Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 11



Category:Spies who committed suicide

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting spies who committed suicide


 * Nominator's rationale: After previous discussion, removed all those who committed suicide due to alcoholism/depression/poverty or were already in custody (those are two other categories). The three remaining are spies who committed suicide to prevent capture or interrogation. WP:SMALLCAT. Moreover, already in related spying and suicide categories.
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nothing really useful in these categories. Orientls (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "The three remaining are spies who committed suicide to prevent capture or interrogation." So their suicide is directly connected to their job, and is not a trivial intersection. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete for the three remaining, I'll suppose it is a related intersection as proffered by Dimadick, That doesn't mean we categorize on it. It was notable that James Buchanan was an (the only) unmarried US president, but we don't categorize on that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Those brave enough to kill themselves to prevent their secrets being extracted under interrogation deserve a category, as this is closely connected with being a spy. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2021 (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:Samurai who committed suicide

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting samurai who committed suicide


 * Nominator's rationale: After previous discussion, removed all those who committed suicide due to depression (poison/drowning); not seppuku, where they were already categorized. Now empty.
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. See also Category:Seppuku - which is the category that should be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nothing really useful in these categories. Orientls (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Stick a knife in this one, it's done.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete With seppuku pulled out as a separate category, this becomes entirely a non-notable intersection. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Better convert to cat-redirect Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2021 (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:Writers who committed suicide

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting writers who committed suicide


 * Nominator's rationale: We deleted all the myriad subcategories, leaving this to be deleted as empty. But Kyuko has started repopulating.
 * See Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 28
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per intention of previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nothing really useful in these categories. Orientls (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not a defining intersection. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2021 (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:Shovelware video games

 * 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) 06:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting shovelware video games


 * Nominator's rationale: The definition of shovelware is subjective and may be limited to a subset of critics. We already have List of video games notable for negative reception with actual context, but it works poorly for a category sans context. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom, "shovelware" is a subjective term of the art, and a list (standalone or embedded in Shovelware) would be better to give the necessary context for subjectivity. --M asem (t) 23:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Every time I see this word appear from journalists, its used as an insult. In my opinion, shovelware can't be definable by definition or consensus. Le Panini  [🥪] 23:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete subjective and non-technical term. Impossible to apply with any consistency, and even journalists will at best apply this sporadically, as an insult, with no consistency. Wikipedia shouldn't categorize articles based on insults, no matter how verifiable. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous comments. We cannot in Wikipedia's voice say, authoritatively, that "these video games are trash".--AlexandraIDV 08:37, 16 January 2021 (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 from Dundas County, Ontario

 * 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) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Dundas County, Ontario to Category:People from the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry
 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary splitout for a historical county that was merged into the contemporary United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry in 1850. The existing category isn't so large as to need standalone subcategories for each of the three former counties as separate entities -- even merged, it's a very rural county with a total population of just over 110K now, so it's not like its category is in any dire need of diffusion on a distinction that stopped being relevant or useful 171 years ago. That said, I'm not convinced that the SDG category couldn't do with a rename — do we really have to stand on the officialese "United Counties of" wording instead of finding something simpler, especially if its opaqueness to an outsider makes duplicate categories like this happen? — but that's a separate question from whether Dundas needs its own dedicated category or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support, I guess technically we could keep it for people who lived there before 1850, but the category now also contains people born after 1850, so apparently this category only leads to confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2021 (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:Saguenay Hydrological System

 * 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) 06:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting saguenay hydrological system


 * Propose deleting rupert hydrological system


 * Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia does not have an established system of categorizing lakes and rivers together by their "hydrological system". (For an example of why this is a problem, the Saguenay version is filed as a subcategory of -- yet it includes lakes, which are not "tributaries" of rivers.) This is especially true when we do not even have an article about the "hydrological system" to explain what it is or why anybody should be interested -- and if we don't have an article about it, then we shouldn't have a category grouping lakes and rivers by their purported inclusion in a thing we don't have an article about (and thus also no reliably sourced indication that the category is even correct). Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2021 (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 novelists/poets of X descent

