Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 22 November 24 >

November 23[edit]

Various categories related to Washington, D.C.[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. MER-C 16:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Missing punctuation (comma) per WP:Copyedit#Punctuation. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The 2nd comma appears to be the norm, e.g. with Category:People from Kansas City, Missouri, by occupation and Category:People from New Haven, Connecticut, by occupation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Concurring with RevelationDirect, these new names would make more sense. Historyday01 (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:COMMA, the actual guideline (I don't think I've ever seen anyone cite WP:Copyediting before, for anything; forgot it even existed). I'm surprised these weren't fixed years ago, though at this point, the elephant in the room is why does this still have "D.C." in it instead of "DC", given MOS:ABBR, and because "DC" has been the standard US abbreviation since whatever year it was when state and territory abbreviations were standardized by the USPS. The elephant shrew in the room, harder to notice, is that we should also do some analysis to see whether "Washington DC" without commas at all, has become more prevalent across reliable sources. It's certainly common, though I don't now if it's more common. Those are RM questions, though. For the time being, I support this punctuation-fix move, since the current category names are clearly wrong, whether the lot ever get moved to simpler orthography later or not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:25, 27 November 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:Single-player-only video games[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. MER-C 19:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I question the necessity of creating this redirect, as it now appears on the category selector and it is easy to accidentally place games in this category. Was there a real issue with people recreating this category? ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, the redir target is Category:Single-player video games.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not need to account for every possible phrasing in categories, since catredirs are not cheap. Moreover, this is a faulty criterion: No one looks for things by what features (e.g. multiplayer) that they lack or don't support (regardless how that's phrased). That would be an infinite list of categories (video games without elves, video games lacking Navajo translations, video games that can only be played on macOS 10.15.1 or later, ...)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:17, 27 November 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:U.S. cities and towns with a majorly black population[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 G5: Sparhelt Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Better covered in articles such as Majority_minority#United_States and Historical racial and ethnic demographics of the United States which can give some context, rather than as a category. Le Deluge (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @DexDor:, I was sure there had been some kind of CfD on this stuff. Le Deluge (talk) 11:02, 24 November 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:Archbishops of Split[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: split into Category:Archbishops of Split and Category:Archbishops of Split-Makarska. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although historically, this archdiocese had only Split in its name, it was degraded to the status of diocese by the papal bull Locum Beati Petri in 1828. In 1969 it was again elevated to the status of an archdiocese, with Makarska being attached to its name in the memory of the old Roman Catholic Diocese of Makarska. Governor Sheng (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If renamed, keep a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Are we certain these are not separate topics?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The subject should have a headnote indicating that it refers to Archbishops before 1828 and a "see also" to Category:Archbishops and bishops of Split-Makarska for the subsequent period when the dioceses were amalgamated. This is not simply a case of renaming; otherwise I would have supported on the principle we use for alumni of renamed colleges, which I also argue for as to renamed sorts clubs/teams. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Split Separating them seems like the most straight forward solution, with hatnotes. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:07, 8 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:Weak Bellwethers for Sri Lankan Parliamentary Elections[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. – Fayenatic London 17:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: User:Nsenaratna was eventually blocked back in the summer for apparently bot creating a ton of stubs about Sri Lankan constituencies, and these are some of the (uncategorised) categories they created at that time. It's not clear what the definitions of a "weak bellwether" etc are being used, and we don't use it as a categorisation scheme for anything else. Instead I propose deleting these categories and listifying the "Perfect" ones with the other countries at Bellwether#Politics. Le Deluge (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article bellwether, itself tagged with multiple problems including OR and lack of sources, defines this notion as such: In a Westminster-style election, for example, a constituency [...] can mirror in its popular vote the result on a national scale. Considering that this can be used for predicting results either shows a complete misunderstanding of statistics or a fondness for numerology, as the article itself gives exemples of constituencies who gave such "predictions" during 50 years and then stopped doing so. Clearly a non-defining characteristic. Place Clichy (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. I'm not so sure about listification of the "perfect" ones, unless there's good sourcing for all of them. I agree with Place Clichy that the notion is pseudo-scientific, though that doesn't actually rule it out as a topic (nor one to be well-developed, as long as the sourcing is there for the claims that the entries qualify for the [silly] label).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-defining characteristic, additionally miscapitalized. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Categories are meant to capture permanent and defining characteristics, and a bellwether is almost always going to be an ephemeral stage of some election district. This can be seen in the bellwether article which describes that the U.S. state of "Missouri was often referred to as the Missouri bellwether as it produced the same outcome as the national results in the presidential election 96.2% of the time for the century between 1904 and 2004, only missing in 1956. It is considered to have lost its bellwether status following the 2008 election." In other words, a bellwether district reliably forecasts the larger political trend, until it stops working, at which point it loses its bellwether status. This is not the purpose of a category. Alansohn (talk) 01:57, 1 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:Astronomical locations in fiction[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. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
92 categories, ordered by first appearance in an alphabetical depth-first search

