Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 20 March 22 >

March 21[edit]

Category:Monster Beverage[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) 03:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL. Not counting redirects, this has only three entries, too small to warrant a category. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:34, 21 March 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:Rega Research[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) 04:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not needed for two articles at this time. Can be recreated if there are more articles. If the images can be moved to commons, it is not clear why there are notes about not doing so, then this can simply be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:15, 21 March 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:Countesses of Cilli[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) 08:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to match Count of Celje Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The spelling appears to depend on whether it should be in Slovenian, German or Hungarian. Styria, where the place lies is now in Slovenia, so that Celje is certainly the right spelling for the place. However, Styria was (I think) a land of the Austrian crown, so that the German (or possibly Hungarian) spelling might be appropriate for the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 23 March 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:House of Cilli[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) 08:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to match Counts of Celje Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname to match the outcome of the CFD on Countesses above, whatever that may be. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 23 March 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:High-end audio[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) 08:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Completely subjective category that invites original research and introduces neutral point of view issues for included articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yea, it does look subjective when you include Category:Lossless audio codecs‎ and Category:Compact disc‎. How can a commodity item also be high end? If the article gets rewritten to make the topic less subjective then I'd reconsider. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept it should be renamed to "Hi-Fi audio" per the common name for this thing -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced that the rename would help. High fidelity dates back to the 50s or 60s for better quality. Not sure if they can be considered the same. CES always has the High-End Audio equipment in a separate building. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:06, 22 March 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:Non-Irish bishops in 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We normally don't do "non" categories. Not sure I see the value of this one. "Irish" nationality is an anachronism. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is "Irish" nationality an anachronism? Why is Irish in quotes? The cat is necessary because there are cats for bishops by nationality (Irish bishops) and also bishops in Ireland generally, who are either Irish or non-Irish. This cat is needed to fill the gap. After the Norman invasion of Ireland, most bishoprics fell into the hands of Norman appointees for several centuries. It's useful to know that for a considerable part of church history, most bishops in Ireland were not Irish nationals. This is surely unique in modern European church history. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like an intersection. We have a full tree of Category:Bishops by country and another whole tree of Category:Bishops by nationality, so presumably there are many cases where someone is a bishop in a country which isn't their own. For example, within a few seconds, I found Luis_Ignatius_Peñalver_y_Cárdenas and Francisco_Porró_y_Reinado who were both Bishops in the US but who weren't from the United States. Shall we create a Category:Non-American Bishops in the United States category to hold these fellows? This list is chock full of foreigners. I don't think we should start this scheme, it's overcategorization, this is the only instance and should be nipped in the bud.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I deliberately confined myself to Europe above. Clearly the same logic would never arise for the New World since the vast majority of bishops in the New World were, until the 20th century, non nationals. Again, as I mentioned above, it's possible that the scheme might not be applicable outside the British Isles. Possibly only Scotland would merit a similar treatment. I can't think of another country in the Old World where the entire episcopacy was supplanted by non nationals for a significant period of time. So these two are exceptions but notable exceptions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. This category appears to be a rather pointy way of labelling people. Sure, how any generations did Anglo-Norman people need to be in Ireland before losing the label "non-Irish"? What about descendants of Vikings -- were they "non-Irish"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Since when is nationality a label? BHG sees malice where non is present. Nationality is a matter of fact, not opinion. If the article says that the bishop was born and raised in England and spent a lot of his career in England before being appointed as bishop, then he is non-Irish. The category currently, to my knowledge, contains no bishops born in Ireland. Any Viking bishops born in Norway are non-Irish; those Vikings born in Viking Dublin are Norse-Irish and I would hesitate to include them in the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- This might make an intersting subject for a list, but the before the 1920s, it is debatable what "Irish nationality" consisted of. There were probably a lot of Englishmen appointed to Church of Ireland sees, but the gap between them and gentry of the Protestant ascendancy was too narrow for it to be clear who were "Irish". BHG also makes a good point about the Anglo-Norman aristocracy. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply So there were no Irish nationals before 1920? Interesting theory. As for the gap, it's not narrow - it's as wide as the Irish Sea; one is either born & bred in England or in Ireland. There is very little wiggle room and little need for speculation as to the criteria for admission to the category. There is no need for speculation about the bishop's political or national leanings. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query On what basis then, have the articles in Category:Irish bishops been populated. By Oculi's rationale, it cannot be down to where they were born and bred. Some other criterion must be at work. What could that be? If non-Irish bishops is invalid, how can Irish bishops be valid? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reasonable point, but doesn't get past the fact that it is highly non-standard to classify by a not - we might as well have Non-communist leaders of Russia and Non-Lithuanian actors in Lithuanian films, and so on and so forth - you can always construct the inverse of any given category through a set difference operation, but that doesn't make such valid as a categorization. Are there reliable sources which talk about these fellows as a group? Did they behave in significantly different ways than people born in Ireland? Also, FWIW, Category:Irish bishops seems to be a top-level container, holding all Bishops in Ireland, no matter where they are from. That whole tree is rather confusing, and seems to have duplication between Category:Irish bishops and Category:Bishops in Ireland, but also some differences, I'm not sure what's going on...Category:Bishops_from_Ireland purports to contain Bishops from there, but who didn't serve there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We avoid "non" categories. This one will also bring up, when do Anglo-Irish people become Irish? Is this Irish by nationality or by ethnicity? Do we include bishops who in some sense get "naturalized" to Ireland, and how does that work if the bishop was born in England in 1802 and died in 1880? What if he moved to Ireland when he was 2?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 29 March 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:Strongmen[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) 03:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can't tell the difference between these categories - as far as I can tell they are basically the same. I don't think we need to make a distinction between different types of strongmen vs strength athletes. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom.--Grahame (talk) 00:18, 22 March 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:Ancient Greeks sold as slaves[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) 03:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see a need to distinguish which people became slaves because they were captured in war and sold as a slave, vs other ways of becoming a slave (being born a slave perhaps?) - we don't distinguish other slave categories in this fashion, so merging up will be simpler and more consistent here. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- They saeem to cover much the same ground. I see little point in having a category for those sold into slavery or traded as slaves, distinct from those never sold. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The distinction is not enough to justify a distinct category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 29 March 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:African slaves in the Americas[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 - I'll drop a note on those supporting deletion to see if they want time to do any manual work. - jc37 22:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have a broader scheme of {ethnicity} {slaves} in {location}; in any case the bulk of slaves in the Americas were African, but this wasn't 100% the case - in any case we don't need an ethnic split here. Having such a split means we can't technically include Category:American slaves underneath as any non-Africans would have to be removed, or require us to create Category:African slaves in Brazil as a subcategory of Category:Brazilian slaves. Ultimately, it's simpler to just delete this category, ensuring that all of the contents are categorized elsewhere, like Category:Slaves_by_nationality and Category:Slavery in the New World (currently up for rename/splitting). Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you suggest dealing with the issue that the by-country categories may contain non-african slaves?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually delete, setting up new national categories where needed e.g. Bayano requires a new Category:Panamanian slaves. All the old/new subcats should be in the New World or N/S America category, see discussion below. – Fayenatic London 16:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The level to which slaves were of African, European or Native American descent is a complex issue which no one fully knows the answer to. What we do know is that in Maryland and Virginia in the late 17th-century some owners purposesly worked to bring about the marriage of female white indentured servants to male African salves so the former would also become slaves. The levels of Native American slaves is also highly debated. The ethnic origins of the salves are shroded in hard to decipher interchangeable use of words that did not have the same meaning but at times were treated as if they did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 29 March 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:Slavery in the New World[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: split. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There aren't any other "X in the New World" categories that I'm aware of. We should just split this into the standard by-continent categories; alternately, it could be renamed Category:Slavery in the Americas. My gut it to split, but I could be convinced on a rename as well. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
