Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 25

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 24 January 26 >

January 25

Category:Jewish Ukrainian mathematicians

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. All of the categories are otherwise appropriately categorized in mathematician categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. No suggestion that being Jewish had any particular influence on the work of these mathematicians. Rathfelder (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Merge if Removed I'll defer to others if religion is a defining intersection here but, if not, they should be merged to all parents rather than a straight delete. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both — all it took was one look at one article, and it is obvious this is trivial overcategorization. How can somebody be in several atheist categories, several more Jewish categories including descent, and three different Jewish FOOian mathematicians? Judaism had no inflence on mathematics. Parents such as Category:Jewish Ukrainian scientists and Category:Jewish Italian scientists are also likely on their way to deletion.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parents. The articles should most definitely be kept in Category:Ukrainian mathematicians and Category:Italian mathematicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per
    WP:GHETTO, if people in these categories were notable as Ukrainian or Italian mathematicians, they should have been kept there in addition to the ethnic subcategory. This merge target is therefore not necessary or automatic. Place Clichy (talk) 08:33, 26 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:Watco Companies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with renaming of parent article Watco Companies to Watco. ACendex (talk) 23:12, 25 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.

Samanid governors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, one or two articles in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 25 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:Sauces of the mayonnaise family

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation Spudlace (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Not a food family. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 28 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 the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States by city

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/merge, but keep Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in Washington, D.C.‎‎ Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: [I am nominating this and all child categories, FYI] Category-creep. Where or why people died is hardly ever a
defining characteristics RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
discussion of nomination
  • Procedural comment 1, if you intend to nominate the subcategories too, you need to list them and tag their pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment 2, presumably you intend to merge the city categories to their respective state categories, rather than deleting them altogether. Right? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, deletion is the proposal, for the reason listed. I have stuff to attend to off-wiki for the time being so if anybody can help with listing all the subcats then that would be welcome. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose straight deletion of subcategories, since the state categories are not nominated we should not remove content from the states tree while it does belong there. No objection to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Should I procedurally withdraw this and renominate the whole category tree? Whether state or country level, it does not change that this is not a defining characteristic (except maybe in the case of that Chinese doctor in Wuhan who died of it, but even then...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be best. Totally understand having conflicting off Wikipedia commitments but, in the mean time, I don't think leaving this open is likely to gain traction. Once you have time, renominate with the subcategories presumably as a merge proposal to each state. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was thinking of taking the whole tree back up to the parent category, which appears to be Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic by country (the logic is the same - except in a few fringe cases, this is not a defining characteristic and adds to category creep, and except for a very few pages all of them are just BLPs [of recently decease persons] who happened to die of COVID - sad, but not a defining matter which will help readers looking for the articles), but anyway best to first test the waters with this and then I'll see if its worth the effort to renominate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: A common reason to break down by state is to avoid what would be a unwieldy national category due to size. Since the death rate in the US remains high, it may make sense to hold off to see where we end up. (I'm not for or against such a merge at this point; just thinking out loud.)- RevelationDirect (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:COPDEF), what I meant was nominate the whole category tree from Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic by country down for deletion; again per the rationale I proposed. However, withdrawing this now that many people have expressed support for the (wrong, cause I picked the wrong parent category) proposal is a bit of a bureaucratic mess, so I'll just let this run it's course and renominate the whole category tree in a week's time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge Per updated nom. This level does not aid navigation and, if flushed out, will indicate more where major hospitals are located. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all categories below state-level to the state level, but oppose deleting the Washington, DC category. I disagree strongly that cause of death is not a defining characteristic; Category:Deaths by type of illness has a few dozen subcategories and thousands of pages although it looks like COVID-19 deaths are not within that tree. Currently, about one-fifth of every person whose death is attributed to COVID-19 died in the United States, and many states' total deaths outnumber many entire countries' totals (e.g. NY 42k, CA 38k, TX 36k, FL 26k, IL 21K, versus Russia 69k, France 74k, Iran 58k, South Africa 42k). It makes sense to subdivide deaths from COVID-19 in the United States by state, even though categorization at the national level may be sufficient for other countries. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 10:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Where or why people died is hardly ever a
    defining characteristics" The cause and location of a death is always defining, unlink things like occupation or religion. Dimadick (talk) 18:02, 28 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:World War II books