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:American novelists of Arab descent
 * Propose deleting Category:American poets of Arab descent
 * Propose merging Category:American novelists of Egyptian descent to Category:American writers of Egyptian descent
 * Propose merging Category:American novelists of Jordanian descent / Category:American writers of Jordanian descent to Category:American people of Jordanian descent
 * Propose merging Category:American novelists of Lebanese descent to Category:American writers of Lebanese descent
 * Propose merging Category:American novelists of Libyan descent to Category:American people of Libyan descent
 * Propose merging Category:American novelists of Syrian descent to Category:American writers of Syrian descent
 * Propose merging Category:American novelists of Egyptian descent to Category:American writers of Egyptian descent
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCEGRS. I would also nominate but it has 5 articles. User:Namiba 17:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete descent categories per User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Arab descent, it is a big misunderstanding that all Middle Eastern people are of Arab ethnicity. Merge the others (including Lebanese) as trivial intersections within writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have tagged Category:American novelists of Lebanese descent as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Their ethnic background is not a trivial topic. No opposition to delete "of Arab descent" if they improperly cover all Middle Eastern people. Dimadick (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Dimadick, regardless of OCEGRS issues, they are all very small categories. Merging these categories doesn't erase their descent category. It simply puts them in a category with other writers of their descent.--User:Namiba 21:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge/delete per nom. All these categories are well under 5 entries, so there is no reason to have them. We cannot assume that people from any of these countries, or people with ancestors from these countries would see themselves as Arabs. Many Egyptians view themselves as Copt not Arab. On the other hand, there are many people in the US who had ancestors in Egypt who were Greeks living abroad and not Arabs. Similar issues come up with all these countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge per nom. Arab descent seems to be less defining than national descent here, and is applied inconsistently anyway. Place Clichy (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2021 (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:Booker Prize shortlists

 * 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) 06:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting booker prize shortlists


 * Nominator's rationale: Obvious overcategorization (WP:CANDIDATECAT). Οἶδα (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem so -- in literary awards, this is a very common element of classifying or representing the relative notability/reputation of books -- for these high profile, national awards it seems very appropriate, Sadads (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, for winners of literary awards. Not nominees/shortlistees. Before listing this category for discussion I searched for the existence for arts awards nominees categories, but came up short. Οἶδα (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There were several others but they were previously deleted in CFD; see the "Background" note below. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I would certainly query the word 'obvious'. I picked On Chesil Beach at random and a whole section is devoted to the Booker shortlisting. Picking a second Fasting, Feasting at random, the booker listing is again defining. Oculi (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose there is an argument to be made that a Booker shortlisting is a defining characteristic. But then again, I'd argue the longlist is as well. However, I'm still not entirely convinced this category's existence is warranted. We do not have categories for nominees even in the case of the very best-known awards, such as the Nobel Prizes and the Academy Awards (Oscars). An Oscar snub is often a very defining characteristic, and the Nobel is not much different (see Tolstoy). Still no categories, and if there ever were they seem to have been deleted per a consensus here. Οἶδα (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename. The Booker is one of those rare awards that's so important that simply getting shortlisted is pretty defining of a book all by itself even if the book doesn't actually win — but I do think the category is misnamed. I would expect a category named this way to contain the lists themselves, not a comprehensive directory of all the individual books in the lists, so it should really be named, or something along those lines, if it's to exist. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete There are definitely awards that are defining and the Booker Prize is one of them; failing to win the award is another matter and this feels like WP:TOPTEN. We generally avoid negative categories where we group things that are not something, in this case not Booker Prize winners. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Background We previously deleted categories for those that did not win the Victoria Cross here and those that did not win a whole variety of awards including the BAFTA here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:TOPTEN violation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Listify. It will take some work, but this would be far better organised by year rather than alphabetically by title. In fact when I saw the nomination, I assumed the category contained articles on the annual short-lists rather than simply titles. One long list article containing all the years' nomination lists or a series of articles, one for each year, would make much more sense than this. Note that if the latter is done, with separate yearly list articles, this category could still be useful to hold them. Grutness... wha?   04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * update - I see that these list articles already exist, and are housed (somewhat counterintuitively) in . Grutness... wha?   04:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and List of winners and shortlisted authors of the Booker Prize already exists. Οἶδα (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And that listification approach is already broadly in use for award finalists:
 * Nominees: List of nominees for the Nobel Prize in Literature
 * Submissions for your consideration: Submissions for Best Animated Short Academy Award
 * Combinations: List of Turner Prize winners and nominees
 * - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep  I agree with Oculi. This is defining for books, and often defines their notability for Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per RevelationDirect, while we should keep Category:Booker Prize-winning works. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete -- We have a good list at List of winners and shortlisted authors of the Booker Prize listing not only authors but works. This is thus a regular case as OCAWARD.  Lists do this much better than categories.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2021 (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.

Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia

 * 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 (no opposition). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia alumni‎ to Category:Conservatorio di Santa Cecilia alumni
 * Propose renaming Category:Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia faculty‎ to Category:Conservatorio di Santa Cecilia faculty
 * Nominator's rationale: The school is "Conservatorio", not the Accademia itself. The renaming has been addressed on WikiProject Opera. Seanetienne (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2021 (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:Asian-American librarians

 * 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; no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming and containerizing to
 * Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to this discussion, where there was no consensus to delete the category, but during which it was proposed to rename it according to other sibling categories in Category:American people of Asian descent by occupation and Category:Librarians by ethnicity. Also note that per this discussion, Asian descent American categories should be container categories. Place Clichy (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete nothing special about librarian's ancestry and another "descent" category which are meaningless (User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with carlos Call me Deathisaninevitability (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. The Asian Pacific American Librarians Association exists for a reason. The sources provided in that article demonstrate why this is a notable intersection like etc.--User:Namiba 19:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots of affinity groups exist, it doesn't make the intersection a notable one for WP purposes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Asian-Americans in the library sciences have a unique history. Look at the sources before dismissing them. There is an entire book written on the topic.--User:Namiba 21:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Books and scholarly articles are written on many topics that we don't categorize upon, even 'Aryan librarianship'. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the journal article you have shared, I think a fascinating article could be written about Librarians and the Third Reich. Perhaps even a category on Nazi librarians. But you do not disprove my point, which is also backed by Wikipedia's guidelines.--User:Namiba 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EGRS, "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must at least be possible to create one. Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources.--User:Namiba 17:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If kept, rename and containerize per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Defining, but poorly named. Dimadick (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename While we cannot seem to get a consensus to delete this, we clearly should rename it to match other similar categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Ample precedent for all non-US descent categories.  IN this case, the librarians may well be curating Asian literature.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2021 (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:Indigenous librarianship

 * 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: divide between Category:Native American librarianship and Category:First Nations librarianship. However, these new categories are small, so a follow-up nomination of them should be allowed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Indigenous librarianship to Category:Native American librarianship
 * Nominator's rationale: This title seems to better reflect the content, per the three Native American parent categories and the format of sibling categories in parent . Place Clichy (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename to match content and actual current usage practices.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Disperse manually, the category contains 2 articles about Native Americans and 1 article about First Nations, that is too little to keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Xwi7xwa Library is located in Vancouver, and should not be included in American-specific topics. Dimadick (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we also discourage trans-national racial categories. We can also create Category:First Nations librarianship and put things that fit better there under that category. Categorization is by ethnicity not race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Change the name appropriately if one is a "First Nation" rather than a "Native American" something ought to be chose to be accurate: "Indigenous" is totally ambiguous and used this way seems to indicate that the librarianship is home-grown not for people claimed to be "indigenous" to somewhere (which may include all sorts of peoples like Irish being indigenous to Ireland, Chinese being indigenous to China, Japanese being indigenous to Japan, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for clarity. Orientls (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2021 (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 Saint Catherine

