Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 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)
 * Propose merging Category:Pollinators to Category:Pollination
 * 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)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:NONDEFINING.


 * 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)
 * Propose deleting baptist churches founders in united states of america

(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, 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)
 * 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?


 * Delete or at least change somehow, because the scope is not clear. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The category largely seems to relate to the founders of Baylor University. One was certainly a church planter, but the others were merely leading men in establishing the Baptist denomination in Texas.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Just N. (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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  L ondon 16:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Yugoslav medical doctors to Category:Yugoslav physicians
 * 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)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose Medical doctor is always the right term. It is more common, and we really should use it everywhere. There is no good reason to not use it in the Yugoslav case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should, but we dont. 90% of the categories use physicians. This is a very poor argument.  Medical doctor is only used in British categories because "doctor" is ambiguous.  Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral The argument here is whether we should use American English versus British English for Yugoslavia, where everyone is just a liječnik/lečnik. I think the British is probably fine, but not sure if there's a specific rule here. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename to match the overwhelming format of . There is a case to be made that we should change the default to medical doctors, but that shouldn't prevent conformity to the standard in the meantime. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * English usage is doctor, not medical doctor. Rathfelder (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename match parent Category:Physicians by nationality. Besides, then we don't have to argue about what is a doctor, and a doctorate.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * Support - this is a case where consistency is the right call. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Propose deleting fictional mentors


 * 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)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom, and not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; completely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Mentors tend to be stock characters in fiction and we could probably cover information on related tropes. TV Tropes has An entire index of Mentor-related tropes. Covering characters such as Yoda, Count Dooku, Qui-Gon Jinn, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Darth Vader, since Star Wars tends to explore mentor-student relationships. Dimadick (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide such a list from a reliable source? DonIago (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Behind every good hero, lies a great mentor; who frequently serves the narrative role of the helper, donor, and dispatcher. Considering how every story/media I consumed features this archetype, I am surprise that articles/categories/lists for villains, heroes, damsel in distress, ect. exist, but not this one. I also think the Elderly martial arts master should be merged/expanded/globalize to include other non-asian fictional mentors, and not just the ones who are good at martial arts. --Atvica (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete We don't categorize for IRL mentors, do we? It also seems to me that the role of mentor is played up in fiction and not nearly as significant in real life. Mentoring is really only notable in relation to a fictional character, but again we do not appear to categorize individuals as mentors; the closest we have is Category:Mentorships, which is for groups only. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. These "Fictional fooers" categories need pruning (e.g. there's about 40 of them on the Batman article). WP:DNWAUC. DexDor(talk) 06:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete All good educators are mentors, so that would include headmasters, teachers, martial arts trainers, etc. No need for WP:OVERCAT (WP:NONDEFINING, WP:OVERLAPCAT).
 * Delete While this is a dominant character in many stories, it's also often subjective on the individual article level. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and not a defining characteristic. --Just N. (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Propose renaming Category:Nature of Adana Province to Category:Biota of Adana Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Nature of Antalya Province to Category:Biota of Antalya Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Nature of Isparta Province to Category:Biota of Isparta Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Nature of İzmir Province to Category:Biota of İzmir Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Nature of Konya Province to Category:Biota of Konya Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Nature of Kütahya Province to Category:Biota of Kütahya Province
 * Propose renaming Category:Nature of Mersin Province to Category:Biota of Mersin Province
 * 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)


 * Merge to Category:Adana Province etc., per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Adana Province etc.-- Except endemic biota, a whole nation is generally too small to merit having its own categories. The reason for this is to prevent category clutter.  The articles appear already to be in Category:Natural monuments of Turkey and Category:Individual trees of Turkey (though I have only checked a sample), but these would also have been upmerge targets.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Adana Province etc. Alike Peterkingiron. --Just N. (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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  L ondon 10:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:6th century in France to Category:6th century in Francia
 * Propose renaming Category:6th-century establishments in France to Category:6th-century establishments in Francia
 * Propose merging Category:6th-century French people to Category:6th-century Frankish people
 * Propose merging Category:7th century in France to Category:7th century in Francia
 * Propose renaming Category:7th-century establishments in France to Category:7th-century establishments in Francia
 * Propose merging Category:7th-century French people to Category:7th-century Frankish people
 * Propose merging Category:8th century in France to Category:8th century in Francia
 * Propose renaming Category:8th-century establishments in France to Category:8th-century establishments in Francia
 * Propose deleting Category:8th-century disestablishments in France
 * Propose merging Category:8th-century French people to Category:8th-century Frankish people
 * 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)

