Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 29 December 31 >

December 30

[edit]

XFL categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. If anyone wants to create disambiguation categories for any of these, it could be done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Opposed_requests. XFL (2001) and XFL (2020) are separate but related leagues (the 2020 league is considered a "reboot" and "successor" to the 2001 league), but other editors said there should not be overall XFL categories. Each of these categories have separate 2001 and 2020 categories, so there is apparently no need for these container categories. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep - they're two seperate leagues with the same owner and name. Also the fact the categories you mention exist is the point of disambiguation here - converting the categories to disambiguations would let an editor who doesn't yet know these are two seperate leagues find out when they attempt to "generically" categorize something. Or did you think I was !voting "split"? - The Bushranger One ping only
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:Transcendental Meditation practitioners

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as trivial. The vast majority of those included in this category practice transcendental meditation as a hobby and as such it is non-defining. User:Namiba 22:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion as to whether this list should be deleted but it is relatively presumptuous to assert that people do any kind of practice as a "hobby". Such a presumption is truly trivial and condescending. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:HBO Family

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:HBO original programming, now that it has been purged, with thanks to Good Ol’factory. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category appears to be categorizing programming which has appeared on HBO Family. I suggest removing the articles which are not original to HBO Family and rename the category to be an original programming category in Category:Original programming by television network or channel. We don't categorize by network programs that appeared on a network but were not original to that network. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs purge before destination will be clear
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Multiple Units of India

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename WP:C2C. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename as per established Wikipedia capitalization. Gjs238 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American and Australian people of Shanghainese descent

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Full consideration of Category:People of Shanghainese descent and its other subcategories in a new nomination is strongly recommended. They should have all been nominated together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American people of Wenzhounese descent

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Full consideration of Category:People of Wenzhounese descent and its other subcategories in a new nomination is strongly recommended. They should have all been nominated together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. John Pack Lambert's rationale ignored the fact that (i) in Far Eastern cultures ancestral origins are an important part of people's cultural identities, and (ii) Chinese peoples comprise many (sub)ethnic groups separated by languages and sociocultural traditions. 219.73.73.176 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American people of Zhejiang descent

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Full consideration of Category:People of Zhejiang descent and its other subcategories in a new nomination is strongly recommended. They should have all been nominated together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American people of Wu descent

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Full consideration of Category:People of Wu descent and its other subcategories in a new nomination is strongly recommended. They should have all been nominated together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian-American feminists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Arab-American feminists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Combined Asian American Resource Project

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian-American female models

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, merging content to Category:American female models. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian-American skateboarders

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. There was consensus that the nominated category should not exist, but there was no consensus on whether it should be a merge or an outright deletion without a merge. I am defaulting to merge to retain the categorization information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Latinx-American skakeboarders

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. There was consensus that the nominated category should not exist, but there was no consensus on whether it should be a merge or an outright deletion without a merge. I am defaulting to merge to retain the categorization information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American male actors of Asian descent

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep as container category. This is without prejudice to a future nomination that includes the subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Masked Singer (American TV series) contestants

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure how this is a defining characteristic of the likes of Paul Anka, Tommy Chong, Patti LaBelle, Bob Saget, among all the others. Would this not fall under WP:PERFCAT? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian-American farmers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete Category:Asian-American farmers; rename Category:Japanese-American farmers to Category:American farmers of Japanese descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Japanese-Americans in agriculture has also been written about extensively, in part due to the highly discriminatory practices they suffered. See [6][7][8][9]. I would support renaming the category to Category:American farmers of Japanese descent.--User:Namiba 14:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian-American diplomats

