Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 28 November 30 >

November 29

Category:Pollinators

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:Pollination. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 21:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Following a recent CFD and subsequent purging this category contains just 2 articles. As we don't categorize species etc for being pollinators this category is unnecessary. DexDor (talk) 20:39, 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:Baptist churches founders in United States of America

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) 23:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: (1) Even with a representative sample, this would be a highly disputed category. Which (Ana-)Baptists? How long ago? Are these related to buildings or movements or both? Are schisms and sects new founders?
(2) Currently, the only entries are founders of Baylor University, but that isn't a church or a movement.
(3) Currently, it's a subcategory of Category:Religious organizations established in 1845, so very restricted, although that could be fixed.
(4) "churches founders" leaves something to be desired. The history shows the creator didn't even spell United States correctly.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 19:24, 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:Yugoslav medical doctors

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. The exceptions which use "medical doctors" mostly have a connection to the British usage, but (as persuasively argued below) there is no reason in the case of Yugoslavia to diverge from the parent category name. (Disclosure: I'm British.) – Fayenatic London 16:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: To match other physician categories outside British usage. The Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Slovenian categories are all physicians. No reason for |Yugoslav to be different. Yugoslavia didnt have its own language. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename match parent Category:Physicians by nationality. Besides, then we don't have to argue about what is a doctor, and a doctorate.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 11:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. There are 32 subcategories of Category:Physicians by nationality which use medical doctor. If we rename on grounds of homogeneity, we should rename all of them on none. Also, Yugoslavia didnt have its own language is a weird thing to say, as Serbo-Croatian was (and still is) a language, although it does not bring much to this discussion. In continental Europe, British English is in general the preferred variety, being taught and used more. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • i must admit I hadnt appreciated the complex history of Serbo-croatian language. But I dont see any suggestion that British usage took precedence in Yugoslavia. And why do the Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Slovenian categories all use "physicians"? Rathfelder ( talk) 21:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - We have had this kind of discussion (based on trying [imperialistically] to apply American usage beyond the 50 states, and some satellites) many times. This use of "physician" reflects American usage of the term, which is likely to be alien in Europe. The main language was Serbo-Croat, which I do not speak, so that I have no idea what the vernacular term might be and how this might best be translated. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Assertions about what might happen in Europe, without any evidence, are most unhelpful. Most of the non-English speaking countries in Europe use "physicians", including all the countries that formerly comprised Yugoslavia. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am an American who is versed more in American usage and I created this category. This is not an attempt to apply British usage, this usage is an acceptable usage in American English. In American English most usage treats medical doctor and physician as synonyms, although maybe better would be Category:Yugoslav doctors (medical). Calling the category Category:Doctors (medical) would be the closest to actually reflecting common usage as it exists in the United States. I am not sure anyone would be OK with that over Category:Medical doctors, but I do not think anyone could reasonably argue that any American would feel that form in a outside imposition going against actual language use in the US. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am British. I dont see this as an argument about American usage. Physician is used in the UK, but in a different way. In particular it does not include surgeons, for historical reasons. I am just interested in consistency. Working on categorisation it is a great nuisance to have to guess what the relevant category is called. I'd be quite happy if all the categories were renamed Category:Doctors (medical). In the 30 years I've spent working with doctors in the UK I have only ever heard anyone say "medical doctor" when they needed to be distinguished from people with a PhD. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I should have known that this outlier was created by JPL, as so many others at CfD. [heavy sigh] Category:Medical doctors has been a soft redirect to Category:Physicians for a decade. If we want to rename the entire tree to Category:Doctors (medical), that would be a future CfR. Let's stick to this one here and now.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 02:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support - this is a case where consistency is the right call. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional mentors

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) 23:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Vague category. No clear clear guidelines for what constitutes being a mentor, and most are already in a better suited category (ex: Mr. Miyagi is already in Category:Fictional martial arts trainers. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 01:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:56, 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:Nature of Adana Province