 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.
 * Support, in this period there wasn't a country or region that resembled France in any way. Perhaps the 6th-century categories require manual merging as the Frankish kingdom was still expanding back then. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support -- "France" is an anachronism at that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my reasoning at the similar "Belgium" CfD. Basically, this "anachronism" is what more readers are interested in than "Francia" or other historically correct groupings. Fram (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support -- "France" is a wrong relation/assignment at that period. -- Just N. (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - the preceding discussion on Roman Gaul categories has just been approved for renaming and merging all France categories into Roman Gaul. Apparently, the Category:5th-century establishments in France was mistakenly left untouched (obviously to be renamed into Category:5th-century establishments in sub-Roman Gaul daughter cat of category:5th century in sub-Roman Gaul).GreyShark (dibra) 15:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note, see also discussion on 5th century, and discussion on Belgium which is in the race for renaming to to Category:7th-century establishments in Francia. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all Per my rationale at Ukraine below. Establishments by country/period are too problematic. Leave it to Francia and global by decade/century. In any event, France must certainly go. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep both France and Francia as place names. Per my rationale at Ukraine and Belgium. Put the modern France under the broader Francia.
 * Category:6th century in France a child of Category:6th century in Francia
 * Category:7th century in France a child of Category:7th century in Francia
 * Category:8th century in France a child of Category:8th century in Francia
 * Category:7th-century establishments in France under new Category:7th-century establishments in Francia
 * Category:8th-century establishments in France under new Category:8th-century establishments in Francia
 * Category:8th-century disestablishments in France under new Category:8th-century disestablishments in Francia
 * But agree:
 * Merge Category:6th-century French people to Category:6th-century Frankish people
 * Merge Category:7th-century French people to Category:7th-century Frankish people
 * Merge Category:8th-century French people to Category:8th-century Frankish people
 * There were no French, the language didn't formally exist yet.
 * Oppose. "France" is not anachronistic. French historiography usually considers Merovingian Francia to be an integral part of the history of France from the time of Clovis. Saying that it has very little to do with France either in terms of territory or continuity of leadership is a very weird thing to write. Actually the territories of 6th-century Merovingian France is probably more coterminous with contemporary France than Charlemagne's era Carolingian Empire, West Francia at the 843 Treaty of Verdun or Capetian dominions at the rise of Hugues Capet, which certainly are not better arbitrary cut-off dates at between Francia and France.


 * The weirdest thing in this category structure is that are found in  and that e.g.  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)
 * Let's leave the latter discussion for another time, as that problem is too unrelated to the nomination (I do understand the problem though). As with regard to the general discussion, the only thing that has been made clear is that Category:Francia belongs in the tree of Category:History of France. It is not an argument for keeping two largely overlapping trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support The categories set in time should be based on the political structure of that time. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternative rename Category:7th-century establishments in Frankish kingdoms. We have established a policy of not allowing anachronistic categories in this situation.  However, I accept that having something in Belgium categorised as in Francia sounds like a variety of French nationalism, probably only appropriate to 1790s to 1814.  As pointed about by another contributor, this was not a single stable polity.  I offer this is a more NPOV option.  In either case, this should not be used after the time of Charlemagne.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename to Francia, Frankish people. This is too removed from the modern understanding of the term to use other than the older form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Propose merging Category:Faculties of the University of Zagreb to Category:University of Zagreb
 * 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)