see Category:Abolitionism_by_continent for how abolitionism is split by continent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Caribbean is generally considered part of North America. Nothing prevents dual categorization of a given island if it's disputed who it really belongs to (I think some islands close to S. America are considered part of SA).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split we split by continent. Also "New World" is a Euro-centric term that ignores the fact that millions of people lived in those areas before Columbus "discovered" it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 29 March 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:Slaves of the Muslim world[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. Some of the contents are from modern times, e.g. all 3 pages in Category:Sudanese slaves, so the suggestion for Category:slaves in Early Islamic states (or similar e.g. Category:slaves in Medieval Islamic states) will not fit. I will move Category:Ghilman up into Category:Islam and slavery. The other sub-cats will remain parented by Category:Slaves by nationality. – Fayenatic London 13:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category groups together too many unlike things - slaves from 12th century arabia are grouped with child slaves from modern-day pakistan. The fact that we don't have Category:Slaves of Christendom is a demonstration of systemic bias. I think it's more neutral to group slaves by country - if necessary we could also create Category:Slaves of the 10th century and Category:Slaves of the 11th century etc to group by timelines, but having this mish mash that brings together slavery across 1000 years of history in majority islamic states violates NPOV. The reasons for slavery today are quite different than the reasons for slavery in the past. It appears this category was originally created to hold people whose nationality could not be easily determined, but this can still be fixed with better categories, e.g. Category:Slaves in Medieval arabia, etc. Otherwise the presence of this category and the lack of any categories about other ethno-religious groupings makes it seem like Muslims had a special relationship with slavery, even though it was equally endemic in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. Muslim world is also problematic here since over such a wide sweep of history, Muslim rulers controlled parts of Spain, southern europe, etc. All in all it's much better to group by neutral geographic categories, or time-bound categories vs this one, which is a hodge-podge of any slave in any state which could be called Muslim, at any point in history. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Slaves in the Muslim lands. Medieval Europe had serfs, but the difference is that Christians do not usually allow slavery, whereas Muslims are (according to their religion) only forbidden to enslave floow Muslims, something that seems to be ignored in Pakistan (and India). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:slaves in Early Islamic states - this would bind it to a specific historical period? "Muslim lands" smacks of western-centrism. Read Mahmood Mamdani on same. Also, Christians did allow slavery - we have a whole article on Slavery_in_medieval_Europe.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we need something that covers some of this we can have Category:Salvery in Western Asia. To assume Slavery in India under Mughal rule, slavery in what is now Indonesia under various sultantes before the Dutch incursion, slavery in the Sokoto Caliphate and slavery in the Ottoman Empire are linked by all being "Muslim" lands seems an unfounded supposition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 29 March 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:The Birds of Satan[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 category; request appears to refer to an article, see [1] – Fayenatic London 16:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's supposed to be capitalized. iloveartists2 (talk) 12:44, 21 March 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:East Godavari[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) 02:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The full name is East Godavari district. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:54, 21 March 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:Masks in fiction[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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Masks in fiction

Reason: Trivial. Not a plot element. 216.227.255.6 (talk) 12:52, 21 March 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:Environmental award winners[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, as the sub-cats have now been deleted, see March 30 re Category:Goldman Environmental Prize winners and the section following it. – Fayenatic London
Nominator's rationale: This category appears (it has no inclusion criteria specified) to be for anyone who has won any environmental award (it contains articles directly rather than subcats for specific awards). That is not a suitable way to categorize people (see WP:DEFINING and WP:OC#AWARD). Categories like "Fooian environmentalists" and "Anti-fooing activists" etc are much better ways to categorize environmentalists. DexDor (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategories have been created and added to this category. Those subcats are now also at CFD. I suggest that we purge this category of articles or wait for the subcat CFDs complete before closing this CFD. DexDor (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. This could work as a container, but there aren't any cats I could find for it to contain.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this now has subcats, and so can serve as a container, but should be a container only. I leave it to others whether the recently created cats should survive or not. CFD tends to be rather picky about award cats.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
—Wavelength (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - While I support deleting almost all "award winner" categories, until we have actually done so, we need a reasonable way to collect winners of environment-related awards. Feel free to rename the category, but I strongly recommend against deleting it, until we have actually cleaned up the "award winner" categories. Which sprout heads and grow like hydras in the absence of routine pruning. --Lquilter (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. One of the subcategories had noting to do with environment (and was removed), but is about conservation of animal species. That is a different topic. The other subcategory is covered by a list in the article. The remaining content can simply be listified with a see also the the other article which already has a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not meet the requirements for award cats, that they be a defining award. This is not even one specific award at all. The sub-cats probably should also be nominated for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 29 March 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:Compositions by Ilayaraja[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 to Category:Film scores by Ilaiyaraaja, and clean up as needed. Feel free to boldly merge the albums category at editorial discretion. - jc37 22:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category too identical to Category:Ilaiyaraaja albums. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:30, 21 March 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_March_21&oldid=1074813453"