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is mostly self-explanatory, but the current title is confusing and suggests the category may be for books written during WWII. We probably need to rename all entries in Category:Books by war but I don't have whatever script is handy for the mass nom so I am starting with this and hope that someone with the right script can CfD the rest of those categories for renaming as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The target is less in dispute. Whether
    The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe goes here will not change with this move, because it was written and published several years after the war. Personally I would say the film made about 15 years ago would go in the film category, although even these WWII was very much just background setting. I would however argue that the book WWII is too much ignored opening line background to be defining. Even the film it is open either way. Since The Lord of the Rings was written in part (although not published) during World War II, there is a way to understand this category that would lead us to class it as a World War II book. Classying The Fall of Gondolin as a World War I word would be interesting to argue, since Tolkien when he first wrote it used images that some feel are inspired by tank and trench warfare, some argue that the engines the goblins come in are inspired by tanks for example and see the dragons as an artistic representation of flame throwers in WWI, however that work was not actually published until this century. We categorize books by year of publication, and by theme (broadly defined), we want to make sure we do not start categorizing them by general events going on at the time they were written.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support, less ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while the target is less ambiguous, it still has the "about" problems of how much about the subject must it be and who tells us that it's at least that much? Take
    The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe mentioned above. The whole reason why the kids were evacuated was the blitz (certainly "about" WWII), but other than the evacuation the book is mostly about happenings in Narnia and such (which, allegorically may be characterized as the triumph of good over evil, but many sources describe that in terms of Jesus not of Churchill). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rename per nom. I agree that this should cover books where World War II is a topic or setting, not to include every book written between 1937/1939 and 1945. The article name ca help better define the scope. Dimadick (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, less ambiguous. --Just N. (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.  // Timothy :: talk  17:00, 1 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.

Indigenous politics in Asia

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) 00:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: in their present state, these categories serve as containers for categories about politics of various autonomous regions in India and other Asian countries. Notably, Category:Indigenous politics in China has no other content but children Category:Politics of Tibet and Category:Politics of Xinjiang. Regardless of the degree in which the inhabitants of Andhra Pradesh, Tibet and Kurdistan can be considered indigenous, not all politics of these regions fall under the description of indigenous politics. They also have very, very little in common. I do not think that these container categories help navigation in any way or serve any clear purpose. The indigenous peoples categories are probably more useful for ethnicity-themed content, rather than spreading or diffusing them in a geographic scheme. Place Clichy (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indigenousness in Asia is a not easily defined thing, and in a place like Assam to treat all politics as somehow indigenous just does not work. I would argue that "indigenous" only somewhat works as a category in the Americas and the broad pacific region, it is too disputed to be used as a way to categorize in Asia or in Africa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per actual content, the nominated categories contain politics subcategories of first level country divisions, that is much more than just ethnic politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are these categories would be very offensive and be disrespectful to other tribes in the areas if these categories were to be kept? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete amorphous and impossible to define; we even have folks stating that the millions of people in Shanghai are ethnically indigenous when it was a mere fishing village less than two hundred years ago and those millions are not the descendants of those few. By that logic, English, Spanish, French, Swedish, and Dutch are indigenous to the Americas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ill-defined scope. The list of indigenous peoples in Asia contains several unsourced entries. Dimadick (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:14, 31 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:Murdered philosophers

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
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT after purging of all those who were not murdered based upon philosophy. It was empty, but one article was later moved from its existing Category:Assassinated German people and Category:Assassinated educators
. This person was not murdered based upon philosophy, or because he was an educator, therefore not assassinated; at trial it was established he was murdered by a jealous former student.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the stated rationale by
    Biogeographist (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  1. WP:OCTRIVIA
    : Conflict over a woman has nothing to do with philosophy, even though both were philosophy students. The unproven conjectured affair is not prominently mentioned in the lead of the biography, neither is it a dedicated subsection of the biography.
  2. Conflict over future career opportunities is
    WP:NONDEFINING
    for a philosopher (or any other career). There is no documentation of details about any differences of philosophy in the article. There is no evidence that differences of philosophy were prominently discussed at trial, nor that the conviction was based upon differences of philosophy.
  3. Since he was not killed for his military or political activities, he was not assassinated.
  4. It was a simple (although notorious) murder, and he's currently in both Category:People murdered in Austria and Category:1930s murders in Austria.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC) and 19:22, 25 January 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how
    Biogeographist (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note:
    Biogeographist (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • You've clarified that what you meant to communicate by invoking
    Biogeographist (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Moritz Schlick is a "non-notable philosophy professor"? LOL. A book that was just published a few months ago:
    Biogeographist (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Moritz Schlick "only had 3 pubs"? Not true. See the bibliography of his publications in the Stadler book that I cited above: there are more than 45. He's only known because of his Circle colleagues? Not true. See the intro by
    Biogeographist (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC) and 03:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • But the "quick reference" that I mentioned doesn't say "only" 3 pubs as you claimed, just 3 examples, and one of them is a collection of his papers! And you're taking "relatively modest" out of its context in the Who's Who in the Twentieth Century from which it came: the "relatively" must be relative to other notable philosophers, not to all philosophers, otherwise there wouldn't be an entry on him at all. Take another source, for example, the Moritz Schlick entry in the
    Biogeographist (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Everything I wrote above addresses the nomination. If you think the discussion of Schlick is irrelevant then you should have omitted the topic from your nomination.
    Biogeographist (talk) 19:54, 25 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:Sports in Mandatory Palestine