 * Comments - I don't think there is any confusion between the 2 given categories. We have Category:Faculties of the University of Cambridge and quite a few others, but no overall scheme that I can find. The nearest is perhaps Category:University and college departments which is partially developed. And there is Category:Colleges and schools by university which appears to be US-only. Oculi (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging, that is a solution for different kinds of problems. As for renaming, I suppose - correct me if I am wrong - that in real life people would never use the word 'faculty' for 'departement' and for 'academic staff' at the same time. Wikipedia should reflect actual usage. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- If anything Category:University of Zagreb faculty should be renamed to Category:University of Zagreb staff. This use of faculty for faculty members, i.e. academic staff is an Americanism that is alien to Europe.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This makes sense. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Rename, suggesting target Category:Departments and faculties of the University of Zagreb. The topic here is indeed Category:University and college departments. University departments are often called faculties or a cognate term in many countries, see e.g. the Paris Law Faculty or Paris-Saclay Faculty of Sciences, from French faculté, the Istanbul Commerce University Faculty of Law, from Turkish fakültesi, the Heidelberg University Faculty of Law, from German Fakultät, the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law, from Spanish facultad etc. The difference between what should be called a faculty vs. an academic department may be very clear in a specific country (read: the UK) but the terms may have overlapping meanings in various countries, especially non-English speaking countries where translations may be a wild guess, so that applying a single word across the board will always be unpractical. The situation is very much that of universities and colleges. Note that a number of such faculties/departments are also found at Category:Colleges and schools by university, e.g. Category:Harvard University schools (which are in fact called faculties, e.g. the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences), Category:Faculties of Imperial College London etc. Place Clichy (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My local experience in Manchester is that our university is constantly renaming its schools/faculties/departments and I doubt if anyone outside the University understands the differences. I think calling them departments in places where English is not the native language seems like a sensible solution.  But I'm not convinced that the intermediate categories like "Faculties of the University of xxx" are usually necessary.  Why cant they just be in the main category "University of xxx"?  It's only in the very largest universities that there is much else there. Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a local Croatian discussion about a worldwide problem. Perhaps an RFC might be a better means to discuss this for the entire category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * These individual organizations are indeed the most important constituent parts of that university, so the merge proposal would make sense from that standpoint, but I'm not keen on doing it just because the word faculty is somewhat ambiguous to a few particular editors who aren't used to this particular meaning. Please analyze the reliable sources for these organizations, in particular English-language ones, to see if there is another more appropriate word to be used for these - as far as I'm aware, there is no such consensus alternative. Also, do note that some of these organizations are of non-trivial size, sometimes comparable to organizations that call themselves universities elsewhere, so the argument that they're merely parts of a university is moot. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Faculties of the University of Zagreb to Category:Departments of the University of Zagreb
 * Rename Category:University of Zagreb faculty to Category:University of Zagreb staff.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Simplify. Academie and faculty and schools are also departmental divisions. So that matches Category:University and college departments. Those of us who have spent significant parts of our lives as university research associates (not tenure track) have long been categorized along with faculty and staff. All academics are also staff.
 * Oppose any change - the category is of the faculties of Zagreb. Accurate as it is. Might go along with a descriptive rename if we can get there. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The present name is correct, but Rename Category:University of Zagreb faculty to Category:University of Zagreb staff. This use of faculty (for staff) is an Americanism.  Some European universities have faculties, schools, and departments, being different organisational levels.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a much bigger discussion. Would you like to propose it? Rathfelder (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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  L ondon 12:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:7th-century establishments in Belgium to Category:7th-century establishments in Francia
 * Propose merging category:7th century in Belgium to category:7th century in Francia
 * Propose deleting category:1st-millennium establishments in Belgium
 * Propose deleting category:1st millennium in Belgium
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * ...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)
 * 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)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Support per nom and above comments. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support -- We have for a long time been eliminating anachronistic categories of this kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note, see also Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_8 where Category:7th-century establishments in France is in the race to be renamed to Category:7th-century establishments in Francia. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all Per my rationale at Ukraine below. Establishments by country/period are too problematic. Leave it to Francia and global by decade/century. In any event, Belgium must certainly go. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete "millennium" per nom. Oppose renames. Instead, Category:7th-century establishments in Belgium should be a child of Category:7th-century establishments in Francia, and Category:7th century in Belgium should be a child of Category:7th century in Francia. So we can have modern countries indicating where they were previously. As suggested for Rus' earlier today, too.
 * Strongly oppose the latter, as that would suggest that France and Belgium were subdivisions of Francia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * At this point, this has descended into an unsupported political argument. Belgium and France are members of the EU, but AFAIK the EU is not categorized as a nation.


