Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 12 June 14 >

June 13[edit]

Category:Former Summer Olympic events[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following on from the related discussion moving the "events" categories to the "sports at" format, I propose that the "former event" categories be moved to "Discontinued sports at" format. This better reflects the contents as some sports (softball for example) are still recognised by the IOC as current Olympic sports and only their place on the programme has been removed (discontinued). They are not "former" events any more so than Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics is a former event (having already taken place). The discontinued wording also better reflects IOC definitions for how they categorise these events. SFB 21:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: The parents have a related issue in that some of the contents, again, aren't technically former Olympic sports. Baseball, cricket, golf, and softball are all recognised Olympic sports. The wording format does not apply because the parent category is for the sports themselves, not the sport at the Olympics. I would recommend stripping the parent categories down to actual former sports (i.e. non-recognised but previously contested) and move the rest to Category:Olympic sports (which is actually defined in its header as including the discontinued Olympic sports). Anyone interested in seeing a category structure based around the current Olympic programme should really be looking at Category:Sports at the Summer Olympics etc. SFB 21:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, I have no objection if you wish to purge and upmerge the two that I mentioned. – Fayenatic London
  • Rename as nominated, as part of a wider renaming project. – Fayenatic London 16:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. NickSt (talk) 22:17, 23 June 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:Music of Bangladesh[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge to Category:Bangladeshi music, WP:C2B. – Fayenatic London 16:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's already Category:Bangladeshi music Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 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:Surnames by theme[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) 22:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All but two of the children in this category are already listed in the parent. If the purpose of any parent category is not organising its child categories by theme then I've absolutely no idea what other mechanism it could be using to do that task. SFB 19:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This was probably intended for patronymic, toponymic and occupational surnames, but I agree that it is an unnecessary layer. – Fayenatic London 12:23, 14 June 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:Military patrol (sport) competitions[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 11:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The sport disambiguation handle is not required for these categories as (unlike the parent) there are no other kinds of military patrol competitions or runners to disambiguate from. SFB 18:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we feasibly going to have any biographical articles on this subject? Certainly anything more specific than the article on Runner (soldier) is overkill. Category:Runners has not had any problems with messengers appearing in the category since it was created five years ago. SFB 11:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Runners for military patrols are messengers, as a military patrol is a military mission, thus why the sport appears in a disambiguated category. This lacks disambiguation, thereby invoking the ambiguity that forced the main category to carry disambiguation, so making the proposed category a category for military messengers. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. NickSt (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- A soldier out on patrol, who runs, perhaps as a messenger, would go into the second category. It is not obvious to me that this is about a sport, without the qualifier. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We should carry disambiguators in categories that exist in article names. Otherwise we run the risk of surprising users who will think they are going to get a category full of notable people who ran messages to their leaders for generals from Alexander to Grant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 2 July 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:Shooting sports competitions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although the parent is Category:Shooting sports, there is no need to include the term in this category (which exclusively contains "shooting competition" categories). By definition, there are no shooting competitions which are not a form of sport. The competitions are largely referred to as "shooting" ones, rather than "shooting sports" in common parlance. SFB 18:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose the current category doesn't seem to include gun hunting competitions, where you compete to shoot and bring back animals. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Animal shooting as a feature of shooting sports anyway (if a minority aspect). The fact that hunting is often referred to as "shooting for sport" means our current wording fails to distinguish this anyway. There isn't actually much reason why you would want to exclude any major annual hunt shooting competitions from this category (should the current number of articles on this topic ever increase from zero). SFB
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:Elections in the Solomon Islands[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 11:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Solomon Islands MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support rename Will bring into line with country naming used elsewhere, name will cease to an anomaly, name will match main page title. Ex nihil (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's true that the country prefers the name "Solomon Islands" without the use of the "the" in running text. However, common usage is to still refer to the country as "the Solomon Islands" in running text (see, e.g., recent NYT), and currently the category scheme for Category:Solomon Islands adopts this approach. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia uses common names, and at present it is "the Solomon Islands". This may change in the future, but it has not yet changed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 2 July 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:LGBT people in and around the Bloomsbury Group[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates final rung rule - the Bloomsbury group parent category can't otherwise be divided, so this would tend to ghettoize gay people. Additionally I don't think we have other 'member of club or movement + LGBT' categories" . An article would be a better way to capture he influence of LGBT on Bloomsbury vs this intersection category Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Obiwankenobi, I'd have appreciated your input on this at Category talk:LGBT people#Idea.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, we shouldn't have an LGBT category if we don't even have a "neutral" category. Thus, there is no Category:People in and around the Bloomsbury Group, and if such was created I would also nominate it for deletion as well. Finally and most importantly, this completely fails the final rung test, since you are taking a very small group of people, and separating out the gay people from within - this should not be done, since this will tend to ghettoize them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read above. Your arguments make less and less sense: re. "we shouldn't have an LGBT category if we don't even have a 'neutral' category": nonsense, making an LGBT category as a subset of a broader category would indeed be WP:GHETTO.
