< December 13	December 15 >

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 Category:Bougainvillean activists; merge Category:Bougainvillean women's rights activists to Category:Papua New Guinean women's rights activists and Category:Bougainvillean activists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Bougainvillean activists to Category:Papua New Guinean activists

Nominator's rationale: Only one (The same one as below) Rathfelder (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Bougainvillean women's rights activists to Category:Papua New Guinean women's rights activists

Nominator's rationale: only one Rathfelder (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first, merge the second. There was considerable undercategorising of the activists category (it now has eight articles) - a region pushing for independence is likely to have more than one activist! Grutness...wha? 02:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first, dual merge the second per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure that purely being an "activist" is a defining characteristic; and putting activists of all stripes together in a category is almost a shared name. Presumably, everyone who is notable by WP standards was active in something (perhaps a few royals did nothing), thus making these categories useless when biographies are included. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its sensible to put people who are elected politicians into activist categories. Rathfelder (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Activists are active for a cause that is unrelated to their professional occupation. Most people in WP are notable in relationship to their occupation, but if not, being an activist is a regularly occurring alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first, merge the second per WP:SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first; merge second into it -- This is a campaign for independence from PNG, so that merging to PNG is highly inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 20 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Game development (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant with Category:Video game development. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 3 of the 4 articles are about video games and Game design is already in its eponymous category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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:Woman's Land Army of America members. Note "Woman's" not "Women's" as that is the correct spelling the subject used. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:United States Women's Land Army members (World War II) to Category:American women in World War II

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. If kept, rename to Category:Women's Land Army of America members (World War II) or Category:Women's Land Army of America members (without World War II); the main article is Women's Land Army of America. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SMALLCAT is applicable to categories that have no potential for growth. That is not the case here--dozens of notable women could be added to this category. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well Alice Acheson for one (now added), and plenty others. See Gowdy-Wygant, Cecilia. Cultivating Victory : The Women's Land Army and the Victory Garden Movement, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2013. Is it a stretch to think that a national women's organization would have a few women in it that satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria? Refer to WP:SMALLCAT: this category has potential to grow. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Alt. Rename~~ To Category:United States Women's Land Army officials to reflect that both were leaders in the organization. Not sure why we would split it by war given the current article count. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that split by war is unnecessary, but I would still favor Category:Women's Land Army of America members per WP:C2D, the main article is Women's Land Army of America. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Women's Land Army of America members The broader name will allow more growth. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per last two. Occasionally we have to allow categories to remain when they are rather small, because there is no obvious merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 20 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments by country and year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments by year and country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Establishments by country and year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Establishments by year and country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: In general, 3-way intersections are not encouraged. This is a proposal to formally update Wikipedia:Category names by showing an egregious example.

Moreover, by country and year and by year and country makes every article potientially having a dozen or so basic categories, most of which are missing.

These have become repeatedly contentious, as folks argue about what part of a country or empire or kingdom or principality or province or region or state actually controlled the place in that year (or fraction of a year).

Disestablishment is particularly confusing, as there is no consistency in application. Many editors really don't seem to understand the word.

Because of the 3-way intersection, every category decision then has to be promulgated 6 ways.

These also overlap with Completed/Completion/Constructed/Construction and Demolished/Demolition/Destroyed/Destruction. It's an ill-defined mess.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately strongly agree, I have seen so many discussions throughout the years about this and people get just very frustrated by the existence of this tree. However much more needs to happen than just deletion of the top level categories: all country subcategories by year need to be upmerged to a global by-year level. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. These are containers. I've only nominated the tops of the trees here, and would expect we (or I'd) use a bot to upmerge the lower level constituents.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the nominator appears to be objecting to (say) Category:2004 disestablishments in England without explaining what the problem might be (eg where is the feared glut of 'dozens of categories' on Martin & Newby?). Removing the container categories and not nominating the subcategories will not improve the 'ill-defined mess'. And the same rationale would apply to any 'by A and B' scheme of which there are hundreds. Eg Category:People by nationality and occupation, Category:People by occupation and nationality. Oculi (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

England has become an outlier in the category tree because Category:8th-century establishments in England exists while England did not exist as a country in the 8th century. In most cases we have banned such category constructions as anachronisms, but in many cases there is discussion about that ban. So in most cases we are having Category:8th-century establishments in Wessex etc.