 * Alternative rename Category:7th-century establishments in Frankish kingdoms. We have established a policy of not allowing anachronistic categories in this situation.  However, I accept that having something in Belgium categorised as in Francia sounds like a variety of French nationalism, probably only appropriate to 1790s to 1814.  As pointed about by another contributor, this was not a single stable polity.  I offer this is a more NPOV option.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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%23Category: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)
 * Propose renaming Category:Latter Day Saint films to Category:Films of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints films)
 * 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, 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 . 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)


 * Alternate rename to Category:Films produced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to clarify these are "official" LDS films, not films purportedly "about" the LDS or LDS topics, which "of" could connote. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with that. That would also conform to the format of the subcategories of, which the nominated category could be added to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alt Rename Category:Films produced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seems the clearest but any of the proposed renames are better than the current one. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 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) William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt rename to Category:Films produced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the least ambiguous option. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt rename to Category:Films produced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as long as it is added to
 * Comment -- This is a very long name, causing category clutter. Could I suggest Category:Films produced by LDS Church, leaving the expansion of LDS to be left to a headnote?  The common name as used by the rest of us is Mormon, but I think that is depreciated.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the categories for the LDS Church use the full name, except when the name of the church is a disambiguator. See and subcategories. The proposed name is no longer than many others within this tree. I'm not really sure what you mean by "category clutter". It seems like this would be a subjective thing that depends a lot on what platform one is accessing Wikipedia on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose renaming Category:Collections of the Accademia Carrara to Category:Collections of the Accademia Carrara di Belle Arti di Bergamo
 * 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)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose - article should be moved. Official website & main other language wps use the short form. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * will you start an RM? Also for the ones below? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename for Now/Defer to RM Per the spirit of WP:C2D the category should be renamed for now unless an RM is opened. (If an RM is opened, that this category should match the category, whether I agree with that outcome or not.) RevelationDirect (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Article stable since 2013. Oculi (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Main article moved - back to name before undiscussed move. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Without using the WP:RM process though. My iVote remains unchanged. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh well, that will keep GO busy, renominating the category. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Re-reading my earlier comments, I was being overly bureaucratic and stubborn. Sorry about that. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Conditional procedural oppose, if the article title change is not reverted, the category name should remain as is. While WP:CFDS may require an RM for renaming a category, WP:CFD does not require an RM for keeping the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral Original vote struck. I'll defer to the other editors above.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as main article has been renamed instead. GO has withdrawn his OP.


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose renaming Category:1st millennium in Ukraine to Category:1st millennium in Kievan Rus'
 * Propose merging Category:9th century in Ukraine to Category:9th century in Kievan Rus'
 * Propose merging Category:10th century in Ukraine to Category:10th century in Kievan Rus'
 * 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)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support except millennium which should be deleted: there are not enough century categories (and will not be) to need a parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose move (but support deletion of 1st M.), for the same reason we have both and . We also have  and, and the move or merge makes no sense unless you erase the histories of the territories of at least three modern states. Some things may properly be categorized in any one, some, or all of these. These countries overlap, but do not correspond perfectly, in either the timeline nor in geographic space. For example, less than 5% of Russia’s area was controlled by Kyivan Rus, and parts of its territory are 6,000 km from any former territory of Kyivan Rus. None of these entities are each others’ equivalents. —Michael Z. 21:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not have millennium countries for any country. Centuries suffice. Millennia is useful for prehistory. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a bigger discussion, but I will defer. —Michael Z. 01:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (voted above)Still Support nom -- I believe millennia categories generally to be a waste of space. The only content apart from the target is Great Moravia, a state which may have possibly included some small portion of the present Ukraine, but at a later date the greatest extent of Poland did similarly did so.  Great Moravia ought not to belong, which would make the two categories identical in content.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support We should not have millennium countries for any country. Centuries suffice. Millennia is useful for prehistory per Marco. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Question to what if the century categories also contained architecture categories e.g.  (like the existing ) containing Mezhyhirya Monastery and Church of the Tithes? (traced va the linked category in Spanish Wikipedia) – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This argument reinforces my opinion that century categories using modern geographical designation are in no way anachronistic. Any decent book titled History of Ukraine would have a chapter about the Kievan Rus' that would cover 10th-century events in Ukraine. Place Clichy (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * (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)
 * I agree with . 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)
 * 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 - 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 added after relisting) The proposal as nominated is not a broader structural change. It is in fact in line with all previous discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Agree that the article Great Moravia should not be included in the merger. Bottom line the merge proposal collapses to a deletion proposal. Which is still consistent with how we categorize other modern countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> 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)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Category:1st millennium in Ukraine. Oppose merge as proposed. Instead, as suggested, a thorough rethink is needed about ethnicity intersections with nationality. Nationality didn't really become a thing until the past few centuries. It might be better that the 9th and 10th centuries Ukraine and Russia parent categories should instead be child categories of Kievan Rus', but we don't need a CfX for that. Although since the discussion is here already, perhaps it can be resolved as a general principle?
 * Keep as is. Otherwise, delete all including . 37.54.218.236 (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose renaming Category:Gay photographers to Category:LGBT photographers
 * 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, 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)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename Per longstanding consensus.
 * Delete per WP:OCEGRS; if there is a "gay photography" different than "non-gay photography" where are the reliable sources? If this is supposed to be Category:Photographers of gay erotica that may be a genre but may not be what this category is trying to achieve. These are better handled as sourced lists; besides, I would have expected this category to contain Carl Van Vechten and Robert Mapplethorpe. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm convinced. Better as sourced lists. Note deletion per WP:DEFINING was an alternative suggested by OP.
 * Delete non-defining intersection. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose merging Category:China events templates to Category:China history templates
 * Propose renaming Category:China history templates to Category:China history and events templates
 * 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)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Category:China history templates per all country siblings in Category:History and events templates by country. It is the top level of the tree that should be renamed (back?) to simply history. Support merging Category:China events templates to Category:China history templates, since the category only contains historic events templates. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> 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)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge Category:China events templates to Category:China history templates per OP. All current events become history eventually. No support for renaming. The only one with that naming is Category:Singapore history and events templates. Agree with Marcocapelle that parent categories should be renamed instead.