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 all to "FOO Province" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Alternatively, rename to Natural history of ... or Flora of ... (I think they are all plants) or upmerge (each of these categories contains just 1-2 articles).
Nominator's rationale: The normal category structure (going upwards) is e.g. article ... -> Flora of Foobar -> Biota of Foobar -> Natural history of Foobar -> Environment of Foobar -> ....  and we've previously deleted other variations (e.g. Wildlife of Foobar) as they unnecessarily complicate the category structure.  Note: After a rename the categories may need to be reparented. DexDor (talk) 17:48, 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:6th century in France

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, merge & delete as nominated. Redirects/disambiguation pages will be kept for renames & merges. – Fayenatic London 10:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Followup to two rename discussions in 2019 and 2020 (not finalized yet) concerning France categories in the 1st millennium CE, considering those had very little to do with France (neither modern Republic and neither the preceding Kingdom) in terms of territory, rule and continuity. Francia under Merovingian dynasty and later Carolingian dynasty was covering much of Western Europe during this early Middle Ages era (476-800). Category:8th-century disestablishments in France can be deleted, having nothing to do with Francia. GreyShark ( dibra) 07:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a pretty clear consensus emerging in support of the nominator's rationale, but I am not authorized to close this discussion to that effect. This is really just a procedural move; I see no problem in simply closing the discussion as soon as the relist is complete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Francia in 511
    Francia in 511
  • Francia in 548
    Francia in 548
  • Francia in 768
    Francia in 768
  • Treaty of Verdun (843) and Treaty of Meerssen (870)
    Treaty of Verdun (843) and Treaty of Meerssen (870)
  • France at the end of the 10th century
    France at the end of the 10th century
  • France today
    France today
The weirdest thing in this category structure is that Category:8th-century Frankish people are found in 8th-century Germanic people and that e.g. Category:9th-century French people is not. When (West) Francia becomes France, its people change from Germanic to Italic, is that it? That is a very peculiar version of the transition between the two. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:37, 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:Faculties of the University of Zagreb

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. Category:University of Zagreb faculty was not nominated, but there was some support for it to be renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too like Category:University of Zagreb faculty. Alternatively one of them should be renamed. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This makes sense. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 18:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • In the UK we categorise the staff as "Academics of..." so the problem doesnt arise, but in most of the rest of the world we generally categorise them as "University of someplace faculty", and efforts to standardise on one usage have foundered. Most other university categories are used for the departments/faculties without the need for a sub category. The only other content is usually the alumni and faculty categories. We should bear in mind that editors of these articles often do not have English as a first language. We shouldnt give them problems we can avoid. Arguments about normal usage dont really hold in places where English is not the language. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Building on that, it should probably become either "academics of" for staff and "faculties" for departments, or "faculty" for staff and "departments" for departments, so in every country one or the other. Considering that in this particular case "faculties" is used for departments in the article titles, it should become "academics of" for staff. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:26, 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:7th-century establishments in Belgium

