Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 28 December 30 >

December 29[edit]

Category:Fortnite Battle Royale guest characters[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) 06:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a non-defining category for these characters. Masem (t) 23:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. Le Panini [🥪] 00:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yep, this is very much a non-defining characteristic.--AlexandraIDV 04:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Straightforward non-defining. ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is at heart a performer by performance category, even if the performers are largely fictional ones, it is still not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Exact same characteristics as other guest character categories like Category:Marvel vs. Capcom fighters, Category:Tony Hawk's (series) guest characters, Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters and Category:Video game guest characters. The status of the performers and Fortnite title make it notable. 203.0.172.250 (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These other categories should probably be deleted too. If you take a moment to add links to them we can have a look. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [1], [2], [3], [4]. These categories all share the same characteristics with the Fortnite topic. This category shouldn't be decided on until these categories and any other similar ones have also been evaluated. 203.0.172.252 (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important to note that what makes these categories different from being "a performer by performance category", is that they are significant cross-promotional junctures. The fictional characters represent franchises that have achieved definitive iconography in their medium, highlighting their iconic or mascot-like status. 203.0.172.252 (talk) 09:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the links. Yes it really looks like these categories need to be nominated for deletion too. Cross-promotional junctures do not turn it into a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I thought we had somewhat of a consensus of all these other "guest" categories after the Smash Bros one was deleted earlier this year. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As stated above, the category shares the same characteristics as other similar categories which haven't been challenged. Pointless to delete if those pages are still active. Would suggest to simply rebrand and rework the category instead. WhoKnew99 (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a defining characteristic and per WP:WAX the existence of similar articles that haven’t been deleted yet isn’t a valid argument to keep this one and anyone concerned about them are free to creste deletion discussions for those categories.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. --Just N. (talk) 22:45, 2 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:American educator-politicians[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) 06:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection. It is quite common for educators to get elected to office. User:Namiba 21:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a non-notable intersection. No one thinks of Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon B. Johnson as forming a distinct class because of this overlap. Considering how many 19th-century people were school teachers for a short time, this would encompass a huge number of 19th-century American people. Lorenzo Snow would qualify as this. He served 26 years on the territorial counsil of Utah Territory, which was in some ways a combination territorial senate and cabinet, although a lot of the real power was held by external appointees (to understand territorial Utah you must first realize it was a colonialist, imperialists creature) and Snow served 9 years as president of the council, the highest ranking elected position in Utah territory. He was also on multiple occasions a school teacher and as a college grad in the 19th-century was possibly the most qualified school teacher his students ever had.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 4 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:Harisu[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) 06:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:13, 29 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:Höfner[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) 06:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary parent for a single article per WP:SMALLCAT. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this but it now has too few entries after an article I made ended up being redirected. Delete. --IWI (talk) 18:49, 29 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.

Taito arcade system board categories[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. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale - None of these arcade boards are notable on their own, being used for a handful of games and then abandoned. They're all way too specific too, and I can't see this being of any help for readers wishing to navigate. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All of them have five or more articles. These cats are good for synoptic view and navigating. Aren't car design cats quite comparable? -> Product modernisation even requires mini series for marketing purposes. Really no need to delete those cats. --Just N. (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Categories don't need to be notable, simply be suitable for more than one entry. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 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:Deaths from plague (disease)[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. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The anchor article is Plague (disease), because it needs to be distinguished from other sorts of plagues, but none of the others kill people. If this is agreed the subcategories can follow speedily. Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It actually was about the "(disease)" bit. The trade-off is between being consistent and being concise. Usually this kind of discussions ends in favour of consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reason of consistency. --Just N. (talk) 23:06, 2 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:American X of Y descent[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. Merging will result in the deletion of the nominated categories. Several of the "delete" comments were unclear as to whether the articles in the nominated categories should be merged as nominated. I have erred on the side of caution and performed a merge for the affected articles. The target categories were not nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS. See previous discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_7#Category:American_ethnicity_and_descent. User:Namiba 15:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial intersection between occupation and descent. It would be non-trivial if they wrote about e.g. the Philippines, but we have other categories for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete targets as well — These are all tertiary and quaternary intersections. It is enough to have American people of fooish descent, and American barian writers. Also, there are significant errors in the nominations.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would probably be bad to merge Korean descent and Indian descent into Filipino descent.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can I have overlooked this... I have fixed the nomination, assuming that nominator will be okay with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing it. They were clearly just typos.--User:Namiba 19:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. I think there are strong reasons to divide writers by ethnicity. Anyone who thinks that understanding Amy Tan or Lawrence Yee can be done without understanding they are an American writer of Chinese descent just does not want to understand. Beyond this, because of how notifications of these nominations are done, we are not competent to event consider getting rid of a category like Category:American writers of Filipino descent. I am less convinced any Asian descent categories like these are needed. Asian descent is not an ethnicity these people generally think of themselves as. People from India do not see themselves as part of the same ethnic group as people from China for example. I think the Asian descent categories have been imposed in ways that value simplicity over accuracy and lead to false groupings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — My colleagues in India do not see themselves to be the same as my colleagues in China. My personal local experience is people from Korea and Vietnam do not see themselves to be the same as people from China. Why merge "per nom" everybody into "of Asian descent"?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These categories are already subcategories of Category:American short story writers of Asian descent.--User:Namiba 14:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Per the analysis of JPL more than the original nom though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tendency. Where does this end? Per grandparents persons can easily have 3-4 descents -> requiring ethnic descent cats each? OTOH analysis of JPL sounds reasonable especially for writers. But surely we don't need any Cat: short story writers of (Asian) descent. --Just N. (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the usual "descent" category problems, I've now put on a page here (User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories) rather than repeating them ad nauseum or just saying the usual problems which some haven't seen before. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 4 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.

Mayors of places in Ukraine[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) 05:53, 6 January 2021 (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) 14:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now While these places would have had more than five mayors, most would be non-notable. No objection to recreating any if they ever get to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 23:25, 2 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:Economics of service industries[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:Services sector of the economy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually upmerge, this is not about a particular academic subdiscipline of economics like Health economics, and having "economics" in the title does not add much value since the service industries are all about economics anyway. Some subcategories do not really belong in the parent category however, so that's why a manual merge is recommendable. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The problem I have is with the terminology of "tertiary sector", which is obsolete, and makes sense only in the context of the Three-sector model in which service industries exist to distribute goods produced in the manufacturing (secondary) sector. As the article Three-sector model notes, this doesn't work any more, so that new quaternary and quinary sectors have been added to account for services that don't fit the model. I've now created a separate article Service industries, which needs some work but is at least, not wrong. I suggest creating an appropriate category and merging Category:Economics of service industries into that JQ (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've recreated it and added references, the lack of which seemed to be the main objection JQ (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I had in mind, but I'll leave it up to you whether to follow up. I find the administrative side of Wikipedia hard to handle JQ (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't presume. Most of Tertiary is still distribution. Remember, I'm not a fan of this economic model. It makes no sense to me that I've alternated between silver and gold collar all my life.... Too self-celebratory model, with the model-makers self-defining themselves at the top.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Transport, wholesale and retail trade account for around 15 per cent of US GDP, a small part of the service sector [5] JQ (talk) 03:11, 31 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:Song recordings produced by Sir Dylan[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, only because it contains a non-redirect article. It can be nominated again if users think it is still too small. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redirects only, mostly repointing to the same album. No assistance to navigation. NB Catetory creator is now blocked. Richhoncho (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Now reflects actual articles. More pages added. - Whitevenom187 (talk) 19:17, 3 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:Song recordings produced by Shea Taylor[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, only because it is well populated now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry and that is a redirect. No assistance to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 13:34, 29 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:Industry (manufacturing)[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, keep a redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, keeping a redirect. In the previous discussion I had completely overlooked the fact that Industry (manufacturing) is a redirect to article Manufacturing. However, it does not seem a good idea to simply merge Category:Industry (manufacturing) to Category:Manufacturing because the former category is more about the industrial sector and the latter category is more about the manufacturing process. An alternative and probably better proposal is to rename the category aligning with article Secondary sector of the economy. It also aligns with Category:Primary sector of the economy. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@S.K., RevelationDirect, Dimadick, Desmay, William Allen Simpson, and Justus Nussbaum: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 29 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:Industrial 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, based on article Industrial city this category might contain any city where a fair amount of industrial activity takes place, that makes it unsuitable for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to the rationale, many cities have undergone industrialization followed by deindustrialization. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and commentary of RD above. --Just N. (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and RD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 4 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:Artists who committed suicide[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children. See previous:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Chefs who committed suicide
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see this as trivial, and the sources cover it. Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They are all well categorized in more specific art and suicide cats and I don't see the intersection as defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Suicidal activists or suicidal artists formally just seem the same. Outward appearances are fooling us about real differences. Artists especially are personalities who tend to existentialist actions. As a Wp user I really wish to navigate for connections like that. --Just N. (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not inherently notable intersections, but if someone wants to and can (see WP:SYNTH) write Suicide among artists, Suicide among painters, Suicide among sculptors and source them, no object to including these as sourced lists in those articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Suicide is not a trivial event, rather the opposite in the context of an artist (which specially might lead to copycat suicides) and now with the COVID pandemic which strongly affects artists who depend on live shows, etc... This nomination seem to ignore all of that and more.talk@TRANSviada 19:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is probably okay to create Category:Copycat suicides as a new category. But Covid has almost nothing to do with the content of these categories, by far the most of these suicides are pre-Covid. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be useful to have the suicide copycat category. Still, my arguments are for keeping the categories nominated for deletion, not to remove or change them. There are artists who committed suicide which didn't lead to copycat suicide, but the suicide event as their death still is notable. I cited copycat suicide because it is such a big deal related to artists that sometimes the suicide death of artists may not be announced to not lead to copycat suicides. I also gave the example of COVID because it's important to take major crisis into context: as reported by CNN, in November 2020 Japan had a increased death rate due to suicide and was linked to COVID leading unemployment, which in turn affects artists. Also, it's important to categorize suicide just as governments like Japan do to give insights about vulnerable groups.[1] As cited above, there are artist who worked with existentialism thought, or explicit suicide-related themes and who actually committed suicide, for example Osamu Dazai. As so, suicide shall be kept as death category for artists.talk@TRANSviada 01:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unemployment as in the case of the Covid crisis is not a specific problem of artists. About existentialism and suicide, that is a too specific topic and not a reason to categorize all artists who committed suïcide. It may well be a suitable topic for an article though. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not it is because it's specific to artists, but because major crisis includes artists which can be celebrities and also led to copycat suicides. On existentialism and suicide, the previous arguments also applies and noting that they are more likely to actively work with such themes. The argument to provide insight on vulnerable groups alone is reason to deny this nomination.talk@TRANSviada 13:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vulnerable" is entirely subjective and a non-encyclopedical classification criterion. Besides I (=subjective) would not consider actors to be a vulnerable group. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because vulnerable groups are quantifiable. Governments like Japan quantifies deaths related to suicide to provide insights on vulnerable groups. That's on the source I provided.talk@TRANSviada 13:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source you provided is about the link between Covid and suicide in Japan, not about the link between being an artist (throughout history and across countries) and suicide. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source I provided says that "Japan is one of the few major economies to disclose timely suicide data -- the most recent national data for the US, for example, is from 2018. The Japanese data could give other countries insights into the impact of pandemic measures on mental health, and which groups are the most vulnerable." This means governments like Japan uses objective methods, which are quantitative, to provide insights about more or less vulnerable groups. Also means there are countries which publish this data which in turn are covered by reliable source and as so is encyclopedic content that shall be covered by Wikipedia including categories.talk@TRANSviada 14:16, 8 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.