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Asian-American diplomats to Category:American diplomats (in theory we should upmerge to Category:American people of Asian descent. In practice everyone will be in some more appropriate sub-category)
  • Upmerge Category:Chinese-American diplomats to Category:American diplomats and Category:American people of Chinese descent (I just added one person to this category, although he is also in the appropriate parents, Gerrit W. Gong. I also just added him to the diplomats category. As a special assistant to the US secretary of state, special assistant to the US state department and special assistant to the US ambassador to China, I am 100% convinced he is a diplomat. Gong passes notability for his contributions as an academic, he is also now notable as a member of the Quorum of the 12 of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I created an article on him just after he became a gneeral authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I still think all general authorities should be considered notable, especially considering how small some of the Episcopalian dioceses we let propel their bishops to notability are (some have under 3,000 total people under the diocese, Elder Gong as Asia Area President, one of the smaller areas of the Church by membership, still presided over roughly 150,000 people. He was also looked to as a spiritual leader by all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worldwide. Whether Gong's role before that as special assistant to the president of BYU for planning and assessment was a role involving actions leading to notability we do not need to decide)
  • Upmerge Category:Indian-American diplomats to Category:American diplomats and Category:American people of Indian descent
  • Upmerge Category:Japanese-American diplomats to Category:American diplomats and Category:American people of Japanese descent
  • Upmerge Category:Korean-American diplomats to Category:American diplomats and Category:American people of Korean descent
  • Nominator's rationale These categories should be sub-cats of Category:Diplomats by ethnicity a category that looks like it is likely to soon be deleted. Diplomats are defined by the nation that commissions them, so this categorization by ethnicity of descent (or in some cases partial descent, I am not sure the last applies here, it does not apply to Gong, but I have not reviewed the other articles) is not justified with diplomats. The grouping of these 4 together in this way to me also violates the rule that we categorize by ethnicity not race. People from China and India are not generally considered to be part of the same ethnic group (nor according to many theories of race are they the same racial group, since race has no biological reality and there is no one universally accepted way to define race, this is hard to say, some racial theories posit there are two main, distinct racial groups in India, largely theorized on linguistic lines, with the north dominated by one racial group, the south by a diferent, but Adivasi groups further north seen as remaining remnants of when the southern race dominated the whole sub-continent, and a few of the people in the north east region of India known as the seven-sisters states seen as being part of a third distinct race. Remember though to understand the 55 defined non-Han peoples of China you need to think of them as similar to racial groups in the US, so the world-wide count of races can easily exceed well over 100). Even if we were to want to go against the trends everywhere else, and our inability to create a well sourced article that treated the people in here as a cohesive group, I do not think you could write a well sourced article on American diplomats of Asian descent that was more than just a list article, we should at a minimum rename these as Category:American diplomats of Asian descent to make this both conform to the standard Foo people of Booian descent scheme, and because the current name is ambiguous on its surface. It could also in theory mean Asian diplomats of American descent, Chinese diplomats of American descent, etc. Also since diploimats in the main serve from one country to another, the category Category:Chinese-American diplomats might be some editors be misidentified to mean either Chinese diplomats serving in the US or any American diplomat serving in China, or it could even by someone be misidentified as a multi-purpose parent to multiple categories including people Category:Ambassadors of the United States to China and Category:Ambassadors of China to the United States. Some will say "but Mr. Lambert, that is not how we do categorization". True, but Category:Russian-American people when it existed was so ambiguous that we had both people from the United States with Russian ancestry and Americans who moved to Russia put in the cateogry, which is a big reason we changed to the format Category:American people of Russian descent (we also at least in theory have Category:Russian people of American descent). In this case accuracy always trumps any common name considerations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as trivial intersections between occupation and descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Each of the subcategories has enough articles to keep. Category:American diplomats of Asian descent. This is relevant because their ethnic background may well have a positive effect on their ability to do their jobs. I have not looked at the articles here. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian-American Biblical scholars

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Some proposed categories were discussed. One or more of these can be pursued if editors think they would be meaningful categories within the categorization guidelines. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Asian-American biblical scholars to Category:American biblical scholars
  • Nominator's rationale I content that no one could write a reliable sourced, GNG meeting article on Asian-American biblical scholars that was more than just a list. This is not an intersection that has received widespread scholarly study as a phenomenon, and so we should not be categorizing by it. Although it is supposed to be a non-diffusing category not all the people here are in the parent category. There is no need to merge to Category:American people of Asian descent because every single article is in an appropriate sub-cat thereof (all of these people have only one identified Asian form of ancestry, and all 14 are either Chinese, Korean or Japanese, evidently there are no American Biblical scholars of Vienamese, Filipino, Indian, or any other Asian ancestry, although this may be because scholar articles under cover emerging and recent people. We also may actually have articles on such Biblical scholars that were not put in this category for whatever reason as well. This to me is a non-justified triple intersection (occupation + nationality + ancestry). Some are, but this one is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, trivial intersection between occupation and descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has already had an upmerge from Category:Category:Korean-American biblical scholars and others, per a previous CfD, so I am slightly surprised of this discussion of another upmerge. To be honest, I am not entirely clear about how different people use and understand categorization, despite all the documentation.
Question: Instead of an umerge, would it make sense for a rename to something like Category:Asian-American biblical hermeneutics scholars or Category:Scholars of Asian-American biblical hermeneutics? The grouping of these individuals seems important, since the vast majority of these scholars have argued for an academic field of Asian-American biblical hermeneutics (and some for Korean American or Chinese American biblical hermeneutics), which would make for a GNG-meeting article. --Caorongjin (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Northeastern and Southeastern Iranian

