Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 20 February 22 >

February 21[edit]

Category:15th-century archaeologists[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:15th-century antiquarians, Category:16th-century antiquarians, and Category:17th-century antiquarians. Some of the articles may need to be moved to a "historians" category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's widely accepted that archaeology didn't exist until the late 18th/early 19th century, so these categories are anachronistic. "First archaeologist" is a loosely-applied term, but the usual suspects in reliable sources were all born in the 18th century or later: Johann Joachim Winckelmann (b. 1717), Giovanni Battista Belzoni (b. 1778), Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (b. 1788), Jens Jacob Asmussen Worsaae (b. 1821), Augustus Pitt Rivers (b. 1827). Maybe John Aubrey (b. 1626) at a stretch, but that would leave 17th-century archaeologists a category of one. Archaeology's non-scientific antecedent is antiquarianism and we have a separate category tree for antiquarians. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all are very clearly anachronistic categories. What these people were doing does not actual constitute archealogy as the term is currently understood.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. Several of these people are called archaeologist in the article and I assume this is based on sources. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • By my count only five out of ten are actually described as archaeologists in the article text, and none of these descriptions are supported by reliable sources. Some might legitimately be called influential or precursors to modern archaeology (e.g. Michele Mercati#Legacy, but that's not the same as being one. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The practice of archaeology has developed a great deal over the years - but so has the practice of many other sciences. I'm not convinced that its helpful to delete these categories. Flavio Biondo, for example, doesn't seem to sit happily in Category:Antiquarians. Rathfelder (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The idea that archaeology only started in the 18th century is sourced to Britannica, and I have long thought it is an uneliable source. And the argument that archaeologists are historians could equally well apply to 21st-century archaeologists. Archaeology has not changed that much since the Renaissance figures studied the Greco-Roman past. Dimadick (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dimadick: Britannica as a whole isn't a great source, yes, but that particular article was written by Glyn Daniel. I included it because it's an accessible source (I don't like to assume everyone has library access these days), but I think you'll find the 18th/19th century origin of archaeology is accepted in any history of the field, e.g. Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought, Daniel's Towards a History of Archaeology and A Short History of Archaeology, Murry & Evan's Histories Of Archaeology, Fagan's A Little History of Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment our article Ciriaco de' Pizzicolli (b. 1391) calls him the father of archaeology. That line isn't well sourced and who knows who called him that (maybe unreliable). Archaeologists and antiquarians were mixed disciplines in these times (like chemistry and alchemy for a time, and geography and travel writing). Where we cut off the disciplines should be based on sourced usages and a headnote in the "by centuries" to direct readers to earlier centuries' "archaeologists" to the corresponding "antiquarian" categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carlossuarez46: I agree but the reason I nominated these categories is because the "mixing period", according to all the sources I can find, was the 18th–19th century. I can't find much to substantiate Ciriaco de' Pizzicolli being called the "father of archaeology" that can't be put down to citogenesis from the unsourced claim in our article. This paper usefully reviews the various figures included in early histories of archaeology in different languages, and doesn't mention him at all. In any case, we should distinguish between "archaeologists", i.e. people who studied the modern field, and what you might call forerunners to archaeology. The latter category includes some very ancient figures indeed, e.g. Shen Kuo (b. 1031), Saint Helena (b. 246 BCE, the patron saint of archaeologists), Ennigaldi-Nanna (b. c. 600 BCE), Nabonidus (b. c. 600 BCE), Khaemweset (b. c. 1303 BCE). Retrospectively we can say that what they did resembled what modern archaeologists do, but it would be anachronistic to actually categorise them in a field that didn't exist until the 19th century, as it is for these French and Italian scholars who lived centuries before. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joe Roe: I suppose one can be viewed as the "father" of some field that wasn't named when that person practiced it or its antecedents. If it is anachronistic, they should be merged to antiquarians per Peterkingiron, if that is what the then-current terminology was. I wasn't against the proposal and did find the claim to be poorly sourced but couldn't (with minimal effort, I'll admit) find a better one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment none of the individuals listed in the 15th and 16th centuries are even referred to as "archaeologists" in their articles.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion instead merge to the equivalent Category:15th-century antiquarians, which might be parented in an archaeologists tree. If there are any who do not fit this, they should be purged to the equivalent historians tree. I note that the present content is all Italian (with a few French) whereas the target's content is largely English. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Category:Antiquarians is nested under Category:Archaeologists so it's not like we'd be entirely detaching these articles from that category tree. --Just N. (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still take the view that we should downmerge to Category:Antiquarians, being the nearest equivalent older profession. I note that the oldest British society on the subject is Society of Antiquaries. We might instead use the term Antiquaries, rather than Antiquarians. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think that's a fine solution. Antiquarian is more common than antiquary in current usage, though. – Joe (talk) 10:58, 8 March 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:Hectomillionaires[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term 'hectomillionaire' is extremely obscure and would encompass an unreasonable number of members. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:14, 21 February 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:Generals of the Georgian Armed Forces ( 1991 - )[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 as nominated. This is a sub-cat of Category:Generals from Georgia (country), so the suggestion at the end amounts to a merge, which has no support here. CFD participants would do well to look at a nominated category and its parents before commenting. – Fayenatic London 17:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Georgian Armed Forces redirects to Defense Forces of Georgia. In my opinion, we don't need the start date in the category name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 21 February 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:Typographers[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 13:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Type designers was merged into Category:Typographers following a CfD back in 2009, the reasoning being that the distinction between the two isn't always clear, and it's often confusing to determine which category or both a subject belongs in. However, this is not technically accurate, and there are many clear examples of type designers who aren't typographers, especially in the modern industry. I'm suggesting renaming the categories to use typographers and type designers, to make it clear that they're inclusive of both. Paul_012 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing names. Even if there are fine distinctions between the two professions, they are too fine for spearate categories to be needed. The solution is to provide a head note to each category to the effect that it includes type designers. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Seems like a logical solution to the issues set out by the nominator. I'm not sure I understand Peterkingiron's comment about not needing separate categories. That's kind of the point of this nomination – to prevent the creation of separate category schemes for the two professions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename — the main article explicitly states "The term typography is also applied to the style, arrangement, and appearance of the letters, numbers, and symbols created by the process. Type design is a closely related craft, sometimes considered part of typography; most typographers do not design typefaces, and some type designers do not consider themselves typographers." Therefore, it has become impossible to distinguish without a reliable source indicating how each person views themselves, better in each person's article.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:02, 2 March 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:Wikipedians in the Featured Article Drive[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) 23:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured Article Drive redirects to Wikipedia:Featured Article Help Desk, which is marked as {{historical}} * Pppery * it has begun... 20:10, 21 February 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:Wikipedians who contribute to the Article Incubator[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) 23:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Article Incubator is marked as {{historical}} * Pppery * it has begun... 17:37, 21 February 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:Wikipedians by regional Wikipedian notice board[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) 23:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - container category with only two subcategories, one of which has been nominated for merging. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:34, 21 February 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:Dafina Zeqiri[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two subcats, which contain identical content, and a discography page. Overcategorization per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- also one of the songs categories. The other can be kept, with the Bio and discography articles made main articles for it. The normal minimum for a category is 5 articles, which the one surviving category would just meet. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - both subcats are fine, being part of established category trees which are intended to be complete. Oculi (talk) 21:43, 21 February 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.