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, merge and delete per nomination. The rename is now a merge after the France nomination above. – Fayenatic London 12:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: To match the grandparent category:7th century in Francia, and because Belgium was not defined back in the Middle Ages. 1st Millennium category can be deleted at all. Later, 9th and 10th Belgium categories to be merged into Holy Roman Empire category tree. GreyShark ( dibra) 07:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. I know I'm a lone voice in this, but here goes. The problem with these nominations is that most of you seem to be reading this in a too pedantic and user-unfriendly way. The meaning of the category is: which things which are currently in country X (in this case:Belgium) were already established in year or period Y (in this case:the 7th century). I obviously have no objection in categorizing things also by their erstwhile country (here: Francia), either by placing this category in a Francia category, or by placing articles directly in both a Belgium category and a Francia category.
But as a reader, I (and I think most others) start from a current country, and are interested in what happened in this country in a certain period, even before the country as such existed. I want to know when the cities, abbeys, academies, ... of this country were established, and this information is lost (from the category tree) if these are upmerged to Francia, the Holy Roman Empire, ...
Basically, we need two trees: one by current country, and one by country at the time. Establishing the second one doesn't necessitate abolishing the first one. If people would prefer to rename the categories to Category:7th-century establishments in current Belgium, be my guest of course. Fram ( talk) 08:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. The first article I check is in no less than 5 Belgian categories, so there is certainly no risk that the connection with Belgium gets lost somehow. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • ...which is not my argument. Why do we have these "establishment in year X" categories? For the readers, right, to group and easily find articles with a same characteristic. Both "established in what was then Francia" and "established in what is now Belgium" are correct, so there has to be a reason that the "then" category is acceptable and the "now" category isn't. It is my belief that more readers will look at "when have things in my country (state, ... )" been established than there will be readers looking for "what was established in Francia in period X", but I don't oppose the existence of that category. However, no good argument has been presented why the existing one needs to go, what actual benefit is achieved by getting rid of it, or what policy or guideline is violated by its existence.
    • Oh, and how many of the countries in Category:7th-century establishments by country actually existed back then? Germany? India? Italy? France? Guatemala? Luxembourg? Switzerland? Nope, all later constructions (probably some of the others as well, I haven't checked them all). Even England didn't exist at the time, or at the very least things are included that weren't in England at the time, like Hexham Abbey, which was in the Kingdom of Northumbria. Should we get rid of all these categories? Why? In what way does that make enwiki any better for our readers? Fram ( talk) 10:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I read your comments in full. Saint-Ghislain Abbey (650-1796), for example, was founded in the Holy Roman Empire and dissolved by the Dutch. Readers might look under Belgium for those dates but I think giving them this monastery would be factually false and historically misleading. The Catholic polity it was founded under and the Protestant one it was dissolved under are key to the story, although not flushed out in this article. You can still navigate under both religion in Belgium and location in modern Belgium which are, well, true. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly oppose the latter, as that would suggest that France and Belgium were subdivisions of Francia. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Modern France and Belgium ARE part of Francia. We categorize places based on their current nationality, not the past. If the place changes, we change the navigation. So the only navigational entry in the articles should be the modern nationality, and explorers will go up a level to Francia. Francia is not a child of both France and Belgium; they are children (successors) of parent Francia.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 21:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • No, they are not part of Francia, as Francia no longer exists, and have never been part of Francia, since Belgium and France never existed at the same time as Francia existed. Belgium and France are just part of the EU. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:48, 3 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:Etimesgut Şekerspor footballers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Category:Etimesgut Şekerspor footballers

Category:Latter Day Saint films

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:Films produced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. MER-C 15:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category contains films produced, distributed, and used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is not evident from the current name, because it's hard to differentiate this category from Category:Mormon cinema, a broader category for films not produced by the LDS Church that have themes related to Mormonism. The nominated category is a subcategory of the new Category:Media of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The nominated category's lead article is List of films of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:23, 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:Collections of the Accademia Carrara

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. As the relister, I don't know how I missed OP withdrawing the nomination as far back as the 12th. I would have simply closed it without relisting had I noticed. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The article for the location is Accademia Carrara di Belle Arti di Bergamo. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Without using the WP:RM process though. My iVote remains unchanged. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Oh well, that will keep GO busy, renominating the category. Johnbod ( talk) 02:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Johnbod: Will you open an WP:RM on the main article? That seems like the most constructive path forward, both for GO and the encyclopedia. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
No, the case for the move seems clear-cut, and no one has objected to it above (or there, so far). Feel free to start a confirmatory RM if it bothers you. Really I think GO, who started all these, should do the work necessary to finish them. Johnbod ( talk) 15:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I'm not interested in starting an RM, as it seems like that is a preferable name for the article. There is really no rationale for a rename of the category to go through if the article is going to be at Accademia Carrara. I withdraw my support for a rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Johnbod: Re-reading my earlier comments, I was being overly bureaucratic and stubborn. Sorry about that. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:22, 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:1st millennium in Ukraine