Military personnel who committed suicide[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children. See previous:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Chefs who committed suicide
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The merge is needed not because of military personnel, but because of the existance of the Ancient Roman parent category. Ancient Roman is not an occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see this as trivial, and the sources cover it. Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All If there is consensus to carve out exceptions for Roman, Japanese so be it but I'm not seeing the intersection as being defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge. I found two people awarded Victoria Cross (bravery in face of enemy) in the British category. One was killed in battle: a death due to valour, not a suicide. The other clearly had PTSD (nightmares), to which soldiers are particularly prone. However another case, the death was suspected to be due to gambling losses which is probably unrelated to a military career. Suicide in defeat or due to military service is clearly significant. There is room for one or more targeted categories. If this is agreed we should teporarily keep all pending recategorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an unclear alternative proposal. There is nothing to purge when the categories are kept. E.g. even if a death was suspected to be due to gambling losses which is probably unrelated to a military career, it still concerns military personnel. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge. Military personnel frequently deal with death, so suicide is IMHO special for this social group. And possible national differences are indeed interesting in this case. Cats are for navigating that. However, error persons must be purged. --Just N. (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not inherently notable intersection. Military personnel, which includes anyone who is or ever was a military person, commit suicide for many reasons that may have to do with their military service. Some may be avoiding capture, some may be engaging in a suicidal battle plan (Kamikaze), some may commit suicide after capture (Himmler) or while awaiting the gallows (Goering), or after suffering PTSD. Others commit suicide long after their service or for reasons not relevant to their service: to avoid a long and painful death by illness, because of familial problems, or money woes, as a result of depression (generally, the same reasons non-military folks have to kill themselves). But if someone wants to and can (see WP:SYNTH) write Suicide among military personnel and source it, no object to including this as a sourced list in that article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's important to categorize suicide to give insights about vulnerable groups; governments like Japan do that.talk@TRANSviada 01:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Military personnel is not a vulnerable group, and we do not categorize anything vulnerable anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suicide shall be category for all professions including military personnel to provide insights regardless they're being vulnerable or not, as to identify which are more vulnerable or less vulnerable groups.talk@TRANSviada 13:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely not, Wikipedia does not exist to provide any insight but instead to collect existing insights. In this case, you need to come up with reliable sources demonstrating if and why there is a clear link between military occupation and suicide and preferably write an article about it first. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not to provide insight as a primary sources does, but to cover what reliable sources based on them publish. As so, suicide shall be category for all professions including military personnel.talk@TRANSviada 14:22, 8 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:Song recordings produced by Dave Longstreth[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, only because now it contains non-redirect articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 6 entries, all redirects, no aid to navigation. NB creator is now blocked. Richhoncho (talk) 10:37, 29 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:Song recordings produced by Anthony M. Jones[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, only because it contains a non-redirect article. It can be nominated again if users think it is still too small. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 3 redirect entries only, no navigation aid. Richhoncho (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, meanwhile there is one actual article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Now reflects actual articles. More pages added. - Whitevenom187 (talk) 19:23, 3 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.

Politicians who committed suicide[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children. See previous:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Chefs who committed suicide
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All They are already in other categories for being politicians and committing suicide and the intersection is not defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom with one exception: merge Category:Ancient Roman politicians who committed suicide to Category:Ancient Romans who committed suicide. This merge is needed not for the sake of politicians, but because of the existance of the Ancient Roman parent category. Ancient Roman is not an occupation.Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see this as trivial, and the sources cover it.Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument would be stronger if you explained what these sources are. Rathfelder (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep/Oppose politicians are by profession public figures, and as a consequence in the rare events that they commit suicide their deaths (and manner there of) are usually widely covered. In the cases of Budd Dwyer (see here) and Alan García (see here) the fact that they were a both a politician and an individual who committed suicide featured heavily in the articles covering their deaths. Therefore WP:NONDEF should not apply here. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be defining, it must commonly and consistently describe the occupation. Since not all politicians commit suicide, indeed it is quite rare, the intersection is not defining by definition. Therefore, WP:NONDEFINING applies.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No that is not the application of WP:NONDEFINING. The fact that most politicians do not commit suicide does not make it undefining in the same way that most politicians are not convicted of corruption does not make a category such as Category:American politicians convicted of corruption irrelevant. As I stated above, in the instances that politicians do commit suicide, both their manner of death and their occupation are consistently mentioned in the citations. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please re-read WP:DEFINING. For people convicted of corruption, politician is an element of the offense. Politician is not a requirement for suicide, and suicide is not a requirement for politicians. We already have categories for defining elements of suicide, such as year, and manner of death. All suicides happen at a time and place, and we only report those that result in death.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the ancient Rome category, upmerge all the others into Category:Politicians who committed suicide‎. Their status as public figures raises them up of many run-of-the-mill professions in this regard, though I don't think we need the by nationality intersection as well. Grutness...wha? 02:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge I support what Grutness proposes. One of the reasons why I suggest that there is a connection between politicians and suicide is their high suicide rate; much higher than the general population. I cannot know how universally true that is, as my experience of editing political bios is restricted to the New Zealand realm. What piqued my interest in this matter was this research article written by my local MP, Duncan Webb, a year ago. He concluded that the suicide rate of politicians is "about 25 times higher" than the general population. Schwede66 04:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it a high percentage because these people were politicians, or is it more generally because they were public figures (i.e. notable)? Honestly I am surprised about the large amount of biographies in Wikipedia - with all sorts of occupations including sportspeople, actors etc - that end in suicide. It is difficult for me to imagine that the 'Wikipedia suicide rate' is representative for the general population. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now read the article, and most of the named suicides were suffering from mental illness. Some had been in mental institutions. So these would be better classified by cause. There is no requirement for mental illness to become a politician (or other public figure). It's just that we know more about them. Others die in darkness.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The theme I found in the British cases sampled was debts, often gambling debts, but in some cases it was due to a decline inot incurable sickness. If this is not split by nationality, it will be unmanageably large. I would favour recategorising according to cause of suicide. For the ancients this was often defeat. Among the moderns, it will sometimes be to avoid prosecution for wrongdoing. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debts and sickness surely aren't reasons to keep these politicians categories, are they? That is very unrelated. Also, the categories will not become unmanageably large because they are e.g. split by year (or decade or century in older periods). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep/Oppose Politicians are by profession public figures and their case is as a consequence of very special interest for an encyclopedia's user. Cats for navigational need. Consent to Peterkingiron: If this is not split by nationality, it will be unmanageably large. As a Wp user I'm definitely interested in having and keeping those categories. Now and then a new case of politician's suicide will happen and we all might search for comparable antecedents. No, really: Maggy Thatcher was very wrong with her saying "There is no such thing as society" but only individuals. Suicide is a lot about society, a main reason why your cynical claiming of "NONDEFINING" is wrong b/c it covers merely the private half of the impact of the fact a PUBLIC(!) suicide states. Difficult matter (for me as not being English native speaker). --Just N. (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not inherently notable intersections. While some politicians no doubt commit suicide due to their occupation (or upon being deprived of it), most seem to commit suicide long after their service or for reasons not relevant to their service: to avoid a long and painful death by illness, because of familial problems, or money woes, as a result of depression (generally, the same reasons non-politician folks have to kill themselves). But if someone wants to and can (see WP:SYNTH) write Suicide among politicians and source it, no object to including this as a sourced list in that article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to provide insights on more and less vulnerable groups which governments like Japan do.talk@TRANSviada 13:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the discussion further above on this page, "vulnerable" is entirely subjective and a non-encyclopedical classification criterion. Besides I (=subjective) would not consider politicians to be a vulnerable group. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the discussion further above on this page, vulnerable groups are objectively quantifiable and covered by reliable sources and as so in encyclopedical classification criterion.talk@TRANSviada 14:25, 8 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:Endemol Shine Group[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 19#Category:Endemol Shine Group

Category:Recipients of the Order of Justice (Iran)[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) 05:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:SMALLCAT)
The only biography in this category is Iranian Chief Justice Mohammad Mohammadi Gilani and his article doesn't even mention the award. Doesn't get much clearer than that! The Order of Justice (Iran) is an Iranian award for establishing law and justice. The one article and a bunch of redlinks already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 29 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:Handel Medallion 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) 05:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Handel Medallion is a municipal award from New York City for contribution to culture, in a city with a lot of prominent cultural industries.The articles in the category are about evenly split between those that mention the award in passing and those that don't mention it at all so it doesn't seem defining. If the category was fully populated with all the other winners it would be even more lopsided since this isn't remotely defining for John Lennon, Duke Ellington or Neil Simon, none of whose articles mention it. The contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 29 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.
  1. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/28/asia/japan-suicide-women-covid-dst-intl-hnk/index.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_29&oldid=1001295887"