Again, I would have appreciated your thoughts a lot at Category talk:LGBT people#Idea when I launched the idea in a discussion you were involved in. The suggestions you're offering now don't seem very useful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I didn't respond to your suggestion but I would have made the same points. You can't sneak you way out of the ghettoization problem by widening the scope - we wouldn't have "LGBT poets and their LGBT muses" if we didn't have a non-LGBT version of same. Clearly there is interest in the LGBT aspects of bloombury and perhaps the best start would be to add this to the article but tagging an intersection of LGBT + member or friends of a member of an artistic movement - when that movement itself isn't large enough to divide otherwise violates last rung rule.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See above, I added the *existing* Category:Strachey family as an example to debunk your GHETTO goose chase, there *are* other subdivisions of the Bloomsbury Group, it was already proven they are possible - the GHETTO argument is moot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ghettoization only applies to LGBT, ethnic/gender/ etc categories. Other such categories aren't considered to ghettoize. We could add a link to a category intersection tool at the top if this is really interesting.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GHETTO nowhere says the other (possible) subdivisions would need to LGBT, ethnic/gender/ etc subdivisions too. There are 3 people subdivisions now (I plugged in another existing one). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Francis, you are misunderstanding. A good example is Category:American novelists. We can have Category:American women novelists because the parent is otherwise divideable, namely by century such as Category:20th-century American novelists. Only if the parent can be fully diffused - e.g EMPTY of biographies, can you create a non-diffusing sibling like "LGBT x". That is the final rung rule.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what is in WP:EGRS#Ghettoization - final rung. As I said, you're inventing this as you go along, and not successful at it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Francis, this is long standing consensus. If the parent category can be otherwise diffused into non-EGRS categories Alan American novelists, the EGRS subcat cannot be created. If the wording is unclear that needs to be fixed, but the consensus holds nonetheless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no, the Ghettoization & final rung recommendations are perfectly clear as written down in WP:EGRS. Category:LGBT people in and around the Bloomsbury Group goes not against these recommendations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also I just realized Strachey family is not a proper subset of Bloomsbury group, so changed it to be a see also anyway.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In an effort to Keep people categories separate I moved all buildings and publications relating to the Bloomsbury Group out of the main Bloomsbury Group category, that is a people category now.