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.
(non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. Since Mandatory Palestine was a British territory, I suggest merging to the category with British English usage. Keeping a redirect would be a good idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:32, 25 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 Connecticut

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 25 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:Wikipedia pages with discretionary sanctions editnotice

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 proposed.
(non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Naming consistency across
talk | contribs) 05:59, 25 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:Tropical cyclone intensity articles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A week or so ago @BenKuykendall: decided to move the various intensity articles, we have for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific tropical cyclone basins into Category:Lists of tropical cyclones by intensity from Category: Tropical cyclone intensity articles. This is a fair move, however, all of the lists should have been moved into the new category, since they are all lists of tropical cyclones by intensity. This would mean that Tropical cyclone intensity articles would be an empty category and should therefore be deleted as a duplicate category. However, something tells me that it is better to bring it here rather than go through the speedy deletion process Jason Rees (talk) 03:59, 25 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:Academic Libraries at the University of British Columbia

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
(non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: The category name is redundant (almost by definition, all UBC libraries are academic libraries) and the only other by-institution subcategory of Category:Academic libraries in Canada uses the form "FOO libraries": Category:University of Toronto libraries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge unless someone can find a case of a library at a university that is in no way an "academic library".John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per nom. Shorter title that doesn't lose any info. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Universities will not normally have non-academic libraries. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:24, 31 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:Brazilian Portuguese children's songs

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 Category:Brazilian Portuguese children's songs to Category:Brazilian songs and Category:Children's songs; merge Category:Ecuadorian Spanish children's songs to Category:Ecuadorian songs and Category:Children's songs. It wasn't super clear that this is what users were advocating for (as opposed to a rename as proposed), but we'll go with it.. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are unnecessarily specific and there are no existing category trees for Brazilian Portuguese or Ecuadorian Spanish works as far as I can see. It would open them up more to convert them from language categories to country categories in Category:Children's songs by country. MClay1 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I meant specifically for those language children's songs. MClay1 (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge No reason to categorize by both country and by specific language. Dimadick (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- these refer to the majority language of these countries. If the topic were Quechua songs, it would be appropriate to include the language. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dimadick and Peterkingiron, it's unclear whether your !votes are for renaming as originally proposed or merging as proposed by Marcocapelle. Please clarify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 25 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:Murdered sex workers in the United States

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:Sex workers murdered in the United States. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think both forms are understandable in meaning, but the proposed name is certainly better English. This would also match the parent category Category:People murdered in the United States (not Category:Murdered people in the United States). (Category was recently nominated for deletion, with a "no consensus" result.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the targer makes the meaning less ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This categorizes articles by the location of the murder, not that these sex workers actually worked in the United States. Dimadick (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:27, 31 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:Errors reported by other category header templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.
(non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:OCMISC JsfasdF252 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JsfasdF252 (talk) 01:09, 25 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:University of California, Davis fellows

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT
)
In 2005, UC Davis appointed Wayne Rosing as a "fellow" which was an unpaid consulting role for a specific telescope project (citation). There are no other articles in the category and the other "fellowships" I found for UC Davis were basically scholarships for graduate students (citation) and any notable recipients of that would already be in the alumni cat. Right now, the only thing this category does is prevent any loose articles from being in the parent category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 25 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:Fellows of the Academy of Experts

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) 02:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OCAWARD
)
expert witnesses in court. That organisation article makes no mention of having fellows. Conversely, William Marslen-Wilson is the only article in this category and it makes no reference of being a fellow, the TAE, or even being an expert witness. Normally I suggest listification for honours but there's not much here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep None of "organisation article makes no mention of having fellows", "the only article in this category" or "[article] makes no reference of being a fellow" (the latter in any case false) are reasons to delete a category; all are errors of omission in our content, and can be fixed by improving said content, for which we have
    WP:NODEADLINE. It takes second to verify online that such fellowship exists, and is prestigious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Still I do not see how this is a defining characteristic of the article in this category.
    WP:PERFCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thank you for improving the TAE article. Working on a list of fellows within that article might be a better approach than this category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate -- The website says "Fellowship will be conferred on those who are able to demonstrate an appropriate high standard of professional competence in their profession or calling. Candidates for Fellowship will have wide knowledge and experience as an Expert, Advisor or witness and knowledge of legal procedures and the laws of evidence." There must be more out there. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate seems the right proposition. --Just N. (talk) 20:33, 31 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_25&oldid=1007179357"