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Eastern Iranian languages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories are the only sub-branches of Category:Eastern Iranian languages. First off, there's no need to subcategorise at such a fine level of detail, as the parent category can have at most three dozen articles in it. More importantly though, there isn't likely to be any consensus found for one or another subcategorisation scheme: The very categories of Northeastern and Southeastern Iranian are not accepted by all linguists, and those linguists that do accept them, use them in different ways: for example, Yaghnobi and Ossetian are the only modern languages consistently listed as NE, with Pashto and the Pamir languages variously assigned to either one or the other group. It's best if all the articles in those two categories are instead placed directly under Category:Eastern Iranian languages. – Uanfala (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Fictional Asian-American people

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename or delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--Pihsdneirfsicigam (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename, not decided about deletion for now. The reason why, for real people, descent categories are better than Fooian Booian categories is precisely that descent from a specific parent ancestor is a fact that can be pointed upon, sourced, proven or disproved whereas the loose identification with an ethnic tag gives much room for interpretation. For a fictional character, it is quite the opposite: there will most often be no ancestor to descend from, but character definition will often be built on a set of identifications with generic character traits, starting with these ethnic tags. They work pretty well for this purpose, as fictional characters are identified with fictional character traits the way a real person can never be. However I am not sure that aggregation at the European or Asian continental level is meaningful. Place Clichy (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American librarians of Asian descent

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Asian-American librarians to Category:American people of Asian descent
  • Nominator's rationale This is a triple intersection category that I do not think is justified. Nor in fact does anyone else directly. You see, we have two organizations that seem to cover this, however one uses the Asian Pacific Islander formulation, which existed on the 1990 US census but has since been broken up. The other is the Chinese American Library Association. Asian descent should be capturing anyone whose ancestors came from Asia, and I can show where we have included Iranians in the category, so we are not conforing to the US census which defines Iranians as white. Plus ERGS rules say we categorize by ethnicity, the r is for religion. Asianess is not an ethnic group. As we can see from the Chinese American Library Association. In the 1930 census there were at least 4 racial groups, Hindi, Malay (Filipino), Chinese and Japanese. I think the few Koreans were subsummed under Japanese, Korea was controlled by Japan at the time, and there were so few Vietnamese and others from mainland South-east Asia in the US it is hard to know how they were counted. In the 1950, 1960 and 1970 censuses those from India were counted as white, under the false and depricated idea of a Caucasian race. There may be ways to argue a broadly defined East Asian ethnic identity in the US, but any ethno-cultural study will recognize there is a clearly distinct South Asian ethno identity, and the vast majority of Americans of either of these broadly defined ancestries will specifically identify in a much more clear way. Even the people from Hawai'i who are on average the most established in the US Asian Americans with often multiple generations of intermarriage with non-Asians, will identify their ancestry not as generic Asian, but as Japanese, Chinese, Filipino etc. For various cultural reason Detroit Public Schools delineates their Bangladeshi population distinct from their Asian population (they also count Romanians seperate from whites), The University of Wisconsin on its applications, at least when I applied back in 2008, had options under Asian for Hmong, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian and other Asian. On the nomination itself, I am not proposing upmerging to Category:American librarians because this is supposed to be a non-diffusing category. Also, in practice most of these people are already in one or more sub-cats of the target, so we need to do this move wisely in a way so they end up in the most appropriate sub-cat of Category:American people of Asian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle as a trivial intersection between occupation and descent. However delete because the merge target is a container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with reservations Upmerging into a container category doesn't work. Not sure of the specifics of how to make sure everyone is put into the appropriate sub-cats, but that's what needs to happen. I hear what you are saying about the vagueness of the original category. How many people are we talking about here? Jessamyn (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Distinct category of an underrepresented professional group. Also, this nominator has a history of controversial decisions and nominations in this area, so I would respectfully suggest perhaps they leave race and gender category work for other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial nominations is where CFD helps bring consensus though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also do we want to categorize librarians by specific associations of librarians they were part of, down that road lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're agreed there. In the US, at least, many national library organizations are part of the American Library Association umbrella, and I have no desire to see its hierarchy mirrored in category space! --BDD (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Statements like "Asianess [sic] is not an ethnic group" are irrelevant. This is suitable for American librarians descending from any ethnic group with Asian origins (i.e., the continent of Asia), and matches other categories for American librarians by ethnicity. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which racial classifications put Arabs, Japanese, and Kazakhs together? This is geography-based categorization. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sanskrit declension