When I came to the improvement of the categories I noticed that Category:Bloomsbury Group is not a subset of any of its parent categories, neither before my improvements, nor after: see what I changed. The "needs to be a subset" argument is moot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subset rule is applied more precisely when you have a specific grouping of people - such as a family. Can you say that all (or most) of the members of the family are members of Bloomsbury? No. Therefore it shouldn't be a subset. Your new categories are debatable as well, I'd rather keep Bloomsbury group as a top-level category, containing publications, locations, and create a people sub-category, that is the normal way we do things, vs having the people category as the top-level container.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomsbury Group is a specific grouping of people. You're just trying to invent rules as you go along, and unsuccessful at it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
initially it wasn't. Sometime topic categories are created first, and then people are subbed out later. In allow any instance I can think of, the parent category contains topic articles while a person-only cat contains the people. For example, engineering/engineers, medicine/doctors, forestry/foresters, etc. I'm going to create a people subcat just to hold the people accordingly - but even so this LGBT cat will still violate final rung, as the two other cats you have to diffuse, one of them isn't even a proper subcat and the other can only really contain one of the members. This category is simply too small to divide on other grounds, so there's no scope to a gay-only cat below it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not partial to keep the people in the main cat. What I'm saying is: move them out or keep them in, the issues remain the same: cats being "subdivisions of" parent categories is never going to work on this set of categories either way. Lydia Lopokova is never going to fit in a "subset" reasoning, neither is Saxon Sydney-Turner, and there are more. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Francis if being 'all round or associTed with the Bloomsbury group + LGBT' is defining, then being around or associated with the Bloomsbury group whether gay or not is also defining. But it's not. We should categorize the members but not the ancillary friends and so on. I can think of no case where a LGBT cat is not parented by a neutral and otherwise equivalent parent. Even if we do that, and have Bloomsbury members and LGBT Bloomsbury members, the LGBT category breaks the final rung rule. I'm sorry to say but your interpretation of last rung makes no sense - if all it takes is a sibling EGRS category to avoid last rung rule, then we could just create two EGRS cats under any leaf category, since each would qualify the other to not be last rung. That's simply not how it works - the idea of last rung is that the parent should be empty, or empty-able, through a DIFFUSING (or set of DIFFUSING) categories. By definitions EGRS cats aren't diffusing so they can't serve to avoid final rung rule. @Bearcat: who wrote the original guidance to hopefully provide some additional clarity.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to explain why this should be deleted, but "final rung" isn't actually my rationale. It is an WP:EGRS problem, but mainly on the grounds that it's a non-notable intersection of two independent but not directly-correlated characteristics — but even more importantly, the "and around" part makes it an WP:OC#ASSOCIATED violation. Namely, what arbitrary threshold of tangential association with the Bloomsbury Group does a person have to attain to merit inclusion in this category, if they weren't themselves in the Bloomsbury Group? Is being the grandchild of somebody in the Bloomsbury Group enough? The neighbour? The florist? The grandchild of the neighbour's sister? We don't do categories based on loose thresholds of "somehow indirectly associated with X" — if they weren't in the Bloomsbury Group directly enough to merit inclusion directly in Category:Bloomsbury Group, then they don't get to be in a "tangentially associated with the Bloomsbury Group" category either. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to put it simply: Bloomsbury Group members had spouses and lovers and neighbours and florists, etc. Those spouses and lovers and neighbours and florists were either in the group or they weren't: if they weren't their relationships with the group members weren't the object of multiple independent studies unless... the relationships were LGBT. The daughter of John Addington Symonds wouldn't figure in any history book if she'd been a boy. Now she's mentioned in her father's Wikipedia article because of the LGBT crush a Bloomsbury group member had had for her. Nigel Nicolson writes Portrait of a Marriage about his parents. In her study Diana Souhami, writing about the same, calls it Portrait of a Lesbian Affair where all relations tangent to the Bloomsbury group are examined for their LGBT-ness. And so on... (without even mentioning the popular culture emanations like Carrington (film)) So no, Bloomsbury Group on the one side, and the LGBT part of the Bloomsbury Group + LGBT tangent on the other side don't overlap, and are the object of different groups of studies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against WP:OC#ASSOCIATED is legit, and should be done:
  • In fact there was a WP:OC#ASSOCIATED problem with Category:Bloomsbury Group: based on WP:OR [1] Vita Sackville-West was declared to be "in" the Bloomsbury Group. She wasn't, she was WP:OC#ASSOCIATED with it, all sources agree on that, so I removed her from the main cat. (giving only one example for clarity)
  • For Category:LGBT people in and around the Bloomsbury Group, despite the "and around" part in the category title, the same problem doesn't exist: core is the studies made about that part of LGBT history in England, which clearly delineate the cat (and avoid WP:OC#ASSOCIATED issues). People like Roger Fry or Clive Bell were never part of that LGBT history, so in order not to make fake LGBT associations I removed Category:LGBT history in England from the main cat [2]. Note that, for instance, Clive Bell's many extra-marital affairs were never object of study, there's no history there. His (step)daughter speaks about that behaviour of Bell in terms of "the conventionality" of it all (Deceived with Kindness, p.37) — and sure, doesn't name any of his lovers (while in the same book she goes in great detail about the affairs of her aunt, including the ones she labels as "not consummated").