By the way this example illustrates that the problem is wider spread, it not only concerns years but also decades and centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Useful, often large categories (so upmerging to e.g. countries alone or years alone isn't a good idea). Problems with edge cases is hardly a reason to delete the 95% of unproblematic entries. Fram (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Deleting currently useful categories in order to overpopulate national and annual categories is counter-productive. And although you're right that three-way intersections are often frowned on, they are frequently extremely useful, and this is just one example of a type that should be encouraged rather than deleted. Grutness...wha? 09:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a first step to reflect what appears to be a consensus of editors outside CFD of not supporting the current structure. The ongoing maintenance of these categories does not seem worth any perceived benefit as this goes beyond edge cases. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not noticed any such a consensus of support - have you got any evidence for it? Grutness...wha? 02:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wholehearedly support having been a supporter and creator of this sort of thing in the past, I have come around to the view that they are just a minefield waiting to explode. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm thoroughly confused by the rationale. Is the proposer also suggesting that categories such as Category:1152 establishments by country be deleted? The nominated categories seem to need to exist for those per-year categories to be listed somewhere. Furthermore, I don't see how articles have "a dozen" categories because of the existence of these; most just have the one for year-country establishments, and don't have separate "year-establishment" or "country-establishment" categories; we actually decrease the number of categories in articles by having more intersecting categories here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know the edges of this structure are messy, but it is useful to group things. We need to be a little more historically conscience in a few cases, but that does not justify destroying the whole tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, I am not sure it is justified to have this tree at all for pre-1500 establishments. Still the huge size of some of these categories is justified. Plus, there are some spepcific sub-cats for railroad stations, TV shows and companies that exist because otherwise we would need huge parents. I know that this is an under developed set of categories, but that is no reason to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - This discussion is just about "by country", so (global) sub-cats for railroad stations, TV shows and companies would not be affected. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes they would be, when we have categories like Category:American companies established in 1954, Category:Railway stations in the United States opened in 1954 and Category:1954 American television series debuts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nomination ignores that we have a whole category tree of categories like Category:1955 in the United States. If we were to get rid of the establishments category, in theory we should just upmerge all the content to those categories. That might not be the best option, but I do not think this nomination is clear enough to justify that. This is especially so because as it sits now it is not clear enough in the heading that it means to destroy categories like Category:1999 establishments in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In almost all cases an institution, thing, place or what have you only can fall under 1 such category. Most things were established once, in a precise place and time. So I am not sure what the talk of 6 categories is. The fact that this is complex is no reason to end it. The very premise of the nomination makes no sense to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This (each of them) is a container category for national subcats. This is wholly appropriate. I frequently vote to merge small annual categories by decade or even century, but if we are to have national subcats, we need a parent container to hold them. If there were anything else in it I would want to eliminate that content, but there is not. The only possible change would be to Category:Disestablishments by country then year etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 20 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Imperial Russian prisoners of war to Category:Prisoners of war from the Russian Empire
Nominator's rationale This seems to be the best way to make it clear that this is refering to the entity people were from, not the entity that held them as prisoners of war.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, less ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suport renaming per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Jimmie Rodgers (country singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: With already a subcategory containing the relevant articles related to the singer, this fails WP:OCEPON. The discography page can be moved to the songs subcategory. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move discography article per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no justification for this eponomous category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 14 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.

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 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Silver Beaver Award

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:OCASSOC)

The Silver Beaver Award is given out by any of the many local councils of the Boy Scouts of America to adults who go above and beyond with local volunteering like fundraising, camping trips, etc. Scouting Magazine says the number of these type of awards issued is not centrally tracked but you have to show proof of winning the award to buy a patch and they sell about 4,500 patches in a year, although some are likely replacements patches (source).

These winners were clearly active parents but that's not why they have articles in Wikipedia: Sheriff Kevin Beary, Lieutenant General Julius W. Becton Jr. and CEO Curtis H. Barnette are not defined by their association to Scouting generally, let alone to this award, and the articles tend to mention it in passing. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background We recently deleted other BSA awards here, here and here; tagging all earlier participants regardless of vote: @Jkudlick, Marcocapelle, Bduke, Carlossuarez46, Philly jawn, North8000, and DexDor: RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two people I know of best on this list Ezra Taft Benson and Thomas S. Monson, are suffciently categorized by other things. Both were somewhat known for their advocacy of scouting, but much more well known for other things. Thomas S. Monson the New York Times obituary does not mention his scouting role at all, it is a horrible obituary which was really an attack article against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for not conforming to New York sensibilities on LGBT issues, but if the Deseret News obituary of either Benson or Monson mentions their being given the Silver Beaver I would be surprised. Benson is currently in 40 categories, Monson in 26 categories. Also both of these individuals received the Bronze Wolf, which if someone is going to mention an award related to scouting in their case it would be that even higher award. Not every award given is defining, and for people who received this award it is just plain not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even I think the Bronze Wolf Award is one of the few awards that is clearly defining! - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing so many articles cluttered with award categories, I really think we would be better off scrapping every single award category. Maybe after mass deletion of every category we could deliberate on recreating a few more, but I think that is the only way we will ever stop this needless proliferation of non-notable award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Eagle was a mistake because it is not really an award, it is a notable objectively earned achievement. Silver Beaver is actually an award. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OCAWARD requires that the award be a defining characteristic of the individual. Very few people could be defined only by their achievements in Scouting, and those that can would be notable for reasons other than the awards they were given. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to show just how bad this award category clutter has gotten we have Andrew Bertie who is in 42 categories, and that runs to 8 lines of text on my screen in part because of how long some of those category names are. He is in over 20 categories for awards and honors he received.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Typical OCAWARD case. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 20 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.

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 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Altruism

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

The Order of Altruism is an Iranian award honoring philanthropy, material sacrifice, or dedication during the revolution. The category currently has two articles, Marzieh Hadidchi & Morad Ali Shirani, one of which mentions the award in passing and one which doesn't mention it at all, so it doesn't seem defining. The category contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not defining to the receipients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 20 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.

December 14

Category:Motorcycle records

Category:Bougainvillean activists

Category:Game development

Category:United States Women's Land Army members (World War II)

Imperial Russian people of Tatar descent

(Dis)Establishment three-way intersections

Imperial Russian prisoners of war

Imperial Russian emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies

Category:Jimmie Rodgers (country singer)

Category:Recipients of the Silver Beaver Award

Category:Recipients of the Order of Altruism