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose merging Category:Heads of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to Category:General Secretaries of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
 * 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)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment (no oppose), until 1922 the title was phrased differently. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose This would exclude the Heads of the party from 1917 to 1922, which had different titles. Dimadick (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do we need both categories if there was nothing different about the 1917–22 ones apart from a name change? I'm open to a reverse merge if the broader name is thought to be better. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge or reverse merge, nominator is right that the only difference is a name difference, that is not enough to keep separate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge or reverse merge No functional distinction. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge as agreed alternative by nominator. More inclusive.


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose deleting teqball


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only 2 articles, for a relatively new sport invented in 2012. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 03:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete for Now with no objection to recreating later if the popularity grows and it gets up to 5+ articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and the two articles are directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as WP:SMALLCAT clearly excludes categories with a potential to grow. This category clearly has the potential to grow if the sport expands, and players become notable, venues become associated with the sport, championships become notable, etc. Note too that it now has six entries. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep as WP:SMALLCAT clearly excludes categories with a potential to grow. -- Just N. (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are still only two articles about the sport in the category (I am not counting the two biographies), by the way the biographies are also directly interlinked with the main article, and finally no evidence of potential to grow has been provided. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete smallcat, no evidence of growth potential. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> 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)
 * 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)


 * 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%23Category:People with acquired Belgian citizenship

Elections in Washington, D.C.
Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 17%23Elections in Washington, D.C.

Category:Women herpetologists
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose deleting women herpetologists


 * 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)


 * Oppose It is part of a category tree for Category:Women zoologists. This would remove them from the parent category as well. Dimadick (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Dimadick, yes; I support deleting all similar categories titled as such for the same reason. I chose this one as the one to nominate only because it's the one I initially stumbled upon. Georgia guy (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to parent categories per WP:OCEGRS as a non-notable intersection with gender. Don't delete, but merge: if Category:Women zoologists is going to be discussed later as well, fine, but as it is not discussed now we should keep the articles in that tree.Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dual upmerge as this is one of those areas where having too many ways to categorize (plus limited editor time/understanding) causes categories to be incomplete. We should also try to minimise use of non-diffusing categories. A person can be notable in several scientific fields so we should minimise/avoid categories that intersect that with other characteristics. Maybe an essay/guidance on categorizing of scientists would help. Intersecting (e.g. Petscan) Category:Women scientists by century etc with Category:Herpetologists (or using WikiData) should be the way to get a list of women herpetologists. DexDor(talk) 07:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:OCEGRS requires reasonability, and there have been journal articles written on women in herpetology, making this reasonable. It's also a non-diffusing category, meaning that this category is additional, meaning that these women are defined by both their occupation and the fact they are women in their field, not just for being women. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that its non-diffusing makes it very likely a WP:OCEGRS problem. If being a woman herpetologist were defining, then it could live as a subset like the non-diffusing Category:Best Directing Academy Award winners does within Category:Film directors. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete or merge as necessary per WP:OCEGRS and Marcocapelle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dual merge -- It matters little which sex a scientific author belongs to. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dual merge for now, discuss presence of parent categories at a later time.