History of the United States by period[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: disperse. ✗plicit 01:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
added March 23rd
Nominator's rationale: disperse, it is not meaningful to have two by-period trees in parallel, and the nominated categories do not match with other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: the reason why I was not aware of the other siblings is that only the above four were subcats of a "modern history" category that meanwhile has been merged. You are completely right that the other siblings need to be added as well. I'll do that later today or tomorrow. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron, Dimadick, Johnpacklambert, and Good Olfactory: please check if you want to add something to your earlier comments after I added six more sibling categories to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 23 March 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.

Countries and territories by language[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. List of countries and territories where Afrikaans or Dutch are official languages moved to Category:Countries and territories by language. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 21 February 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.

People by 4th level administrative divisions in Greece[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) 23:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge for consistency. This is not a WP:SMALLCAT nomination per se because the nominated category contains 6 articles. I would rather refer to the exception rule in WP:SMALLCAT: smallcat does not apply to categories that are accidentally small but fit in a tree where most siblings have a decent size. The argument of this discussion is that the reverse should apply as well: we should not keep categories that accidentally have 5 or more articles as part of a tree that we do not want to keep. In this case: we should not keep a tree for 4th level administrative divisions (not even 3rd level), so consequently we should not keep potential subcategories that would be a member of that tree.
Note that the consequence of accepting this nomination is that we really turn categories for 4th level administrative divisions into categories for populated places (if kept). In case there is a category for a town that it is eponymous with a 4th level administrative division, we should discount and purge people born in surrounding villages in SMALLCAT nominations.
This nomination is a clearer case to start off, because this 4th level administrative division only contains several villages, rather than a central town with several small surrounding villages. It contains:
Neophytos Doukas born in Ano Soudena
Agamemnon Gratzios born in Elafotopos
Matthaios Paranikas born in Vitsa
Manthos and Georgios Rizaris born in Monodendri, Ioannina
Dimitrios Sarros born in Vitsa
Anastasios Tagis born in Monodendri, Ioannina
This is follow-up on these earlier discussions: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The issue of this particular nomination has been briefly touched upon before in [8] (still open) with limited participation. In order to have a broader consensus I am inviting everyone who reacted in the before-mentioned discussions @Rathfelder, Oculi, Antondimak, RevelationDirect, William Allen Simpson, Justus Nussbaum, Laurel Lodged, Place Clichy, and Peterkingiron: to provide your input pro or con. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merging. The named articles are not properly categorized; see WP:COP-PLACE and WP:CATNAME#Residence. None of these meet any WP:NOTABILITY guidelines for place of birth. Not merely that the place itself is notable (see redlinks), rather the birth in that specific place is a WP:DEFINING reason for the notability of the person and/or this person made the place notable (such as Jesus of Nazareth). Recently added without edit summary, and without WP:RS.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (As nom) WA Simpson is right in that the notability of these people is unrelated to these particular locations so I would also support a straight deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom I disagree with William Allen Simpson. We typically categorize people by their place of origin. Not all categories have to do with notability, and they should not. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 24 February 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.