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Declension. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles. I am unsure whether it also needs to be merged to the other parent Category:Declension. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Apabhraṃśa-language literature

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, contains one article about a poem. I do not foresee any viable merge targets, the one article is already in Category:Indian poems. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sanskrit-language activists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. A dual merge is not needed, the one article is already in Category:Sanskrit revival. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Etimesgut Şekerspor footballers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated.– Fayenatic London 22:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Club changed its name many years ago. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 18:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory: it is standard to use 'players', see e.g. Category:Footballers in England by club, Category:Footballers in France by club, Category:Footballers in Belgium by club etc. etc. The Spanish category uses both, as do some South American countries - I don't know why - and seemingly Turkey, again for no good reason. GiantSnowman 08:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my only point was that the Turkish ones currently use "footballers", with only a few exceptions out of more than a hundred. I'm not opposing a rename to "players", it would just be good to have some discussion about this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Turkish cats use "footballers", because Turkish clubs tend to be multi-sport organisations, not just football. Beşiktaş J.K., for example, is one of the most successful football clubs in the country's history but also competes in sports as diverse as basketball, wrestling, and rowing. So to have a cat called "Beşiktaş J.K. players" would not b specific enough...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory and ChrisTheDude: except, of curse, that the Beşiktaş J.K. article is about the football department, not the wider sports club - same with Turanspor, meaning that 'players' is correct. Galatasaray S.K. (football) is how it should be done for the big clubs that merit separate articles, though their category is also mis-named. GiantSnowman 12:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A rare 3rd time, as there is consensus about the renaming, but not the rename target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. 'Footballers' is clearly the convention in the 'Turkey' subcat. Oculi (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- In some cases the category is "footballers" because these are multi-sport clubs. Where this is the case "footballers" is appropriate. Furthermore, since "football" is not in the club title, this will show what sport is involved. We would not need to do this for Manchester United FC players as they are obviously footballers. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. This is not "F.C.", so "F.C. players" isn't a good target matching recent precendent. The distinction is apparently not seriously important enough to gather much discussion, so let's just make the obvious change.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I'm sympathetic to the concerns of those who don't like to see the Turkish category out of sync with other countries. The situation with multi-sport clubs justifies it IMO. I'd rather see a broader discussion about whether to standardize, though there's no point in keeping this at the former name in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I've been meaning to bring something up, the most popular sport for all the big multisport clubs are always football, and I think Galatasaray, Fenerbahçe S.K. football clubs should be at base name, and Turkish club players brought in line with others. Would agree to a discussion to bring all Turkish clubs in line, not just Turanspor for these categories.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Screenplay (TV series)

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:ScreenPlay. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, "Play" is capitalized in the main article ScreenPlay. An alternative rename to Category:ScreenPlay per WP:C2D was opposed for speedy renaming as ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Jim Craigie, Armbrust, and The Bushranger: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mosques converted from churches by the Republic of Turkey

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: It was difficult to find a consensus here, but I think there is one that is admittedly "rough". There seems to be consensus to rename Category:Mosques converted from churches by the Republic of Turkey to Category:Mosques converted from churches in Turkey. There is no consensus to merge Category:Mosques converted from churches by the Ottoman Empire into that same category, so by default I am keeping the "Ottoman Empire", which results in Category:Mosques converted from churches in the Ottoman Empire. This is without prejudice to a nomination for Category:Mosques converted from churches in the Ottoman Empire which can focus more on the "what country to use" question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misleading category. None of the buildings included was a church at the time of becoming a mosque. All were museums. It would be as sensible to name this category "mosques converted from mosques by the Republic of Turkey" or "mosques converted from former mosques". The proper name should be something like "former museums converted into mosques by the Republic of Turkey" or "former churches converted into mosques" or "former churches converted into mosques converted into museums and back into mosque by the Republic of Turkey". Or somesuch. GPinkerton (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: It's more than a matter of detail. Most such buildings were made mosques in the Middle Ages, many long before the Ottomans, but the phenomenon of the secular republic reconverting some into museums is itself notable, and the fact that a wave of such decisons have been undone more recently deserves a category. There are four church-mosque-museums converted into mosques under the current president alone. The question is only how to word the categories of these different sets. GPinkerton (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not in contradiction of the constitution, in which the administration of Islamic charities is a cabinet level ministerial position with government department. It is however decidedly political and possibly without due process for other reasons. GPinkerton (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, the Category:Mosques converted from churches by the Ottoman Empire should also be renamed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: with addition of second nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Those not in Turkey should just go in similar categories for their respective countries. I would prefer to leave the question of who converted the buildings to article space. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But they already are in their respective countries. The Ottoman Empire was a country. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a Category:Buildings and structures in the Ottoman Empire hierarchy, though. Categories are best for short, verifiable pieces of information like "where is this building?", not "under what jurisdiction was this building converted to another type of building"? --BDD (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Planners

