Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 22

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 all except the New York state and city categories. This is without prejudice to a future discussion on the New York categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename

Category:Florida infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure in Florida

Category:Illinois infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure in Illinois

Category:Iowa infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure in Iowa

Category:Kentucky infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure in Kentucky

Category:Massachusetts infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure in Massachusetts

Category:Missouri infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure in Missouri

Category:North Carolina infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure in North Carolina

Category:Texas infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure in Texas

Category:New York (state) infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure in New York (state)

Category:New York City infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure in New York City

Category:Waste management infrastructure of New York (state) to Waste management infrastructure in New York (state)

Category:Waste management infrastructure of New York City to Waste management infrastructure in New York City

Category:Water supply infrastructure of New York (state) to Water supply infrastructure in New York (state)

Category:Water supply infrastructure of New York (state) to Water supply infrastructure in New York (state)

Category:Water infrastructure of New York City to Water supply infrastructure in New York City

• Nominator's rationale Most American infrastructure categories have the format Category:Energy infrastructure in Montana, see Category:Energy infrastructure in the United States by state but several subcategories of Category:Infrastructure in the United States by state differ eg Category:Florida infrastructure hence it is proposed to rename these subcategories to the standard format. Hugo999 (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WP:CATNAME#State-based topics.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Funandtrvl (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Category:New York (state) infrastructure and Category:New York City infrastructure and Category:Waste management infrastructure of New York City since not all of New York State/City infrastructure is not IN the state, particularly energy infrastructure, some of which is located in New Jersey or offshore Rhode Island or Massachusetts. IN seems to indicate "located in", and that would WRONG for these and some other categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 2020-12-25 21:02:54 (UTC)
• Comment Any infrastructure in more than one state should be categorised seperately in each state. This could apply to energy infrastructure (pipes, electrical etc) or to transportation infrastructure (roads, railways, canals etc). Water infrastructure categories should be in the same format as other infrastructure categories. Hugo999 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That not address the fact the infrastructure for one state, NY, is exclusively in another and NOT both, so the IN would be incorrect. For example, South Fork Wind Farm & Bayonne Energy Center which will or does produce electricity for NY, is not located IN NY. There are many more examples.Djflem (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the proposals for New York state and city water supply/infrastructure have been objected to, I will withdraw the five categories so that the other category proposals can proceed. Hugo999 (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the New York city and state categories [[: Category:New York (state) infrastructure, Category:New York City infrastructure,Category:Waste management infrastructure of New York (state), Category:Waste management infrastructure of New York City, Category:Water supply infrastructure of New York (state), Category:Water supply infrastructure of New York (state), Category:Water infrastructure of New York City contain items not located in the state. Category change would not reflect that and would be be a case of the tail wagging the dog to make them conform.Djflem (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion, use "of" instead of "in". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 17 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.

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) 02:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Incest in video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NONDEF. It could be changed to "Video games about incest", but how many are really specifically about that subject and notable (as opposed to just containing it?) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another "about" category with a "one-drop rule" without any explanation why incest is notable in the video game. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Missing Skyrim, where killing one of incestuous vampire siblings is a side quest.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:27, 23 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) 02:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:American anti-socialists
• Nominator's rationale we usually categorize people by what they support, nor what they oppose. Even then, we are very sparing in such categorizations. There is no overall tree for this, and no strong reason to have this category. We do not need to categorize people by everything they did, every opinion they expressed, and every actions they took. This is not even a widely used term, and there is no good reason to have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OPINIONCAT that is not defining. The vast majority of Americans aren't in favor of socialism as seen by recent election results. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — the vast majority of Americans don't even know what either "socialism" or "democratic socialism" means. Also, I've fixed the category, as there was a circular cross-categorization with American anti-communists.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even less defining than anti-communists which is also being discussed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 23 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 to merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:19th-century Russian lawyers to Category:Imperial Russian lawyers (which may be renamed to Category:Russian Empire lawyers before this nomination is completed, but that is a different issue)
• Nominator's rationale In the case of lawyers, the polity in which they operate is very significant. Thus it makes particular sense to categorize them as in the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire only existed from 1721-1917, so splitting the by occupation categories is rarely justified. In the case of lawyers the issues are especially calling for this way of categorizing, so they make it seperate from whether we want to pursue the much larger by century tree in other cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — yet another of these, please wait until target "Imperial Russian" is resolved.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have Category:19th-century lawyers with a lot of per country subcategories, so I se no reason to delete this one. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, the country that these lawyers operated in was the Russian Empire/Imperial Russia. (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 23 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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:19th-century Russian engineers to Category:Imperial Russian engineers
• Nominator's rationale in the 19th-century there was the Russian Empire. This is the entity these people operated in, and should be the one they are connected with as engineers. The Russian Empire only existed from 1721-1917, making subdivision by century not very useful. It appears likely that the target will actually soon be renamed to Category:Russian Empire engineers but category discussions are notoriously slow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — yet another of these, please wait until target "Imperial Russian" is resolved.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this will break the tree of Category:Russian engineers by century. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which in the pre-20th-century section has a total of 7 articles. This seems to just create needlessly small categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I dont see that century categories should take preference over political entities. Rathfelder (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:19th-century Russian people runs in parallel, possibly meant as an ethnic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have Category:19th-century engineers with a lot of per country subcategories, so I see no reason to delete this one. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 23 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) 02:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Drivers who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
  • Propose deleting Category:Motorsport competitors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    
    • Propose deleting Category:Racing drivers who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      

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) 19:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no connection between these as being used since we're focusing on the occupation of "driver" rather than the method of driving. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even when two things are both defining, the intersection may not be. Also, since most of the articles are already in both occupation by nationality and suicide by location categories, this tree tends to add more category clutter. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see this as trivial, and the sources cover it. Dimadick (talk) 13:09, 29 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) 02:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Clergy who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
  • Propose deleting Category:Priests who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    

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) 19:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete one of the biographies (John Joseph (bishop)) says that he's best known as a clergyman who committed suicide. Most of the rest seem to be run-of-the-mill folks who are best known for being child molesters or for their ministerial or political careers. Likely a bishop would have been notable absent his suicide, it stands to reason that the intersection is secondary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even when two things are both defining, the intersection may not be. Also, since most of the articles are already in both occupation by nationality and suicide by location categories, this tree tends to add more category clutter. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Some intersections between profession and suicide might be notable, but not this one. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see this as trivial, and the sources cover it. Dimadick (talk) 13:09, 29 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) 02:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Academics who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
  • Propose deleting Category:Historians who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    
  • Propose deleting Category:Scientists who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    
    • Propose deleting Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      
    • Propose deleting Category:Physicists who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      
    • Propose deleting Category:Social scientists who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      

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) 19:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not defining generally. In the few bios I sampled there was nothing to tie the occupation to the suicide. To the extent folks committed suicide for reasons related to their occupation, it is no different than most others - unlike priests, above - as these professions don't take a position forbidding suicide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even when two things are both defining, the intersection may not be. Also, since most of the articles are already in both occupation by nationality and suicide by location categories, this tree tends to add more category clutter. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Some intersections between profession and suicide might be notable, but not this one. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see this as trivial, and the sources cover it. Dimadick (talk) 13:09, 29 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) 02:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Royal Order of the Intare

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V (WP:RS) and WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

This category is a bit of a rabbit hole: we don't have a main article for this Rwandan order, Orders, decorations, and medals of Rwanda makes no mention of it, and the redirect points to an article with no info on it. It appears to be an award given by the deposed king of Rwanda, Kigeli V Ndahindurwa, to foreign leaders like Donald Rumsfeld and James Carlisle. Of the 13 articles in this category, 4 mention similar sounding (but not identical) awards and 9 don't mention it at all so it doesn't seem defining or even really verifiable. I copied the current category contents right here so no work is lost if anyone wants to find reliable sources to start an article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, again an obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is an egregious case of overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 22 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) 02:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Freemen of the City of Canterbury

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

The Freedom of the City of Canterbury is a local municipal award similar to a key to the city or honorary citizen. Here is an article where the local paper covers a furniture maker and puppeteer winning which gives the very local flavor of the award. Within the articles, the award typically gets a passing reference and doesn't seem defining. I copied the current category contents right here so no work is lost if anyone wants to establish notability to start an article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not make sense to me.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 10:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, again an obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is a NN Award. Historically, persons born to citizens or who served an apprenticeship to one would on the completion of the apprenticeship become free of the city, with the right to trade there without paying market tolls; the right could also be bought. Later (where the Parliamentary vote depended on being a free citizen or burgess of a borough), part of electioneering was to admit more people as burgesses/citizens, giving them the vote. In modern times it has become the practice in some towns periodically to give an honorary freedom to distinguished people. This was done because they were already notable, so that this is a NN award. No objection to listfying, if desired. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 27 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.