--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other thought: as far as I'm concerned Category:LGBT people in and around the Bloomsbury Group could be renamed to Category:Bloomsbury Group in LGBT history, although there's a bit more liability this would become over time a mixed people/non-people category. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OC#ASSOCIATED has nothing to do with whether people who were indirectly associated with the Bloomsbury Group belong in Category:Bloomsbury Group itself or not — what it forbids is the creation of a new category specifically designed to contain people indirectly associated with the Bloomsbury Group. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I go with Category:Bloomsbury Group in LGBT history then. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, I give you here the full content of WP:OC#ASSOCIATED:

Examples: People associated with John McCain, People associated with Pope Pius XI, People associated with Madonna, People associated with the hippie movement
The problem with vaguely-named categories such as this is determining what degree or nature of "association" is necessary to qualify a person for inclusion in the category. The inclusion criteria for these "associated with X" categories are usually left unstated, which fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE; but applying some threshold of association may fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY.
However, it may be appropriate to have categories whose title clearly conveys a specific and defined relationship to another person, such as Category:Obama family or Category:Obama Administration personnel.

Let's go over this one by one:
  • The problem with vaguely-named categories such as this is determining what degree or nature of "association" is necessary to qualify a person for inclusion in the category.
→ not vaguely named
→ degree & nature of association determined
  • The inclusion criteria for these "associated with X" categories are usually left unstated, which fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE;
→ not subjective Bloomsbury Group in Category:LGBT history in England (the cat I removed from the main cat) is objectively treated in multiple independent studies as a theme in itself.
→ not arbitrary for the same reason, separate topic in multiple independent reliable sources.
  • However, it may be appropriate to have categories whose title clearly conveys a specific and defined relationship to another person, (...)
→ "to have LGBT sex with", how more "specific and defined" can one go for definition of a relationship?
Sorry, the whole WP:OC#ASSOCIATED (or other WP:OVERCAT specs) framing is moot. That is, based on the guideline text (which may be different from what it became in people's heads, but that's not my problem).
I understand the concerns (including OC, GHETTO, etc), I'm all for checking against these concerns, further I'm sensitive for issues that haven't been raised (like not slap a LGBT cat on a category that also contains non-LGBT people), however when after all checks and balances the concerns don't (or no longer) apply, then these concerns are moot, time to stop insisting on them and move on. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. There are exactly no circumstances under which "people indirectly associated with X" is ever an appropriate category on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what hoops you jump through to try to prove that it passes the OC#ASSOCIATED test; either they're actually in X directly enough to be in the main category for X itself, or they go in no X-related category at all. One or the other, no grey areas or special "but this is different" exemptions. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, I started Category talk:Bloomsbury Group#Membership (Group - Cat) to sort out membership/association issues. Help welcome! --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose using this vague 'associated with but not necessarily called members + they happen to be gay' as a way of grouping biographies - fails WP:defining for the most part, this intersection is not worth categorizing on.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course WP:COP#N/WP:DEFINING applies to all LGBT people categorizations. Who ever said the countrary?

The intersection has it merits. Bloomsbury Group is part of LGBT history as confirmed by reliable sources.

Of course for any individual person/biography mentioned in List of Bloomsbury Group people#LGBT extended groups it is WP:COP#N/WP:DEFINING that regulates whether they are also categorized as such. E.g. Benjamin Britten and Benedict Nicolson are in the list, but not in the category while being part of that history is not defining for them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Any category about those "associated" with anything is too vague in its scope to be allowed (i.e. inclusion is a POV issue). If a robustly defined category can be created out of this (with purging of those outside the boundary), I would see no problem. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 19 June 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:Religious holidays[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not merge, without prejudice to a fresh nomination in which a reverse merge is proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge: The category Religious observances currently consists of:
  1. Child category Religious holidays
  2. Child category Jewish observances
  3. Three separate articles

The child category Jewish observances can be integrated among the current child categories of Religious holidays (where we already have Jewish holy days), and after that move the distinction between Religious holidays and Religious observances has vanished. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • inclined to oppose The main problem is that the notion of "observance" is somewhat vague. In the case of the Jewish observances there is a clear division between holidays which are observed according to a calendar and other rites which are tied to life events in a fixed pattern (e.g. getting a bris). I don't know how much other religions have the same sort of division. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mangoe. "Jewish observances" include life cycle events, which are distinct from holidays. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for your input! See my further thoughts below:
  1. Observance is somewhat vague. -> I agree, so the solution would rather be to downmerge Category:Religious observances to Category:Religious holidays instead of the other way around, right?