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 on the merge proposals, but there seems to be a consensus to delete Category:1st millennium in Ukraine. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: We already have Kievan Rus' by century categorization, so parallel Ukraine tree by year is completely redundant and anachronistic for so long ago. We have category:Medieval Ukraine for that purpose. GreyShark ( dibra) 20:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the renaming because I do not see any anachronism issue, just as article History of Ukraine would cover a period of several millenia. However I would support the argument that Millenia by country categories do not serve much purpose and can be deleted in favour of century categories. Place Clichy ( talk) 18:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It is going to lead to arbitrary cross-categorization, especially in politically sensitive areas. For example in this case someone will make Russia and Ukraine subcategories of Kievan Rus'. Honestly I would rather abandon establishments by country and period altogether, seeing to how much discussion that leads. This would lead in this case to churches being just in a Ukrainian place or region category and also in a global decade category (or global century category for the very oldest churches). After 1054 a split of Eastern Orthodox churches is possible. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    (replied after relisting) I agree that long-time history categories sometimes (maybe often) result in splits that do not follow any geographic or historiographic divides but nationalistic ones or other biased POV. E.g. on Israeli/Palestinian topics we sometimes have articles and categories for the same place in the same era duplicated along the Israeli vs. Palestinian narrative, which is wrong. I agree with Marcocapelle that establishments by country and period could be abandoned entirely, especially since these categories are only really useful for late modern history or at least periods when dating is absolutely certain. Using such categories for very old buildings or political entities has little value and brings more issues that it solves. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with @ Marcocapelle:. I have recently been doing a lot of editing in the space of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Artsakh, both before and during the recent war. I have attempted to maintain some kind of balance. The level of nationalistic-minded editing has been shocking to behold. The amount of naked triumphalism is dismaying; Azeri / Turkish editors are attempting to erase Armenian details and history from swathes of articles. The usual reason is "the war is over" and presumably present realities on the ground mean that previous, inconvenient realities may simply be blotted out. For my pains, I've been goaded into 3RR and reported. Living in Ireland, I thought that I could see nothing new in alternative nationalistic worldviews, that it all be amicably resolved eventually. However, the visceral nature of the Artsakh/ Azerbaijan editing has let me to conclude that Marco is indeed correct: abandon establishments by country/period and instead use global decade categories. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Against anything anachronistic. The Armenia/Azeri conflict is another prove that things change all the time and redrawing maps by "modern thinking and borders" is a lost cause. Let's see someone categorizing Donetsk churches as Category:10th-century churches in Ukraine - it would be an editorial bloodbath (which could change in the future with further border changes and conflicts), while Kievan Rus cat is stable forever. GreyShark ( dibra) 15:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    I doubt it. Even the Russian Federation recognizes Donetsk, the “Donetsk people’s republic,” and the much larger Donetsk Oblast as part of Ukraine. You might argue otherwise based on unconventional political aspirations, but reliable sources do not support the idea. Anyway, it’s also moot because Donetsk was established in 1869, its oldest church built in the 1880s, demolished in 1931, rebuilt in the 1990s-2000s, and belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church—Moscow Patriarchate. It’s a fascinating, complex history, but none of it renders “in Ukraine” as a controversial categorization. — Michael  Z. 15:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Any of the proposed changes still look like broader structural changes. If we’re planning to restructure century categories surrounding Kyivan Rus, which concerns Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, or Great Moravia, which concerns Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and others, or Armenia and Azerbaijan, which also concerns the Soviet Union, then we can’t start by deleting two or three Ukraine categories and continuing this project piecemeal. It begs a bigger proposal. — Michael  Z. 15:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Then it is a) incomplete and inconsistent, because Kyivan Rus has five century categories, all of which overlap with five century categories of Ukraine and Russia, and b) wrong anyway, because Ukraine and Russia both include territories and historical predecessors that didn’t belong to Kyivan Rus. — Michael  Z. 03:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:20, 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:Gay photographers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding consensus, occupational categories for LGBT people are kept at the common "LGBT" level first, and are quadrantized into separate "lesbian", "gay", "bisexual" or "transgender" subcategories only if and when that becomes necessary for size management purposes. But with just four articles here, and no sibling subcategories for lesbian, bisexual or transgender photographers (or any "LGBT photographers" parent, either), gay male photographers don't need to be singled out for unique treatment. To be fair, there may also be a legitimate argument that this should just be deleted on WP:DEFINING grounds instead of being renamed — with exceptions for animators and comics creators, Category:LGBT artists isn't otherwise subcatted for particular types of artistic practice — but if it's kept it needs to be renamed, because "LGBT photographers" has to exist first, and be populated into the thousands, before quadrantizing it becomes warranted. (There are, however, other LGBT photographers, including other gay men, who could be added to the parent category besides the four people already here, so it shouldn't be deleted on WP:SMALLCAT grounds per se.) Bearcat ( talk) 17:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
And Tom Bianchi, Bruce LaBruce, Evergon, Peter Berlin, David LaChapelle, Herb Ritts, and on and so forth. But "people are missing from the category" isn't a valid reason to delete it per se, because missing entries can just be added at any time — so let's just stick to whether it's usefully defining of the photography or not (which I already acknowledged as a concern in my nomination statement), instead of getting sidetracked by an irrelevant digression that has nothing to do with whether it should be kept, renamed or deleted. Bearcat ( talk) 14:55, 3 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:China events 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: merge Category:China events templates to Category:China history templates. At present, do not rename Category:China history templates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. The result of the merge can be renamed to Category:China history and events templates for consistency with Category:History and events templates. —⁠ andrybak ( talk) 12:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:17, 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:Heads of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