 * 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%23Category:Films scored by Bharathwaj

Category:Defeated Incumbent Presidents of the United States
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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  L ondon 12:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting defeated incumbent presidents of the united states


 * 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)
 * 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)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, this is adding another and unnecessary category to articles that already contain too many category links. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. WP:DNWAUC. Jimmy Carter, for example, is in about 100 categories. If not deleted then rename to fix the capitals. DexDor(talk) 18:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a somewhat contrived union of presidents who folks who lost a race for the presidency. And it's a judgment call whether an incumbent who isn't nominated has been "defeated" in the primaries (Lyndon Johnson?) It's also missing Bush Sr. and maybe others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not defining, easily an overcategorisation. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: A defining characteristic is not limited to "primary notability". The electoral history of the presidents is discussed in available sources, which should establish its notability. This category is currently incomplete and has room for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- There may be some presidents who decided not to run again. An alternative would be "one-term Presidents", defined as those who served one full term after election, excluding those who died in office or were removed.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Such a category on one-term Presidents would include: John Adams (term 1797-1801), John Quincy Adams (term 1825-1829), Martin Van Buren (term 1837-1841), William Henry Harrison (term 1841), John Tyler (term 1841-1845), James K. Polk (term 1845-1849), Zachary Taylor (term 1849-1850), Millard Fillmore (term 1850-1853), Franklin Pierce (term 1853-1857), James Buchanan (term 1857-1861), Andrew Johnson (term 1865-1869), Rutherford B. Hayes (term 1877-1881), James A. Garfield (term 1881), Chester A. Arthur (term 1881-1885), Benjamin Harrison (term 1889-1893), William Howard Taft (term 1909-1913), Warren G. Harding (term 1921-1923), Herbert Hoover (term 1929-1933), John F. Kennedy (term 1961-1963), Gerald Ford (term 1974-1977), Jimmy Carter (term 1977-1981), George H. W. Bush (term 1989-1993), and Donald Trump (term 2017-2021). A total of 23 presidents. Dimadick (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/Rename if Kept What's defining about them is that they one term, not that they did not go to the moon, did not win a 2nd term, did not invent the bicycle. Even someone as notable as a U.S. president has an infinite number of things they did not accomplish which is not defining and does not aid navigation. (If kept, by all means rename to "One-term presidents" per Peterkingiron's suggestion to preserve neutrality.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: As defining characteristic - perhaps rename/redefine, but probably not. Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and listify (if not done already). A list gives an opportunity for clarification per Carlossuarez46. This is just a mishmash of various names without context.
 * Delete Very miscellaneous and crufty. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 15:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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  L ondon 14:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting buildings and structures demolished in the 20th century in spain


 * 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)