  2. Jewish observations need a separate place beyond holidays. -> Fair enough, can we have this under Category:Jewish behaviour and experience ?

Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 13 June 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:People from Kütahya Peovince[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge (in practice, delete, as it is already empty). – Fayenatic London 19:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clear misspelling of the existing category Category:People from Kütahya Province, as well as being empty. Ithinkicahn (talk) 07:26, 13 June 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:People from the Duchy of Carniola[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: redirect to Category:Carniolan people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to Category:Carniolan people. Eleassar my talk 07:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the members and removed some from the category as 'not defining', whereas the rest have already been properly categorised to the subcategories of 'Carniolan people'. --Eleassar my talk 09:36, 16 June 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:Kayhan Kalhor[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OC#Eponymous. Unnecessary eponymous category and layer for an article on one album when Category:Kayhan Kalhor albums exists. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...sorry,now i read Eponymous categories for people ,and you are right. it must be delete. Thank you for this delete nomination Sandman q23 (talk) 05:57, 13 June 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:Surnames of Georgian origin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Georgian-language surnames, without prejudice to its effect the nominations on 2014 JUN 14 (i.e., this close should not be cited to support or justify what is being proposed there). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is already a category for Georgian surnames here and there is no need for having an additional one so I propose we delete it. Jaqeli (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a feasible alternative to merge the two categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean redirecting the category? Jaqeli (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean an alternative proposal to have all articles in Category:Surnames of Georgian origin automatically moved to Category:Georgian-language surnames. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a better proposal... let's delete this category, and this one too ! We already have this kind of category here.. here's another one, and this one too. Even better... we could merge this into that ! Oh well, let's do the following... let's delete the whole thing. Krenakarore TK 10:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone is a little flippant, but you raise a very good question. When looking at Category:Surnames by culture vs. Category:Surnames by language – do we have any instances where a culture has multiple languages? The culture category appears problematic. For example, "Surnames of Indian origin‎" – maybe it's just me but I wouldn't consider "India" a culture; it's a country with various cultures. "Surnames of British Isles origin‎" is again more geographic than cultural. As for "Caucasian surnames", maybe again I'm being ignorant but I'm not aware of there being a shared "Caucasian culture" (the countries of the region widely vary in language, religion and traditions). That famous shared culture of "Africa" is culturally insulting to say the least. Virtually all of the children of the culture category are actually using culture to infer language, which is the more defining feature of a name that we should be using. @Krenakarore: Can you consider launching a wider discussion on this issue? SFB 19:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At last, a thinking head. My very good friend SFB, I agree with you entirely. I couldn't raise this issue in a way better than you did once it might sound redundant from my part. Some language-surnames may not reflect their surname-origins yes, see Costa for instance. I understand it's pretty hard to determine where a certain surname is rooted, like Aleksi-Meskhishvili (view history), nonetheless I think it would be a lot more productive to narrow both categories by being more selective. I am afraid I would need someone with a better knowledge of the topic (CFD) in order to bring this discussion to a higher level as you did here today. My best regards, Krenakarore TK 23:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_14#Category:Surnames_by_culture. SFB 12:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Georgian-language surnames. We (should? do?) categorize surnames by linguistic origin not national origin; otherwise various German-language surnames would likely be in several categories as the name is likely to be found in Austria and Switzerland, and English-language or Spanish-language surnames may be in dozens of countries; also, categories such as Category:Catalan-language surnames wouldn't exist. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this one, although I do not accept that this is desirable in all the cases listed at the June 14 discussion. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 22 June 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_June_13&oldid=1138399542"