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: reverse merge The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell these are duplicate categories. The lead article is General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:17, 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:Teqball

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) 23:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only 2 articles, for a relatively new sport invented in 2012. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I count three articles defined by the sport: Teqball, International Federation of Teqball and Viktor Huszar. (The last one pushes against the WP:SEPARATE editing guideline though and you may also want to take a glance at WP:RCAT.) If the sport grows as you expect, we can definitely revisit! RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Purge of redirects and articles that aren't specifically about the topic (e.g. György Gattyán), but then keep or upmerge. SMALLCAT doesn't apply here. DexDor (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because there is no obvious merge target. There are now 4 articles (apart from redirects). I cannot believe it would be appropriate to merge the category on one minor sport to something related to another. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:33, 6 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:People with acquired Belgian citizenship

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Category:People with acquired Belgian citizenship

Elections in Washington, D.C.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 17#Elections in Washington, D.C.

Category:Women herpetologists

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:Women zoologists and Category:Herpetologists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: It is sexist to categorize men simply as members of their occupation but to mark women as women. Georgia guy ( talk) 00:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:12, 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:Films scored by Bharathwaj

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Category:Films scored by Bharathwaj

Category:Defeated Incumbent Presidents of 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: delete, with permission to create a list. The current members are included in the list made below by Dimadick, plus Grover Cleveland. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization on a non-defining characteristic. All of these folks were indeed "defeated incumbent presidents", but their primary notability comes from being POTUS in the first place, not from losing when in office. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: Ultimately it will depend on where the consensus falls. However I would note that there is a subcategory for impeached presidents so there is precedent for creating a subcategory based on how a president leaves office or potentially leaves office. Given how notable everyone serving as POTUS is, we should expect more subcategories than usual. Dash77 ( talk) 22:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:12, 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:Buildings and structures demolished in the 20th century in Spain