Vehicle categories with only one article and redirects[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: Manually delete. During discussion, some have been converted from redirect to article and back to redirect. Each will be manually checked for membership in the parent categories Category:Cars of China and Category:Vehicles by brand. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rayttle vehicles[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No aid to navigation. Contains only Rayttle and redirects that redirect to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, circular navigation from the article to the category and back to the same article is just frustrating. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:ThunderPower vehicles[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No aid to navigation. Contains only ThunderPower and redirects that redirect to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, circular navigation from the article to the category and back to the same article is just frustrating. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:GreenWheel EV vehicles[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No aid to navigation. Contains only GreenWheel EV and redirects that redirect to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, circular navigation from the article to the category and back to the same article is just frustrating. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:SiTech vehicles[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No aid to navigation. Contains only SiTech and redirects that redirect to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, circular navigation from the article to the category and back to the same article is just frustrating. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Levdeo vehicles[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No aid to navigation. Contains only Levdeo and redirects that redirect to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, circular navigation from the article to the category and back to the same article is just frustrating. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aoxin vehicles[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No aid to navigation. Contains only Aoxin and redirects that redirect to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, circular navigation from the article to the category and back to the same article is just frustrating. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gyon vehicles[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No aid to navigation. Contains only Gyon and a redirect that redirects to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, circular navigation from the article to the category and back to the same article is just frustrating. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lichi vehicles[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No aid to navigation. Contains on Lichi (car brand) and redirects that redirect to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, circular navigation from the article to the category and back to the same article is just frustrating. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bordrin vehicles[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No aid to navigation. Contains only Bordrin and redirects that redirect to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, circular navigation from the article to the category and back to the same article is just frustrating. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 21 February 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:Honored in Garden of the Righteous in Warsaw[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) 23:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining award. Not even mentioned in the biographies that I checked (Armin T. Wegner, Raoul Wallenberg). (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More per WP:PERFCAT. Which people are honoured changes from year to year so this seems too transitory to be defining and is a memorial for people who were already notable. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite accurate. A new person(s) is honored each year, but the honored remain honored. A tree is planted for each person and that tree remains. WP:PERFCAT doesn't apply since this is not a "performance".
And re: nominator's rationale, I have no idea what "Non-defining award" means and I seriously doubt the nominator checked all biographies of all sixteen persons mentioned there. Which ones exactly did you check Buidhe? Please list them. Volunteer Marek 02:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for an award to be defining is quite high (think Nobel Prize). See WP:OCAWARD. (t · c) buidhe 04:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was seeing the dedication as the honour rather than the tree so maybe WP:PERFCAT doesn't fit. Having a tree planted in someone's memory clearly fails WP:OCAWARD though: "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes, I see now this whole “defining characteristic” thing. The award is fairly new so there probably a lot of older sources that don’t mention it. Volunteer Marek 19:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD, it is not a consistently WP:DEFINING characteristic across the articles in the category. Even worse, many articles do not even mention it at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- clearly in the nature of an AWARD category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 21 February 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:Illis Quorum recipients[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining award. Randomly checked three biographies in this category and the award is not mentioned in any of them, making this a verifiability issue. (t · c) buidhe 01:46, 21 February 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:Jumana Mattukat[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 C2F. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created for one article only; no potential for growth Jmertel23 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 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:Dallas municipal 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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There should just be a single Category:Local elections in Dallas. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep = this seems to be the usual arrangement; eg Category:Government of Chicago. Oculi (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, municipal elections aren't necessarily mayoral elections. Though some articles need to be moved from the mayoral to the municipal elections category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a distinct category for a distinct type of elections. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 21:38, 21 February 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:Recipients of the Medal of the Crown of King Zvonimir[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and WP:SMALLCAT)
During World War II, the Nazi puppet state in Croatia issued the Medal of the Crown of King Zvonimir based on loosely defined criteria "for merits done, in peace or in war" We only have one article, Kurt Waldheim, who is definitely defined for being a Nazi (and is categorized as such) but not for receiving this award. I can't say I "listified" the contents but that one article is now linked right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 21 February 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:Chechen national heroes[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) 23:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and either WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or WP:OCAWARD)
We don't have an article on Chechen national heroes to define what the inclusion criteria would be for this category. Every article is already under Category:Chechen nationalists and this may be a subjective judgment by Wikipedia editors. (Alternatively, it's possible this is a non-defining award without a main article.) Either way, the articles treat it as non-defining: 3 of 4 articles make no mention of being a "hero" and the 4th one has this unsourced sentence:
... He is considered by many Chechens to be a national hero.
That's not a strong foundation for a category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a subjective category, anyway it is non-defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to nationalists. Unless someone can find an objective criterion for inclusion, this is subjective, but even if there was, it would be an AWARD category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 21 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_21&oldid=1015705734"