recreating if the article count ever gets to 5+. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I was expecting many millions of murdered Milanese mobsters but only one appears to have an article. Oculi (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Do we have other articles on Milanese mobsters? Northern Italy is not exactly famous for its organized crime. Dimadick (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:07, 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:Sports events held in a bubble due to the COVID-19 pandemic[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. —Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proper term for it is Bio-secure bubble Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Lutheran congregations[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) 03:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the top example, Altrossgarten Church has a pile of parallel categories:
  1. Category:Baroque church buildings in Germany
  2. Category:Lutheran churches in Königsberg
  3. Category:Protestant congregations established in the 17th century — Lutherans are Protestants.
  4. Category:Religious organizations established in the 1620s — a church is a religious organization, so is a congregation. And why by decade, when the others are by year?
  5. Category:Churches completed in 1624 — we categorize the starting and ending years of construction?
  6. Category:1623 establishments in Europe — we categorize the starting year of "establishment", whatever that means. This is the only article in that category. Yes, Königsberg is in Europe. And probably in some part of Germany in that year?
  7. Category:17th-century Lutheran churches
Let this be an example for consolidating the rest of these massively parallel trees.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in general -- We had a similar discussion about congregations in a part of England recently, where I supported a similar merger. On second thoughts I had a slight qualm about it. A congregation might be established at a different date from a church, where a church was rebuilt, particularly if on a new site. The consensus seems to be that articles are usually largely about church buildings and they should be categorised. The present St Paul's Cathedral in London was built after in the late 17th century after the Great Fire, but replaced a medieval church on the same site, itself probably a rebuild of a Saxon one. Thus it might be legitimate to categorise it as founded in 8th century. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support. This is an improvement as congregations are not notable per se, but churches is more ambiguous than e.g. church buildings as it also refers to the larger church bodies. We therefore face the risk of seeing Lutheran church bodies added to these categories, as has been seen before. I also believe that categories for local churches/church buildings should be removed from "religious organizations" categories. Place Clichy (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:09, 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.

Mayors of places in Japan[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) 03:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one or two articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now While there would be than 5 mayors, most of them would not be notable. No objection to recreating any if we ever get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:10, 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:Illegitimate children of Roman 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Illegitimate children of Ottoman sultans[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) 03:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now With no objection if we ever get to 5+ articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am not sure that "illegitimate" is quite the right term for the one individual, who was conceived to a concubine in the harem, but married to a bey before his birth. I would also comment that the lack of a (legitimate) sons category may be because sultans were at one period in the habit or killing all (half)-siblings on ascending the throne. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Children born in the harem, were likely not illegitimate. There is little scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:13, 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.

Children of sultans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, this just duplicates the tree of Category:Children of Ottoman sultans. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly overlapping - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- unnecessary layer. There are other sultans, but it is better to stick with dynasty, rather than status (rank). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Empty categories. Dimadick (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:14, 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:Deniers of Serbian genocide in Croatia[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) 03:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was misnamed in the recent renaming. Croatia and the Independent State of Croatia are two separate things. The latter was far larger than Croatia and included all of modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina and parts of modern-day Serbia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Carroll College (Montana)[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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see why there's disambiguation in the category. There is no other Carroll College on Wikipedia. There is Carroll College (Wisconsin), which is a redirect to Carroll University, and is housed at Category:Carroll University, so no further disambiguation is required. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friendly Edit @Muboshgu: I adjusted the target category for the subcat to Category:Carroll College alumni, which I think is your intent. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Parent Cat/Keep Alumni Subcat Anyone who graduated from the Wisconsin school prior to 2008 will have reliable sources saying they graduated from "Carroll College" so I see this as highly ambiguous and renaming would lead to miscategorization. 12 years of renaming is probably plenty of time for other articles though. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but a "see also" (or similar) is needed for the Wisconsin college (later university). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose historically confusion is too possible with the other institution that used to be Carroll College to make it clear that we do not need disambiguation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not the only Carroll College. The fact the other one is defunct/name-changed doesn't change the fact it existed. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. There is a high likelihood of confusion if changed.--User:Namiba 14:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are probably more with the same name which just have got no article yet. --Just N. (talk) 19:22, 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:Destroyed landmarks in Latvia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 19#Category:Destroyed landmarks in Latvia

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Liberator[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders visit Venezuela, or vice versa, the Order of the Liberator is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Albert I of Belgium, Chiang Kai-shek, and Vladimir Putin are not remotely defined by this award. (There are also a few Venezuelan people in the cateogry and, of those, four mention the award in passing 1, 2, 3, 4, one in the lede 5, and one not at all 6, so it's not generally defining for them either.) The contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NZIA Gold Medal-winning buildings[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The New Zealand Institute of Architects gives out a NZIA Gold Medal award each year that in practice goes to major government or non-profit building projects. The buildings generally list the award in the infobox or in passing so it doesn't seem defining. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_18&oldid=1073192446"