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 with manual merge where needed. – Fayenatic London 14:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overclassification. We categorise buildings by their demolition date and by their demolition city or country, but this is the first time I've seen an "by X and Y" classification. Upmerging will have to be manually done because the 20th century upmerges to specific years and many of these buildings are already subcatted into cities, but the category needs to go. SportingFlyer T· C 22:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Marcocapelle: thinks we shouldn't ever depopulate something until the whole kit and kaboodle is handled? In the past, we'd look at a specific case, then handle related cases similarly in later CfD. Slow and deliberative process. Looking at the problem more broadly, we have:
  1. Category:Buildings and structures by year of demolition and Category:Buildings and structures by year of completion
  2. Category:Buildings and structures by decade of demolition and Category:Buildings and structures by decade of completion
  3. Category:Buildings and structures by century of demolition and Category:Buildings and structures by century of completion
  4. Category:Disestablishments by year and country and Category:Establishments by year and country
  5. Category:Disestablishments by country and year and Category:Establishments by country and year
  6. Category:Disestablishments by century and country and Category:Establishments by century and country
  7. Category:Disestablishments by country and century and Category:Establishments by country and century
This is significant overlap, proposed by Marcocapelle. So pick one....
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I strongly disagree this is an overcategorisation. It's part of an established directory structure. Furthermore, the fact a building has been demolished in a country isn't a "disestablishment," which itself has a vague definition but is used as the opposite of "establishment," which generally isn't used for building construction. A quick look at Category:1816 disestablishments in the Kingdom of Naples shows that a kingdom itself is in the list - adding buildings here would simply serve to confuse. Furthermore the fact we only have one entry for Denmark shouldn't matter for the entire directory structure. This is not a well-reasoned argument. SportingFlyer T· C 22:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I tend to agree with SportingFlyer that the categories should remain, but have no problem with them being part of the establishment/disestablishment tree. We could include buildings and structures in the establishment and disestablishment categories, but if we do it's important that they be in separate subcategories for construction and demolition, in exactly the same way that there subcategories for the establishment and disestablishment of companies, openings of railway stations, and debuts of television series. Grutness... wha? 23:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • This would duplicate what we already have now. A perfect example is an article I recently wrote at Safari Hotel. The hotel organisation was "disestablished" (closed) in 1998, but the building was not demolished until 1999. They are two separate pieces of data - one in the buildings and structures hierarchy, the other in the events hierarchy. Not all buildings will have an organisational use, either. SportingFlyer T· C 23:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Then we are in an uncomfortable situation. Actual category usage is apparently too confusing for the common editor. Or me. That bridge wasn't contructed or established, either. Maybe we should just get rid of all the establishment/disestablishment trees altogether? There doesn't seem to be a good mechanism to define building/structures that are (and/or aren't) also separately established/disestablished organizations behind the building/structure.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 22:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It's not confusing, I don't think. Entities are established/disestablished, buildings are constructed/demolished, there are two separate and proper structures for each, and an article can be both an entity and a building, or just an entity (an organisation), or just a building (someone's house). SportingFlyer T· C 23:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Just on this day page, looking at the other "establishments" under consideration, everything I've checked are buildings. So it confuses an awful lot of other editors, too. It would make more sense that they were "constructed". Was trying to come to an agreement with @ Grutness: suggestion of a compromise where "constructed" is a subcategory of "established", and "demolished" is a subcategory of "disestablished" to make it easy, but I'm gradually hardening on my position that it should just be deleted. This is supposed to aid navigation, not be a burden where everything has up to 16 dated tags, most of them missing.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 23:30, 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:American Baptist people

