Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 16

< January 15 January 17 >

January 16

Category:Visayans

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) 01:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to be the same. Lettlerhello • contribs 21:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Reverse Merge I'll defer to other editors on the best name, but these should not be separate. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It appears categories for other ethnic groups or nationalities follow the X people pattern. --Chris S. (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, because the category is currently heavily polluted with biographies, but afterwards it may be recreated as a topic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Same scope. Dimadick (talk) 13:03, 19 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:Greater Prince George

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) 01:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Greater Prince George (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a geographic region that doesn't have an article. I cannot find any properly sourced indication that this actually exists as an official geographic region with clear and objective boundaries -- rather, it seems to exist only as a loose concept that ropes in almost anything within about 100 kilometres of Prince George that people want to throw in.
If there aren't any officially defined boundaries to objectively set what does or doesn't belong in a category for it, then by definition it isn't defining enough to qualify for a category. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sourced information here. Dimadick (talk) 13:04, 19 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:Helvii

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Properly distinguish from Category:Helvii (Romans). Avilich (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article Helvii is the main topic for the name based on its placement. I say that article should have a move discussion first if this category is to be renamed.★Trekker (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. The article Helvii is able to stand alone because the main article for Category:Helvii (Romans) is Helvia gens. But we already decided upon Category:Helvii (Romans) instead, and it is the more prominent and long lasting usage. Let's avoid accidental mis-categorization for the smaller number of recorded Gauls.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current name is confusing at best. Dimadick (talk) 13:05, 19 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:Seii (ancient Rome)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Seii" is a plural word, therefore "Romans" rather than a vague and unclear "Rome" will make it easier for one to realize that this category is about multiple people. NB Category:Helvii (Romans). Avilich (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, do we really need a disambiguator here? Marcocapelle (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Seii, matching the majority of the others, I'm unable thus far to find Seii or Seia as another tribe of Gauls or late Romans.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle and William Allen Simpson: there's this discussion which apparently opted for disambiguation with an East Asian king, but, looking more closely, I see now he's not a category. I'm fine with either *Seii* or *Seii (Romans)*. Avilich (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated, we should have checked for a previous discussion. If BrownHairedGirl thinks it needs a disambiguator, that's usually a good idea.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This groups biographical articles. Dimadick (talk) 13:06, 19 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:Online grocery delivery

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) 01:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category that doesn't provide a genuinely helpful distinction from its parent. The category usage note describes it as "relating to practices or firms which offer shopping and delivery services for groceries and similar products without maintaining warehouses or kitchens or otherwise being in the grocery or restaurant business" -- so at least in theory, the distinction would be that an "online grocer" actually has its own grocery warehouse, while an "online grocery delivery" just provides the technical infrastructure while the groceries themselves come from a different company. But that's an opaque distinction to the end user -- the average internet shopper neither knows nor cares whether they're shopping from a "grocer" or a "grocery delivery", and is only concerned with whether the groceries arrive in good condition and timely fashion or not. And furthermore, the distinction isn't actually being upheld all that well at all, as two of the five articles in this category are double-filed both here and in the parent category directly alongside each other. The distinction here is in the back room, not the public-facing front of house, so there's no real point to having two separate categories. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 16 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:Assyrian-American tennis players

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) 01:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Assyrian-American tennis players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS and WP:SMALLCAT. Both articles are already in sub-categories. User:Namiba 19:33, 16 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 boxers of Nicaraguan 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS and WP:SMALLCAT User:Namiba 16:36, 16 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:Montreal Impact

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Nominator's rationale: club has been renamed from Montreal Impact to CF Montréal. Category and subcategories should be renamed to the new name RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the procedure, but the club had that name for 28 years versus a few days for the new name. Should we just create a new category moving forward rather than rename the existing one?--User:Namiba 16:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current name Category:Washington Redskins is the parent category and Category:Washington Football Team is the subcategory. Off hand, I can't think of another team that changed names without moving. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is standard with soccer for the categories to be moved to match the new team name, rather than create new categories. GiantSnowman 22:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match the new club name. GiantSnowman 22:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 22:45, 16 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:People of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:People of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:American people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Australian people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Brazilian people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:British people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Canadian people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Egyptian people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:French people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Israeli people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Lebanese people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Ottoman people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Turkish people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian is not an ethnic or national group. The religion of one's ancestors is not defining. This seems pretty clear from WP:OCEGRS. This was discussed in 2016 and no consensus was reached. All of the relevant subcategories have also been tagged for deletion. User:Namiba 15:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed the subcategories.--User:Namiba 15:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all — that's what happens with no consensus lack of a clear line drawn, they sprout children! This should be recorded as precedent for future actions.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all useless descent categories per nom. & per my usual objections (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I find descent categories usefull, but this actually categorizes religion and not descent. Dimadick (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- In the Ottoman Empire each religious denomination was a millet, an endogamous quasi-ethnic community. We thus allow Assyrian and several more such ethnic groups. However we might shorten it to Category:American people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox descent, as all Eastern Orthodox are Christian. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are 20th- and 21st-people who have nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 24 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:Bentley Boys