 * Weak keep. This category was established as the result of CfD discussions - see here and here. By country and time period is unusual, and the Spanish one does seem to be unique, but we have categories like Grutness...  wha?   03:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Two years later, with a fresh look, the category structure hasn't been used anywhere else, and I would have recommended diffusing those CfDs at the time had I been paying attention then. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * as a compromise solution, how about renaming/rescoping this to, and upmerging the remaining articles? Grutness... wha?   02:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That would leave a very tiny category, unless you know some other articles that are not in this 20th century category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. Good point. In that casemerging looks the best option. Grutness... wha?   23:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Manually merge to Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Spain per nom. As discussed the previous time, only few demolitions are linked to historic events. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: I see that the mentioned Category:Buildings and structures in Denmark destroyed during World War II has only 1 entry, and the sibling category Category:Buildings and structures in Spain demolished during the Peninsular War is also fairly sparse. By date already handles this well enough, no need for the special category. Delete all 3!
 * It should be a merger, not a deletion. There is no reason to remove the articles from the tree of Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Spain. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So you opined previously. I disagree. As the OP noted, we already have by year and by country, such as Category:Buildings and structures by year of demolition and Category:Disestablishments in Spain by year. No need for a parallel tree. The manual upmerge mentioned in OP is to those specific existing trees, checking whether they are not already present, not merging to this third tree.
 * There is a tree of Category:Demolished buildings and structures by country. If you disagree with the existance of the tree, feel free to nominate it for deletion. But it does not make sense to partially depopulate one single country. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Category:Buildings and structures by year of demolition and Category:Buildings and structures by year of completion
 * Category:Buildings and structures by decade of demolition and Category:Buildings and structures by decade of completion
 * Category:Buildings and structures by century of demolition and Category:Buildings and structures by century of completion
 * Category:Disestablishments by year and country and Category:Establishments by year and country
 * Category:Disestablishments by country and year and Category:Establishments by country and year
 * Category:Disestablishments by century and country and Category:Establishments by century and country
 * Category:Disestablishments by country and century and Category:Establishments by country and century
 * This is significant overlap, proposed by Marcocapelle. So pick one....
 * I am not saying never, but in this case it is very unclear whether there will be consensus for deletion of the entire tree of Category:Demolished buildings and structures by country. So partial depopulation of one country would be entirely premature. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's try to bring back others into the discussion. I'm willing to do a temporary upmerge, but only on the path to agreement that we trim this morass of overcategorization.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Note that buildings and structures are already also in the establishment and disestablishment tree. That is how I'd found those categories. For example, starting with the very first entry in the Category:Buildings and structures demolished in the 20th century in Spain (Avinguda de la Llum) is also in Category:1990 disestablishments in Spain. It's an underground mall. Apparently, the underlying problem is that "disestablishment" is vague? As suggested by could the construction and demolition by year  subcategories  be merged into the establishment and disestablishment by country trees? Would that satisfy  the separate dates would be recorded for disestablishment followed by demolition?
 * Not every building is "disestablished," though. "Demolished" is a more specific term. The reason you would have both tags is because the organisation behind the building goes away. For example, the Bridge of the Exposición Regional Valenciana 1909 (which isn't well developed) was never "disestablished," just "demolished." SportingFlyer  T · C  09:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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 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.
 * Agree on the vagueness of (dis)establishment categories. I would not mind turning all of them into container categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose deleting american baptist people

(2) Although it could be fixed, it is currently a member of a Texas sub-category and. 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)
 * Nominator's rationale: (1) We already have and, 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.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nota Bene: The most recent CFDs (plural) on our Baptist naming conventions were in 2016.
 * Delete. Too confusing in its present state. I'm not 100% sure what the intended use is. It's likely to be confused with . Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Goodness gracious, this is a third tree, with Category:Baptists from the United States -> Category:American Baptists by state, plus Category:Baptist Christianity in the United States -> Category:Baptist Christianity in the United States by state. [heavy sigh]
 * I've submitted a CfR for American Baptists by state.
 * Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, articles are already in Category:Baptists from Kentucky and other state categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT; --Just N. (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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%23Category:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles

Category:Sunni caliphs
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose deleting sunni caliphs


 * 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)


 * Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose merging Category:Islamic prophets from the Hebrew Bible to Category:Hebrew Bible people in Islam
 * Propose merging Category:Islamic prophets from the New Testament to Category:New Testament people in Islam
 * 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)


 * Merge or Reverse Merge I'll defer to others for the best target category, but these are clearly WP:OVERLAPCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom; not reverse merge because I don't think that Cain or Mary in Islam are considered prophets. I could be wrong on that score, but there may be others that aren't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Preferably merge (rather than reverse merge). They are clewarly too similar for us to have both.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose merging Category:Mayors of Innsbruck‎ to Category:Politicians from Innsbruck‎ and Category:Mayors of places in Austria
 * Propose merging Category:Mayors of Linz‎ to Category:Politicians from Linz‎ and Category:Mayors of places in Austria
 * Propose merging Category:Mayors of Salzburg‎‎ to Category:Politicians from Salzburg and Category:Mayors of places in Austria
 * Propose merging Category:Mayors of Sankt Florian‎‎ to Category:People from Linz-Land District‎ and Category:Mayors of places in Austria
 * Propose deleting Category:People from Sankt Florian
 * Propose merging Category:Mayors of Steyregg‎‎ to Category:People from Linz-Land District‎‎ and Category:Mayors of places in Austria
 * Propose deleting Category:Politicians from Steyregg
 * Propose deleting Category:People from Steyregg
 * Propose merging Category:Mayors of Trautmannsdorf an der Leitha‎ to Category:People from Bruck an der Leitha‎ District and Category:Mayors of places in Austria
 * Propose deleting Category:People from Trautmannsdorf an der Leitha‎
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose merging Category:Towns in Matale District to Category:Towns in Central Province, Sri Lanka and Category:Populated places in Matale District
 * Propose merging Category:Towns in Colombo District to Category:Towns in Western Province, Sri Lanka and Category:Populated places in Colombo District
 * Propose merging Category:Towns in Galle District to Category:Towns in Southern Province, Sri Lanka and Category:Populated places in Galle District
 * Propose merging Category:Towns in Gampaha District to Category:Towns in Western Province, Sri Lanka and Category:Populated places in Gampaha District
 * Propose merging Category:Towns in Hambantota District to Category:Towns in Southern Province, Sri Lanka and Category:Populated places in Hambantota District
 * Propose merging Category:Towns in Kalutara District to Category:Towns in Western Province, Sri Lanka and Category:Populated places in Kalutara District
 * Propose merging Category:Towns in Kegalle District to Category:Towns in Sabaragamuwa Province and Category:Populated places in Kegalle District
 * Propose merging Category:Towns in Kurunegala District to Category:Towns in North Western Province, Sri Lanka and Category:Populated places in Kurunegala District
 * Propose merging Category:Towns in Matara District to Category:Towns in Southern Province, Sri Lanka and Category:Populated places in Matara District
 * Propose merging Category:Towns in Monaragala District to Category:Towns in Uva Province and Category:Populated places in Monaragala District
 * Propose merging Category:Towns in Nuwara Eliya District to Category:Towns in Central Province, Sri Lanka and Category:Populated places in Nuwara Eliya District
 * Propose merging Category:Towns in Polonnaruwa District to Category:Towns in North Central Province, Sri Lanka and Category:Populated places in Polonnaruwa District
 * 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)