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 19:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: (1) We already have Category:Baptist Christianity in the United States by state and Category:Baptists from the United States, so all these folks should be moved to the proper state. I'll be doing that for the most prominent listed, and the rest can be done as part of this deletion action, this category merely needs to be deleted.
(2) Although it could be fixed, it is currently a member of a Texas sub-category and Category:American missionaries. Not appropriate for many of the persons listed.
(3) Most currently listed are specifically Baylor, affiliated with Baptist General Convention of Texas of Southern Baptist Convention, not American Baptist Churches USA. The Slavery Baptists split from the American Baptists!
(4) We don't currently further divide Baptist people by denomination, as the names of denominations have changed many times over history and people often move between various sub-denominations during their lifetimes.
(5) This creates confusion between "Americans" who are "Baptists" and folks who are members of the "American Baptist" denomination.
(6) As evidence of this confusion, Kamala Harris is currently listed, who was not a missionary and not from Texas (and certainly not a Slavery Baptist).
(7) As further evidence of this confusion, Nancy Green is listed, who was not a missionary, and who was a member of an African American Baptist church, not American Baptist Churches USA nor American Baptist Association and most definitely not Slavery Baptist!
(8) We should only be categorizing folks who are well-known leaders in their Baptist organizations, not well-known people who are mere members.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 17:00, 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:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#Category:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles

Category:Sunni caliphs

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) 23:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: follow-up on this earlier discussion: since all caliphs except the Fatimid caliphs are Sunni caliphs, it does not make a lot of sense to have a separate category for them. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:46, 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:Islamic prophets from the Hebrew Bible

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) 23:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, both pairs of categories are about biblical people as depicted by Islam. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:37, 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.

Mayors of places in Austria

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/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one or two articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. In the latter three places the one mayor is the only article in the People by populated place category, so a further upmerge to district level is being proposed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge for Now While these towns obviously have had more than 5 mayors, they often will not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. No objection to recreating any of these if they get to 5+ articles though. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support all these. A general rule that we need at least a reasonable prospect of 5 articles to make a category viable unless there is a very clear pattern of similar categories seems helpful. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:52, 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.

Towns in Sri Lanka by district

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) 23:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the above districts only contain one, two or three towns. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:11, 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.

Economy of medieval Islam

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/delete as nominated, with additional target suggested by RevelationDirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge to grandparent categories per WP:SMALLCAT and delete the intermediate layer. Seven categories for four articles is a bit too much. If kept, the first category should be renamed to "Coins of". Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:58, 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:Chefs who committed suicide

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection of Category:Chefs and Category:Suicides. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:27, 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:Emperor (novel series)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category, prior to some WP:BOLD redirection by me, now includes only a template. Even if I hadn't boldly redirected, it would contain only Emperor (novel series), a plot summary since that has been unsourced since 2007, and four plot-summary stubs about the books themselves which have also been completely untouched since 2009. I think I am not in the wrong in redirecting the pages since they were in such miserable shape, had no sources, and consisted entirely of plot summaries.

Regardless of my redirection, I still think there's not enough content here for a category even if the pages were restored. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:34, 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:Stratford Festival

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category that's mostly a performer by performance violation for actors, directors, producers or choreographers who have worked at the festival. If all of the people are removed, however, all that would be left is the eponym, an associated television anthology series, a documentary film and a subpage for the festival's production history, which isn't enough content to warrant an eponymous category anymore. Bearcat ( talk) 00:50, 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:Recipients of the Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders and celebrities visited Italy, or vice versa, the Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity was given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Boyko Borisov, Frank Sinatra and Shim Hwa-jin are not remotely defined by this award. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:06, 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:Recipients of the Labor Order

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD)
The stated purpose of the Vietnam's Labor Order is to award those "that have recorded outstanding achievements in labor, creativity or national construction." There are two articles in the category, neither of which seem defined by the award:
1: Mirosław Żuławski, a Polish writer whose article makes no mention of the award (or Vietnam).
2: Dominic Scriven, an English businessperson who leads an investment fund specializing in Vietnam whose article mentions the award in passing.
There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:06, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_29&oldid=1000915317"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE