Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 1 December 3 >

December 2[edit]

Category:Telenovelas set in São Paulo (state)[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) 01:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Underpopulation. NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As I have mentioned in previous nominations, the target category barely registers 20 articles, so such subdivision by location is not really beneficial to navigation at this point. SFB 19:14, 3 December 2014 (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:Prince-Bishops of the Low Countries[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. – Fayenatic London 08:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete While they were independent Prince-Bishoprics, Utrecht and Liège were part of the Holy Roman Empire, they were not yet part of the Low Countries. See also this discussion and this discussion, about deleting the Netherlands' and Belgian category respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete -- Both should be in a Holy Roman Empire category. Utrecht seems to have been abolished de facto at the foundation of the United Provinces. Liege continued until the Frnech Revolution. It had Hapsburg territory (the basis of modern Belgium) on either side but was not part of that. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The proposal seems to assume that "Low Countries" denotes a political entity. This is not the case. It is a geographical region, made up of a number of territories both inside and outside the Empire. To say "Holy Roman Empire instead of Low Countries" is like saying "Holy Roman Empire instead of Alps". Both apply: the political entity and the geographical region. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that it nests in the Category:History of the Low Countries, which in turn falls under Category:History of Europe by region. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Also that "Balkans" would be a closer analogy than "Alps", but I was trying to think of somewhere inside the Empire. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Low Countries was actually a political entity per Low Countries, as it was the lower part of the Burgundian Empire which was succeeded by the rule of the Spanish. The fact that nowadays Low Countries is often regarded as a synonym for Benelux is not relevant for the time of the Prince-Bishops. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're confusing the origins of the term with its actual present-day use in English. To try to force it to mean "the Burgundian territories by the sea" when it actually has much wider application in modern English is to commit the etymological fallacy. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not confusing, it's just avoiding anachronistic categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's only anachronistic if you take "Low Countries" in an etymological sense that it does not bear in modern English. Your concern is therefore born of a failure to appreciate the nuances of meaning in modern English. Or do you mean we should never categorise by terms that people alive at the time wouldn't have used? Well, there goes Category:Middle Ages and all its subcategories, for starters. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is actually the intention to categorize by name that people alive would have used, though within reason. That's what all the former country categories are meant for. The example of Middle Ages merely indicates that in some instances it is just unreasonable to categorize by name that people alive would have used. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well quite. In some instances it clearly is unreasonable. And this is one of them. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2014 (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:Fictional Puerto Rican 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: keep . – Fayenatic London 22:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should the "Fictional American people by state" sub-cats be changed to Category:Fictional American people from <-state->? --76.175.67.121 (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination could inadvertently expand these categories to include robots, animals, etc. I don't think that's good or bad but just so it's considered. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:09, 2 December 2014 (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:Silicon mixtures[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) 01:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless near-duplication of Category:Silicon alloys Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2014 (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:Jacobo Árbenz[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) 01:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:SMALLCAT. Unnecessary eponymous category with the article on the topic's daughter as the only other entry. Navigation between the two articles simple enough without need of this category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no enough content to warrant navigation. I also disagree with categorising people by the name of their relatives. SFB 21:09, 2 December 2014 (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:Colonial people in Mozambique[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2C per the tree of Category:People by country in which only nationality is used as adjective for people, not anything like colonial. Also, the current colonial adjective seems to suggest that native people should be excluded from the category, while I don't see a need for such an exclusion.
Note: this nomination is a follow-up on this discussion (which is still open). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per my comments here. SFB 21:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I presuime that this is for settlers, as disticnt from natives. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned, there is no need to exclude natives from a (former) country category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is history, not a taste contest to re-write history Hmains (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is These categories are for the European settlers/colonists who came to these European colonies. Nominator can create the new categories he mentioned at any time and include the current categories as sub-categories of them. Hmains (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nomination --173.55.119.156 (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2014 (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 colonial 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2C per the tree of Category:People by country in which only nationality is used as adjective for people, not anything like colonial. Also, the current colonial adjective seems to suggest that native people should be excluded from the category, while I don't see a need for such an exclusion.
Note 1: upon consensus on this rename, the "Colonial people" child categories will be nominated for rename to "People of" per C2C.
Note 2: this nomination is a follow-up on this discussion (which is still open). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments here. SFB 21:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't see any native people in any of this category structure and several surrounding structures involving the colonies. They exist separately in Category:Native American people and its subcats. These category decisions were made by many editors; I suppose they were keeping the colonialists by colony they settled while the native Americans were not involved with these boundaries. Hmains (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I do not like the name, which smacks of anachronism, but I cannot think of a better one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The category includes though its various sub-layers such people as Pocahontas, who was clearly a connected citizen of Virginia, but as a native and daughter of the ruler of the pre-Virginia realm, calling her "colonial" is stretching terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In all the 13 colony categories, you found exactly 1 Native American, who came to live with the colonists. Hmains (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The number isn't really relevant, it's the principle of whether or not we desire to exclude certain people from the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find only one person, I just used the principal "that all that is needed to prove that all crows are not black is to find one white crow." I didn't find, I drew from my background knowledge and information, I didn't bother trying to do an indepth study, because only one person was needed to prove my point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as it per my comments above. These categories are specifically for the European settlers/colonists in these European-controlled colonies. Hmains (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nomination --173.55.119.156 (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This engages in an ahistorical attempt to act as if people in New Mexico in 1750 had any connection with those in Massachusetts at the same time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2015 (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:Romanian cinema task force articles[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 was empty, as would be expected). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for non-existent task force Fortdj33 (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2014 (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:Ohio crime 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. This can be selective as many members are already categorised within the target hierarchy. I will also selectively merge some contents to History parents. – Fayenatic London 23:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Overlapping categories, with the former being too narrow, I think. Brandmeistertalk 19:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All Any crime that is not happening now could be "history." RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Due to expanding the scope of the nomiantion, a relisting is required. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those already exist, and the contents mostly do not correspond. – Fayenatic London 23:03, 26 December 2014 (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:Linguists from Ireland[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. For more info see WP:IRE-CATS. – Fayenatic London 07:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The definitions on both category pages are almost literally the same, viz.: "[This category lists] linguists who originated from Ireland or spent a notable part of their careers in Ireland." I can't see a reason why Category:Irish philologists‎ is below Category:Linguists from Ireland, but e.g. Category:Irish lexicographers‎ is below Category:Linguists from the Republic of Ireland. (The proper name of the merger's result category might be controversial. See User_talk:Timrollpickering#Irish_linguists and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Irish_linguists for recent attempts to get the categories merged.) - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both categories and populate accordingly The Ireland categories are a special case due to Northern Ireland being politically part of the United Kingdom but many social & cultural arrangements are on an all-Ireland basis. "Ireland" categories are catch-all for the entire island, including pre-partition subjects, "Republic of Ireland" categories are for the state and subcategorised under the island, per the main articles. These categories have been complicated by those annoying templates that automatically populate national categories without taking into consideration the particular circumstances of a specific country and often don't consider precisely what the adjective refers to. (And they're often hard to manually amend to undo the mess.) Timrollpickering (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – neither of these seems to be following the standard format, which would be Category:Irish linguists; see eg Category:Irish sportspeople. The clause 'from Northern Ireland' has been preferred for some time in category names, but 'from the Republic of Ireland' or 'from Ireland' are not common. Oculi (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was a renaming "Fooian linguists" to "Linguists from Foo" in Nov. 2012 to clarify that linguists are meant who come from the Foo country rather than linguists that study the Foo language, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_13#Linguists_by_nationality. That's the reason why these category names deviate from the standard, and I guess that shouldn't be changed. — While I agree with User:Timrollpickering's suggestion to distinguish between Republic and Island, I wonder what content would be in the Island category except just one subcategory, viz. the Republic category. If I'm right, the Island category isn't useful. If I'm wrong, it shouldn't be below Category:Linguists by nationality. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both -- Some of the content relates to people of the pre-1922 united country. However the Ireland category should not be used for post-1922 articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2014 (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:Gmail[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 and purge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only a very few pages in the category. Some of them, like Google Buzz, Google Inbox and Kevin Fox (designer) are not strictly relevant to Gmail. As such, this category is not needed. SD0001 (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and purge. Don't think that WP:SMALLCAT applies here as I count five relevant articles and there may be potential for growth. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've now added Paul Buchheit, Gmail's lead creator, to the category. It now seems to me that there is no reason to delete the category after all. SD0001 (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears to be sufficient content to merit navigation. Specifically, I also think Buzz is a relevant child article, as it was integrated with Gmail and could not be used in the absence of a Gmail account. SFB 21:22, 2 December 2014 (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:Turkish women archers[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) 05:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Apparently missed in this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2014 (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/2014_December_2&oldid=1138399086"