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) 03:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another nicknamed group of racing drivers. Delete as non-defining. User:Namiba 14:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is nothing that I have seen to rule out a nickname, as long as there is an article with that name (Bentley Boys). Oculi (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it does look defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PERFCAT these are racecar drivers who drove Bentley automobiles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason to discount nicknames, if they are the common name. 13:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
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:Alabama Gang

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) 03:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Alabama Gang is a nickname for a group of racing drivers. Delete as non-defining. User:Namiba 14:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was a cfd decision: Log/2020_July_22#Category:Allison_family. There was a time when it was considered polite for the nominator to do a little basic preparation and include links to previous discussions in the nomination. Some go further and ping previous contributors. Oculi (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it looks quite defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people by nickname is a bad precedent. Category:Mr. Football, Category:The Squad, etc.? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason to discount nicknames, if they are the common name. Dimadick (talk) 13:10, 19 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:Murdered entertainers

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) 01:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Murdered entertainers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Murdered comedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:Murdered male comedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not commonly and consistently expected as a professional hazard or qualification. There may have been many years between the occupation and the death, 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 also: related rationale about suicides by occupation:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:31, 16 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:Murdered politicians

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) 01:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Murdered politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Murdered American politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Murdered mayors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Murdered ministers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (parliamentary, not clergy)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not commonly and consistently expected as a professional hazard or qualification. There may have been many years between the occupation and the death, 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.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since assassinated politicians have been pulled out, what's left is completely a non-defining intersection. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 19 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:Murdered sex workers

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) 01:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Murdered sex workers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Murdered sex workers in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not commonly and consistently expected as a professional hazard or qualification. There may have been many years between the occupation and the death, 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.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, actually to my own surprise. I had expected most of these sex workers would have been murdered by their clients, but that is hardly ever the case, and circumstances of the murder are often entirely unclear. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "I had expected most of these sex workers would have been murdered by their clients" In some cases at least, we know the identity of the victim but not the identity of the killer. Dimadick (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Really? I understand most of these noms, but this one is a stretch. Contra Marcocapelle, I'm not shocked by the relatively small number who were obviously murdered by clients; in many cases this can't be confirmed. This is indeed an occupation where the intersection between it and homicide is relevant. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really. You opine that all sex workers are commonly to be murdered? In any case, something that cannot be confirmed is by its very definition not notable; WP:SPECULATION is not encyclopedic.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the homicide risk of sex workers (street prostitutes in particular) is absolutely something which is significantly-covered-in-multiple-reliable-sources; it's a topic of substantial discussion in sociology, criminology, and all other intersecting fields. WP:SPECULATION is irrelevant here, because the cases of "unclear if someone was killed by a client or not" relate to notable unsolved murders -- something unrelated to that policy. ("Callgirl X was found murdered on the Xth of Y in the year ZZZZ by an unknown assailant, with different detectives and researchers suggesting Serialkiller A or Pimp B" is not WP:SPECULATION, although, say, "Callgirl X was definitely murdered by Random Guy C, read my book on why" or "The cops will soon uncover that Serialkiller A was the murderer" would be.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there are a many more sex workers than you think, and most are not street walkers. As a percentage, they are less likely to be murdered than taxi drivers, truck drivers, or cops — and far less likely to be murdered than Blacks. Plus, their deaths are much less likely to be thoroughly investigated.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer you not assume how many sex workers I think there are, how many of them I think are street walkers (or, for that matter, black), or whether my argument this is a meaningful association is based on 'dime-store-novel theories'. The murder rate for sex workers is notably higher than the murder rate for women as a whole; I suspect the analysis you're drawing from here is significantly impacted by the fact 80% of homicide victims are male. I would also consider 'murdered police officers' a non-trivial intersection, of the examples you give. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sex workers being murdered due to their profession is something that has been documented; there have been many serial killers have explicitly targeted sex workers, one of the more notable examples being Jack the Ripper. See violence against prostitutes. Waxworker (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have separate categories for serial killers. Wish that dime-store-novel theories were less prevalent here at wikipedia.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; if kept purge of biographies it is true that there is a higher risk of being murdered as a sex worker, but it is usually impossible to determine motivation as many of these are unsolved. I would have expected more articles on the risk murder amongst sex workers but this is plagued with biographies - many of them notable for being murdered but less so for being murdered sex workers (as opposed to being murdered by someone famous). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In this case, their dangerous occupation is typically connected to their deaths. Dimadick (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typically? Look at the actual contents of the category. Murder during robbery. Suspected of murder by serial killers, rarely proven. Wish that dime-store-novel theories were less prevalent here at wikipedia.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — as of 2000, sex workers do not make the top of the list in homicides. Taxicab drivers and chauffeurs at 17.9 fatalities per 100,000 workers are 36 times the risk. Public police and detectives are far behind at 4.4, Private guards and police at 4.1. Managers of food serving and lodging establishments at 2.5, and Truckdrivers bring up the tail at 0.7 per 100,000 workers. A strong independent indicator is Blacks are three times and Hispanics are twice as likely as the general population, and they do a lot of those risky jobs. (Be thankful I'm not as verbose as we've seen by somebody on the Greek topics.)
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dimadick and others.--User:Namiba 15:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- but it should be limited to Sex workers being murdered due to their profession. These will generally be articles such as "murder of jane smith" for cases that have become notorous, but most such murders are not notable enough to need one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 23 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.

Stellantis

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) 03:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: On 16 January 2021, PSA and FCA merged together to form Stellantis. Ridwan97 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: just let the mentioned category merged into Stellantis category page. It's an absolutely new holding company.Ridwan97 (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not a reason to erase subsidiaries and their history. 13:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
  • Comment, meanwhile Category:Stellantis has been created and I added the two nominated categories to it. Presumably there is no further action required. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first -- We should continue to categorise cars by their original brand. However the groups category is probably best merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think is a good intention, as Wikipedia has a lot of duplication, but the category will merge into Stellantis things that were defunct well before the new group were a thing, as Guangzhou Peugeot Automobile Company or Changan PSA. I think the best compromise is to keep the status quo. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:51, 25 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.

Mayors of places in Finland

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) 01:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one or two articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now With no objection to recreating later if either exceeds expectations and ever gets up to 5+ articles. -RevelationDirect (talk) 10:54, 16 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:Wikipedia featured topics

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Now that Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates has been moved to Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates – this is to align with that since the category contains information for both featured and good topics (which are separate things) Aza24 (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the articles in the category are "Wikipedia:Featured and good topic ...". It should have a trailing 's' as a set parent category (athough the main article does not). Also it probably could be C2C, as most of the subcategories are also "Category:Wikipedia featured topic[s] ..." and "Category:Wikipedia good topic[s] ...". In any case, there's really no dispute.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:09, 21 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:Brazilian Portuguese children's songs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Category:Brazilian Portuguese children's songs

Category:Superhero video games by decade

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) 01:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Superhero video games by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Fighting games by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Platform games by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:2000s racing video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category and subcategories as overcategorization. There is no established consensus to categorize games by decade+genre, and it is redundant to the existing Category:Video games by year. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alternatively, the decade categories could be container categories for the year categories, as exists in other category trees. MClay1 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Triple intersection and overcategorization, per nom. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge instead of delete. Plain deletion would orphan the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I am also suggesting deletion of the subcategories as well, so they wouldn't be orphaned.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zxcvbnm: then I strike my merge comment. But please list and tag the subcategories too, otherwise they will not be processed. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Is there an easier way than going through them individually? The problem is when the creator makes a gazillion similar subcategories that are also obviously bad but would require much effort to tag.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With an excessive amount of categories (but not in this case) we may ask someone at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks to do the tagging after we have created the full list of categories in the nomination. Other than that, I would (also) be very glad when the creation of group nominations would become less cumbersome. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete subcategories. WP:NARROWCAT. We already have categories by genre and categories by year for games. We don't need to start down the path of intersecting categories for every possible combination of the two. TarkusABtalk/contrib 16:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NARROWCAT and generally pointless breakdown of arbitrarily-select genres by arbitrary time period. Multiple intersections should be handled by software (e.g. catscan), not by making combinations of criteria manually categorized. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We categorize films and books by genre and decade, why not video games? Dimadick (talk) 13:21, 19 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:Premio Bartolomé Hidalgo

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) 01:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Premio Bartolomé Hidalgo
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Premio Bartolomé Hidalgo claims to be the "most important literary awards in Uruguay" which sure sounds defining ... until you actually click on the category and look at the articles. Fifty Shades of Grey, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child and The Fault in Our Stars are not remotely defined by this award. Even among Uruguayan writers like Fernando Butazzoni and Susana Olaondo, the articles are about evenly split between those that mention the award in passing and those that don't mention it at all, so it's not defining for them either. There wasn't a list so I created on right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 16 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:NCR Book Award winners

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) 01:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:NCR Book Award winners
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The NCR Book Award was a very prominent British literary award that was rocked by scandal when it was learned that judges were picking winners based on synopses rather than reading the whole book. (The bar for what qualifies as a "scandal" in literary circles seems much lower than, say, the music or construction industries!) But the award was cancelled and whatever cultural prominence it once had evaporated. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 16 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/2021_January_16&oldid=1003029170"