Nominator's rationale: There is precedent for renaming this type of category to prevent misuse for minor references. All categories should also be purged for such misuse. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename in order to have a more defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. Clever idea. Wish I'd thought of this. PS: I'm not sure there is any utility at all in the one about Earth. That would seem (broadly interpreted anyway) to account for all fiction ever, that did not take place in outer space or in a fantasy alternative world. Even narrowly interpreted to require considerable treatment of Earth as an astronomical body, that would still include the vast majority of science fiction ever written, probably.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:02, 27 November 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:Messier 87 in fiction[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. MER-C 19:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page, making a possible WP:SMALLCAT; surprisingly, Galaxies in fiction does not mention this galaxy. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is not even a mention of Messier 87 in the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marcocapelle.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a nobrainer delete. One item in a "list" pointing to an article that doesn't mention the category. There doesn't seem to be any similar Category for the Andromeda Galaxy (Messier-31), though I'd be shocked if there weren't more references to that galaxy (the only galaxy most people have heard of, apart from the Milky Way) than M87.PopePompus (talk) 00:41, 29 November 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:Onium[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. MER-C 16:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Set category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I had to check the main article to confirm the plural form! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but let's have one of those redirect-ish notices about what the correct category is. It's an obscure term, and lot of people who ever run across it are going to be apt to guess at "oniums", or not know whether it's a singular in the first place. So maybe account for both of those.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:06, 27 November 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 Front (World War I)[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. I think there is general agreement that the capitalization should follow the article. The article is now at Italian front (World War I). It was moved there without discussion in June 2019 and had been stable there until just prior to this nomination. As noted, the capitalization issue should really be played out on the article talk page, and then the category can follow. So this is a rename for now, subject to changes in the capitalization of the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sources do not cap this. Keep cat in sync with article. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article you just moved to lower-case... today. (Twice in fact. Because it's contested). FYI - wolf 15:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lowercase was stable for over a year; the recent capitalization was undiscussed at the article. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, it is not a speedy rename because the article has just been moved. The subcategories should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was moved and moved back to the version that had been uncontested for over a year. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See WT:MILHIST. - wolf 15:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOSCAPS and, let's not forget, the major English style guides in the US and the UK, which are in harmony with MOS: "minimise unnecessary capitalisation". I see no argument that caps are at all necessary here. What is ambiguous about the Italian front (World War I), please? Tony (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong Venue Ugh, the punctuation is clearly contentious although I'm not sure why (I have no preference) and needs to be resolved in an WP:RM on the main article. Then the category can be speedily renamed to match. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Since the article was moved recently without consensus from a long-stable lower-case name to an over-capitalized one, this category shouldn't've been capitalized in the first place. While RMs like this (i.e., very inconsistent capitalization in sources) almost always go lower-case per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, the faint possibility the RM could go for capitalization suggests deferring closure of this CfR until after an RM. There probably should be one, since the only RM at the page was in 2013, and didn't address this question, only the wording choice. And I see a bunch of "WP:CONLEVEL doesn't apply to us" kind of posturing at WT:MILHIST, so we should probably add to the consensus pile against over-capitalization, of military topics just for being military, until that WP:SSF kind of stuff subsides. It's not even a proper SSF: even military-specific sources don't consistently capitalize this. It's just WP:ILIKEIT from a wikiproject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:53, 27 November 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:Lists of fictional events[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 to Category:Fictional events and Category:Lists of fictional things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Now contains only 1 article and 1 subcategory, the former of which is at AfD and is likely to be deleted. Most likely, the other articles previously in this category have been deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politicians from Long Branch, New Jersey[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 and re-populate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategory. It's simpler for users to navigate entires through the main "People from Long Branch, NJ" category. Tinton5 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SMALLCAT. (t · c) buidhe 00:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Buidhe and other readers, this well-populated category had been depopulated before the CfD was initiated. Alansohn (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - was not SMALLCAT before someone improperly depopulated it. This is part of a fairly standard categorization scheme, see the related ones for other cities in the state, which is then part of a similar scheme for the other 50 states or so. The nominating rationale has been addressed before in the numerus keeps on similar deletion attempts years ago on these city/occupation categories. Nor is it a rationale recognized under WP:OVERCAT for obvious reasons. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repopulate and keep - it had 14 articles before Tinton5 removed them. Part of the extensive Category:American politicians by city. Oculi (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repopulate and keep per above. Djflem (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repopulate and keep per above. It is contrary to CFD procedure to depopulate before nominating. If a category has 5 members, without being trivial, it can be kept. Can someone warn Tinton5 not to do this again? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 28 November 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:Sportspeople from Brick Township, New Jersey[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 and re-populate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategory. It's simpler for users to navigate through the main "People from Brick Township, NJ" category. Tinton5 (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this category had been depopulated before the CfD was initiated. Alansohn (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - was not SMALLCAT before someone improperly depopulated it. This is part of a fairly standard categorization scheme, see the related ones for other cities in the state, which is then part of a similar scheme for the other 50 states or so. The nominating rationale has been addressed before in the numerus keeps on similar deletion attempts years ago on these city/occupation categories. Nor is it a rationale recognized under WP:OVERCAT for obvious reasons. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repopulate and keep - it had 9 articles before Tinton5 removed them. Part of Category:Sportspeople by city in the United States. Oculi (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repopulate and keep per above. It is contrary to CFD procedure to depopulate before nominating. If a category has 5 members, without being trivial, it can be kept. Can someone warn Tinton5 not to do this again? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 28 November 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:Sportspeople from Long Branch, New Jersey[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 and re-populate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategory. It's simpler for users to navigate through the main "People from Long Branch, NJ" category. Tinton5 (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this well-populated category with approximately 30 entries had been depopulated before the CfD was initiated. Alansohn (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - was not SMALLCAT before someone improperly depopulated it. This is part of a fairly standard categorization scheme, see the related ones for other cities in the state, which is then part of a similar scheme for the other 50 states or so. The nominating rationale has been addressed before in the numerus keeps on similar deletion attempts years ago on these city/occupation categories. Nor is it a rationale recognized under WP:OVERCAT for obvious reasons. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repopulate and keep - it had 30 articles before Tinton5 removed them. Part of Category:Sportspeople by city in the United States. Oculi (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repopulate and keep per above. It is contrary to CFD procedure to depopulate before nominating. If a category has 5 members, without being trivial, it can be kept. Can someone warn Tinton5 not to do this again? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 28 November 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:Jewish escapees from Nazi concentration camps[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) 22:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategories. The vast majority of inmates, escapees and survivors were Jewish. Rathfelder (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose False premise: only a minority of concentration camp prisoners were Jews. Adam Tooze estimated that of at least 1.1 million people who died in the camps, 800,000 were not Jewish. The vast majority of Jews who died in the Holocaust were never registered in a Nazi concentration camp and died in other ways (death camp, mass shooting). (t · c) buidhe 00:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not sure about "only a minority", but the two categories are far from similar. Take, for example, Category:Homosexual concentration camp survivors or political dissenters such as Tolv Aamland, Willi Albrecht, Bruno Apitz... Grutness...wha? 02:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be so, but the vast majority of our articles are about Jews. There are several thousand in the various subcategories of Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors. Should they all be divided into Jewish and non-Jewish categories? What we have at present does not work. Rathfelder (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably, yes. We have loads of categories where one subcategory is much larger than the others - that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. Look at all the "Foo people from the UK" categories divided into "Foo people from England/Scotland/Northern Ireland/Wales" subcategories - England dominates by an order of magnitude, due to its population. Doesn't mean the England category shouldn't exist. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Grutness. I do agree that there is a conceptual confusion in our categorisation in this area - I'd invite others to comment at the talk page discussion on the subject. —Brigade Piron (talk)}
  • If we want to distinguish the articles by ethnicity we should do it the other way round. There are at least 9 articles about Jewish people in the camps for every one about a non-Jew. Rathfelder (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Whatever the statistics, Jews suffered uniquely severely under the Nazis. All categories are adequately populated, so that there is no reason (except perhpas to gratify holocaust deniers) to remove them. No objection to sibling categories for other kinds of victims. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Being Jewish *AND* in a concentration camp *AND* escaping is an intersection that is a strong defining characteristic, regardless of the claims of relative percentages. Alansohn (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are residual categories. Most of the articles are categorised in respect of the particular camp, and those are not categorised by ethnicity, although some of the camps were clearly used for particular populations. Rathfelder (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order of Ismoili Somoni[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. MER-C 19:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders or diplomats visit Tajikistan, or vice versa, the Order of Ismoili Somoni is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Vladimir Putin, Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah and Ban Ki-moon are not remotely defined by this award. (There are also three biographies of high ranking Tajikistanis in the category—1, 2, 3—but most don't even mention the award so it doesn't seem defining to them either.) I expanded the existing list in the main article to include all of the category contents. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while the article for Order of Ismoili Somoni exists, none of the recipients are defined by being a recipient of the Order of Ismoili Somoni. The article may meet the notability standard, but that doesn't help this category. Alansohn (talk) 20:56, 29 November 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:Hertz Foundation Graduate Fellows[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. MER-C 19:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Hertz Foundation (of rental car fame) gives out graduate scholarships to attend prominent research universities. Within the articles, the award doesn't seem defining and usually gets a passing reference in the education section and they are already in the alumni category for whichever school the scholarship paid for. (The biographies in the parent article are there because they won $5,000 for having a promising thesis in another non-defining award from the same organization.) The contents of both categories are already listified here and here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 23 November 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_November_23&oldid=996606989"