 * Merge for Now No objection to recreating any of these if they get to 5+ articles though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 . Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Coins the Umayyad Caliphate to Category:Umayyad Caliphate and Category:Economy of medieval Islam
 * Propose merging Category:Taxation in the Umayyad Caliphate to Category:Umayyad Caliphate and Category:Economy of medieval Islam
 * Propose merging Category:Taxation in the Abbasid Caliphate to Category:Abbasid Caliphate and Category:Economy of medieval Islam
 * Propose deleting Category:Economy of the Abbasid Caliphate‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Coins of medieval Islam‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Taxation in medieval Islam‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Economy of the Umayyad Caliphate‎
 * 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)


 * Additional Merge Of Category:Coins the Umayyad Caliphate to Category:Medieval currencies. Otherwise, Support. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose deleting chefs who committed suicide


 * Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection of Category:Chefs and Category:Suicides. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 07:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, I think (almost) the entire Category:Suicides by occupation can be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Likely could and perhaps ought. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and nominate all or most of those mentioned by Marcocapelle. There never really is any logical connection between occupation and suicide, so categorizing for both is inappropriate. It follows that this intersection of topics is, as mentioned, entirely trivial and non-defining. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:NARROWCAT. Also agree that that applies to all Category:Suicides by occupation. List them all! Back in 2005, we routinely removed categories that had a potential stigma. Isn't that a policy anymore?
 * I agree most of them should go unless there is a case for relating the suicide to the occupation, as there might be for doctors, musicians, Nazis. Plenty of other categories relating to death also seem redundant.  Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources tell us that this intersection is notable. As noted by others above, the whole tree is suspect but some subcategories may merit inclusion where we have sufficient reliable sources on which to build an article about the intersection of the occupation and incidence of suicide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose deleting emperor (novel series)


 * 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)
 * Delete for now, the category can be re-instated if and when it is worthwhile to have multiple articles about the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; --Just N. (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose deleting stratford festival


 * 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)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Purge if kept, at least remove all biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Note this is the only such Shakespearian Festival with its own category, and WP:SMALLCAT.
 * Delete per WP:PERFCAT per nom; or purge if kept per Marcocapelle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/Purge if Kept There are 3 non-biography articles here defined by the festival but we usually want 5+. If kept, certainly purge the biographies. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete bios are PERFCAT which is not allowed. If kept, please add "Ontario" to the name, to show that this does not relate to Stratford upon Avon.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity
 * 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)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Background We recently deleted/listified the current version of this same award right here and I should have nominated them together. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, another obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Many recipients, but agree consistency upon previous decision.


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Labor Order
 * 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)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Background We just deleted a similar sounding but different Vietnamese award right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, another obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Having the 2 entry list in the main article seems best, we don't usually allow such small categories with not much chance of growth in any case.
 * Delete clearly fails OCAWARD. Should the translation be labor or labour? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.