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Planners (games). No consensus on deletion. I would suggest any further discussion on the matter should be done together with other categories in the tree. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Planner is clearly ambiguous. This is a category for games in the planners group, so I suggest a disambiguator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Nazis who committed suicide by method

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as trivial triple intersections, the method of suicide was just a matter of what was at hand, it was not related to being a Nazi. In addition, but just for the Austrian categories, WP:SMALLCAT applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sanskrit language and history

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Sanskrit. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Essentially a duplicate of the existing Category:Sanskrit category and daughters, created by an editor who was apparently unaware of their existence Le Deluge (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Mayors of places in Russia

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Male actors who committed suicide

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children. See previous:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Chefs who committed suicide
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Actresses who committed suicide

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children. See previous:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Chefs who committed suicide
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pornographic film actors who committed suicide

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial quadruple-intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children. See previous:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Chefs who committed suicide
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not refute the "note" above; a news story about a death will invariably refer to the occupation of the deceased. If a suicide by a noted anime voice actor is written about in the papers tomorrow, it does not make "Anime voice actors who committed suicide" a needed category. Zaathras (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Grand Crosses of the National Order of the Ivory Coast

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders visit the Ivory Coast, or vice versa, the National Order of the Ivory Coast is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Emperor Akihito, Princess Margriet of the Netherlands, and Arthur Young (police officer) are not remotely defined by this award. (There are also a couple of Ivorian politicians in the category—1 & 2—but their articles just mention the award in passing, so it's not generally defining for them either,.) There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Right Livelihood Award laureates

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
When an award consistently appears in the ledes of articles it's usually a good sign it's defining but, in this case, that is due to a single purpose IP editor (128.114.255.122) who added the award to the intros of every single article despite concern expressed by User:Swliv. The Right Livelihood Award is a peace award that self identifies as an alternative to the Nobel but, tellingly, the Nobel Peace Prize article makes no mention of this award. Even after the systematic editing above, this award is non-defining and here's how you can tell:
  • Greta Thunberg, the only Good Article here, demotes the award to a passing mention listed with other honours
  • Nasrin Sotoudeh, who won after 128.114.255.122's edits, mentions legally representing others who won the Nobel Peace Prize more prominently than personally winning this award.
The recipients are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No delete
I certainly pushed back some (as gently as I could) on aspects of the wide-ranging edit effort by the editor(s) from the IP number, a year-and-a-half ago (good find, RevelationDirect; took me some work and time to figure out any of it; thanks for leading me back to it). At that time I earned a sarcastic and, in part, puzzling rebuke for my trouble. That said, though, in response to the notification of today's effort, I looked also at the Goldman Environmental Prize -- which I've heard of with some (more) regularity; a little more my traditional area of interest -- and find both the full list in the Prize article and (at least for the one I checked basically at random, Chibeze Ezekiel) on the awardee's page. The effort to coattail on the Nobel doesn't bother me deeply, in either case. The Nobel is venerable and substantial but it's not 'holy' or 'perfect' in ways, itself; 2018 Literature is still prominent in my mind, and that's a small example; so I respect the effort to open up and broaden the pipelines and channels of recognition with, for example, the Award. In summary, I'm not feeling the need to delete Category:Right Livelihood Award laureates. I recognize enough names, and certainly recognize the effort behind the initiative (as I do with the Goldman), to lean pretty fully toward 'lenience', hence toward no deletion. I also though think I appreciate the effort of the delete initiative here and will engage further if the discussion develops further. I'm no specialist, so am open to the idea conceptually on a variety of grounds (though I also hope I'm not simply opening up the Goldman to a similar effort; that I would more readily and straightforwardly oppose).
I wrote the above paragraph before I saw Marcocapelle's endorsement of the delete proposal. I've left my 'holistic' effort to defend the Category untouched; however, I'll add a few more thoughts. First, the one honoree page I checked on the Award was chosen as someone I didn't know at all and my recollection is that the Award fit nicely as an important mark of Ezekiel's life and accomplishment to that date, i.e. arguably defining. A good many of the names were not known to me which would argue that the Award is more likely to have been defining at that point in a career. Another impression is that most of the honorees did have Wiki pages of their own. With the added defenses of 'time of career' and 'time of discipline' ('peace' does seem a little narrow of a characterization of the honorees I saw but that's another subject), those individual's pages argue strongly I think for the Category. I also think the effort to demote the Award based on Greta Thunberg is quite flawed. That the important young campaigner accepted the award is to me a strong argument in favor of categorization. My basis remains basically 'leniency' on a relatively nascent initiative in the world and its 'scheme of things' and in Wikipedia. But I'll add, finally, that I've now thought also of the way the 'genius awards' have gone in my view from a curious new effort to an important regular part of the way the world works (aimed also at, say, mid-career). I'm not going to do even a cursory look on Wikipedia at this, my second 'defense by comparison', but feel the MacArthurs would likely also affirm my no deletion recommendation. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is, probably obviously, a new-ish corner of Wikipedia for me. One curiosity: There's no mention of 'listification' on the page Wikipedia:Categories for discussion; 'deletion' would seem a more useful header-word for the notification I received to join the discussion here. I appreciate the process and the header didn't misdirect me in any way -- I frankly hadn't even noticed the curious 'listif-' word at all until after posting the above. But this seems the best place and time to bring up the observation, to start at least. Next question: How broad is the notification 'net' of past editors of related subjects, in this process? I'll try to answer the question myself if someone else doesn't do it first. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Rather dramatically, I'd say, I've first found that Ekabhishek who established the Category doesn't have a similar notification to mine on their User talk page. Maybe with that I'll let my question stand now for anyone else who may wish to answer it. Thank you. Swliv (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, further work on this realm has led me to the proposed "conversion into a list named Right Livelihood Award#Laureates" as part of the template posted for this review process on the Category:Right Livelihood Award laureates page. That helps me understand 'listification' some more though my 'more useful' comment re: 'deletion', above, stands I think; maybe augmenting rather than replacing 'listif-'. Another bit from that Category page goes to a point I speculated about above: all, in fact, listed Award winners have their own Wikipedia pages. Of course I've had experience with one or more of the editors of I guess a good many of those pages but I am not overly affronted by relative newcomers to Wikipedia stumbling some in early going; I stumble still myself. As I think is clear from my already cited efforts in that regard with the IP-number editor(s), I try to welcome and encourage new editors. So I see that level of accomplishment -- Wikipedia pages for each; unless the individual articles themselves are somehow broadly and egregiously compromised in ways not yet cited here -- as an affirming note for my no delete recommendation. In another substitution of a real specific for a speculation of mine above, "environmental protection, human rights, sustainable development, health, [and] education" accompany peace as areas of attention for the R. L. Awards. Finally, for the record, Category:MacArthur Fellows (bigger of course, having started in 1981) also affirms my feeling about that awards program as another useful parallel to the Right Livelihood one. (It's not just a Nobel world; I know they're not saying 'MacArthur of ...' or 'Alternative Goldman ...' but that's also understandable.) 'Defining' happens at other than just the end of a career or the 'full acceptance' of an individual's contribution or a field's maturity. I feel more strongly, then, that MacArthur is helpful in considering opposing this proposed deletion/listification. I know some of this paragraph (firming up speculations, especially) could have been done as rewrites to my earlier postings; it seemed better not to start rewriting, now, though. Final p.s. Thanks and cheers. Swliv (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the replies/further contributions below and, particularly, the non-rush to execution of the delete-consensus beyond my contrary vote. I tried an immediate response to the 'Short Reply' below -- in two draft rounds in fact -- and believe I do have more that's useful to say. However, I am only now able to start to get back to it all; and to look at it all with a bit of perspective/time-passed. If there's a little more forbearance, that'd be great. No guarantees from this end but I'm giving it a try. (I'm assuming there's been no execution. ...) Thanks and cheers. 06:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Nothing more likely right away. In any meantime, there are plenty of points left unaddressed so far in my comments above. All best. Swliv (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_30&oldid=1004061329"