 * 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) 06:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting recipients of the order of saint catherine


 * Propose deleting knights grand cross of the order of saint joseph


 * Propose deleting dames of the order of queen maria luisa


 * Propose deleting order of the starry cross


 * Propose deleting grand mistresses of the order of the starry cross


 * Propose deleting dames of the order of the starry cross


 * Nominator's rationale: Orders for high born ladies. Not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete this is even more overcategorization by award received.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete All Being female royalty is absolutely defining; getting these awards because of that status is non-defining due to WP:OCAWARD and WP:OVERLAPCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious cases of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete another clear example of overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2021 (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:Latvian expatriates in the Republic of Ireland

 * 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. I seriously considered whether to relist this or do a no-consensus close, but the conversation was quite active and populated, CfD is a small place, and it had opened nearly a month ago. No prejudice against further nominations. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Latvian expatriates in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Latvian expatriates in Ireland
 * Nominator's rationale: Both categories are small, with only one article each. Do we really need both? There are and, but all of the other "FOOian expatriates in BAR" categories are in , in the format "FOOian expatriates in Ireland".  currently contains only categories for ambassadors and sportspeople and the nominated category. If this nomination is successful, perhaps we could discuss merging  to . Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have moved the article in Category:Latvian expatriates in Ireland to Category:Latvian expatriates in the Republic of Ireland as more specific but that should not influence the outcome of the discussion. For expatriates it seems to make more sense to keep the country category (RoI) than the island category (Ireland). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like the "in Ireland" categories are acting as country categories, not island categories. There really is just not enough content to justify having both country and island categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose but delete the target. I just looked this up, we have Republic of Ireland as the article on the country, and Ireland as the article on the island. Based on this we should migrate most of what is in Category:Expatriates in Ireland to Category:Expatriates in the Republic of Ireland. It would also suggests that we should rename some other categories so they clearly apply based on the polity in question. We already recognize this a little with categories like Category:Irish emigrants to the United States (before 1923). This is one of very few cases where the simple name does not lead to the specific modern country article. On the other hand if you enter China you are lead to the article on that country, so we do not use People's Republic of China in category names, but it seems to be consistent we should follow the article name and use Republic of Ireland in all categories that are meant to refer to it. This may be a new development but based on actual article names, Republic of Ireland is the form we should be using.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge. The word expatriate is a specific reference to a country, therefore Republic is redundant. However, the first category title is uselessly restricted to the period post 1922, and I do not see a reason to categorize differently expatriates before and after this date, especially if there are small numbers. Therefore Category:Expatriates in Ireland and its subcategories are correct. Also note that an expatriate category for an island divided between several countries would not make much sense; we would not speak about foreign expatriates in Hispaniola, or foreign expatriates in the island of Borneo, or in the island of Timor. I seem to recollect that we had a similar discussion for : no possible confusion there either with either Northern Island or the island as a whole. Place Clichy (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we have Category:Expatriates in Ireland (the island) parenting Category:Expatriates in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Expatriates in Northern Ireland (as one would expect) and so I would expect any relevant Latvians to be in either Category:Latvian expatriates in the Republic of Ireland or Category:Latvian expatriates in Northern Ireland depending on their location. I would expect Category:Latvian expatriates in Ireland to be a container category, possibly containing some pre-1922 Latvians. (See eg Category:American expatriates in Ireland.) Oculi (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not at all how the overall scheme is structured, but okay. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is WP:IRE-CATS which seems clear enough. Oculi (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm just saying that in practice, that's not what exists in the expatriates tree. This is the outlier. And I don't think we need two categories for what (in practice and for the applicable articles) so far is exactly the same status. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the latter unless and until there are pre-1922 expatriates to be categorized. As long as there aren't any, we can only keep the RoI category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Or, we could keep doing what we have been doing – which is to have the expatriates categories be "FOOian expatriates in Ireland". These are broader categories than the Republic of Ireland categories because they cover the island regardless of political status. I see no problem with this, and it has the added benefit of requiring no changes to be made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since this discussion was opened, has created . So this changes some of what was stated in the original nominating statement. Now there are two by-nationality subcategories of . Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment of course there are reasons to categorize differently before and after 1922, and also before and after 1801. Expatriates enter at the will or at least with consideration of the will of the existing government. We have already deleted Category:Pre-conferderation expatriates in the United Kingdom and we would remove as just plain silly the placement of born in London in an expatriates in Ireland category. The first priority should be to match articles, not to indepdently assume what is or is not ambiguous. Our article on the polity in question uses Republic of Ireland, so this is what should be used in other categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly, cannot find discussion of either Category:Pre-conferderation expatriates in the United Kingdom or Category:Pre-confederation expatriates in the United Kingdom.
 * You are being deliberately obtuse. The United Kingdom is one all the time, it is only Ireland that changes. People are expatriates in polities. We do not have seperate articles covering the seperate boundaries of the United Kingdom. However if they were in the United Kingdom they should be categorized by this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Am I the only participant who is irritated that things are being created and moving around during discussion? Also made-up arguments based upon misspelled or non-existent targets? Finally, have really had it with these polity arguments. I'm unaware that anybody in NI calls themselves United Kingdom'ish.
 * The creation of new, related categories and the editing of nominated categories is very confusing for editors who come to a discussion and see that things are different than a user has claimed they are. At a bare minimum, users should disclose the changes they have made in the relevant discussion., do you think you could commit to that? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ? If the answer is no, at least let us know, so that we know what we're dealing with. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge as proposed. Also, taken together with Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 6, this should be precedent for revising WP:IRE-CATS to better conform to WP:IRE-IRL.
 * Oppose The country-specific category should be kept, while the viability of Category:Latvian expatriates in Ireland is questionable. Do we have articles on expatriates to Northern Ireland? Dimadick (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's precisely the point: Category:Expatriates in Ireland is for the country, not the island. There are no expatriates to Northern Ireland, but only to the UK. There are no expatriates to an island either that's not a country: not to Hispaniola, not to Timor, not to Saint Martin, not to the Isle of Wight, and not to the island of Ireland. Place Clichy (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Both articles relate to recent people in the Republic. There is no need for an all-Ireland category, and there are no NI members.  Delete (or upmerge) Category:Latvian expatriates in Ireland as an unnecessary layer.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We have essentially been using Irish/Ireland categories for the Republic in many cases. We have few categories explicitly for the Republic. This is probably not a good situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2021 (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 Friedrich Cross

 * 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) 06:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Friedrich Cross
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
 * The Frederickscross or "Friedrich Cross" was issued by Duke Friedrich II of the German Duchy of Anhalt starting in 1914 until the monarchy was abolished in 1918. The recipients are generally non-Anhalt German people who mention the award in passing like with Paul von Hindenburg, Rupprecht Crown Prince of Bavaria, or any other article you want to click on. The Duke also gave the award to himself (see picture, just below the collar). There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any readers interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, another obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this clearly meets the definition of the overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2021 (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 Shevchenko Medal

 * 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) 06:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Shevchenko Medal
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
 * I had to Google this one since there is no main article but this is an award to prominent Ukrainian Canadians issued by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) organisation. The articles are about evenly split between those that mention this award in passing and those that don't mention it at all, so it's clearly not defining. I'm doubtful the award is individually notable so created a redirect and pointed it to a new section in the UCC article where I listified the current category contents for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, another obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this clearly meets the defintion of the overcategorzation by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2021 (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.