Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 4 January 6 >

January 5[edit]

Category:Nova Scotia Military Regiments[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 Category:Nova Scotia Military Regiments to Category:Military regiments raised in Nova Scotia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: ...or possibly merge and rename. These two categories related to military regiments in the province of Nova Scotia are each parents of one another -- and exist independently of Category:Regiments of Canada, at least for now. The first category is for "Military regiments that were raised or served in Nova Scotia," and the other, obviously, for units just that were raised. Now, I know squat about military regiments but something's amiss in how this scheme fails to correspond to the rest of the category structure. No other provincial category yet exists but editors may feel it's high time to start -- but we do not need two poorly named categories, surely? A prolific and barnstarred creator of Maritimes content, User:Hantsheroes may not yet fully understand categorization, as this is his third Cfd in recent days. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the circular categorization. Military regiments that are created in Nova Scotia by peopling it with Nova Scotians are "raised" there. However, units raised in Nova Scotia can serve elsewhere (such as in South Africa during the Boer War) and similarly, units raised elsewhere can serve in Nova Scotia. Thus, units can also be permanently assigned to Nova Scotia, but which were raised elsewhere. Nova Scotia Military Regiments should be renamed to category:Nova Scotia military regiments per capitalization rules. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose a category tree of military regiments by province might be useful. Also, Nova Scotia wasn't always part of Canada (such as before 1867) so can have regiments that are not Canadian (and British Empire units assigned there for colonial defence after being part of Canada) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Starting a provincial subcat system might be useful. But this military unit in foo and military units raised in foo has no place. No one else uses it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Colonial units raised in the Colony of Nova Scotia (or the preceding French Colony) would not be Canadian, but Nova Scotian. Units which served in or were raised in Nova Scotia are obviously part of the Category:Military history of Nova Scotia. Whether being assigned in Nova Scotia is significant enough for categorization is different from things that were created (ie. raised) in Nova Scotia. We do categorize things by where they are created. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know, but we do not create unnecessary parallel structures per WP:OC, is my point. Every aspect of something doesn't require a category tree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "Raised" Category/Neutral on the Other Category:Military regiments raised in Nova Scotia is not a useful military concept and has no similar usage elsewhere to contextualize what it means nor is there a main article describing it. I don't know enough about the Canadian military history to assess the other one. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "raised" is military jargon for "created" or "established" or "founded". If you replaced the word "raised" with "founded", it will mean the same thing. There is a category tree for general foundings by year in Nova Scotia Category:Establishments in Nova Scotia by year; I don't know if there is a category tree for establishments by type of establishment. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Military Regiments into Raised. As noted immediately above, "raised" is standard terminology here. Everything in Military Regiments could go into Raised, except for ones like the 78th (Highlanders) Regiment of Foot that ought to be removed because they're not particularly associated with Nova Scotia. Nyttend (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Nova Scotia Military Regiments to Category:Military regiments raised in Nova Scotia. I looked at several other cats, and the issue appears mainly to be that the regiments have not been split from the "<location> military history" parent. We only need one such subcat and "raised" does indeed seem to be the correct term. - jc37 21:34, 15 March 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:Darkest Hour songs[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) 02:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 2 redirects which redirect to the same album. Richhoncho (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Redirects alone are not enough real content to justify the creation of a navigational system. SFB 21:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:C1, an empty category. No objection to including redirects in a category but there's nothing else here. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suport No use.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:14, 14 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:Songs written by José González (singer)[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) 02:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 2 redirects to albums i.e. no song articles. Richhoncho (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Redirects alone are not enough real content to justify the creation of a navigational system. SFB 21:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:C1, an empty category. No objection to including redirects in a category but there's nothing else here. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:10, 8 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:Songs written by DJ Kane[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) 02:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 1 redirect to an album i.e. no song articles. Richhoncho (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Redirects alone are not enough real content to justify the creation of a navigational system. SFB 21:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:C1, an empty category. No objection to including redirects in a category but there's nothing else here. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:10, 8 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:Songs written by Dean Roland[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) 02:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 4 redirects to albums i.e. no song articles. Richhoncho (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Redirects alone are not enough real content to justify the creation of a navigational system. SFB 21:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:C1, an empty category. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 8 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.

Tribune Media[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; if the article name is renamed again, the categories can follow speedily. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Tribune Company was renamed Tribune Media in August 2014. Bbb2007 (talk) 17:58, 5 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:Volvo Master venues[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) 02:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains the 2 venues used for the now-replaced Volvo Masters. With no prospect of any more being added and with the category being of little interest, it can surely be deleted. Nigej (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Since there were only two courses, this has no real navigational benefit, nor is it defining characteristic. I have added prose statements of the event's hosting on the club and event articles. No additional level navigation is useful here. SFB 22:05, 6 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:Panamanian people of Mandinka descent[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) 02:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific categorisation. The only supporting source for the ethnicity of the sole subject, Bayano, is an inference by the academic based on an assumed religious stance (which is disputed, as noted in the article). This basis is far to flaky to warrant categorisation. SFB 12:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable race/ethnic/descent category. Not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 5 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:People of Afro-Panamanian descent[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) 02:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: And merge with Category:People of Panamanian descent. Afro-Panamanian is not a distinct ethnic group or a topic that demands distinction from Category:Panamanian people of African descent Essentially this combines a national and an ethnic identity into a compound phrase to allow the categorisation of J. August Richards (who is American citizen, not a Panamanian one). SFB 12:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable race/ethnic group combined with nationality descent category. Not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge) -- This is about how we categorise a Black American actor of Panamanian heritage. We do have an article on Afro-Panamanian. This is not a triple intersection, but has the feel of one. The appropriate course is to categorise the article with both an African descent and a Panamanian descent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:48, 6 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:Israeli military personnel who committed suicide[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, though there does seem to be consensus that if there is a renomination, the entire tree of Category:Military personnel who committed suicide should be nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization: contains only a single page (after Saul was correctly removed from this category as an anachronism). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broader discussion needed; until then, procedural keep. seems to be part of a overall category scheme of various people of Foo military folks who committed suicide. If military members committing suicide is or is not defining should be discussed in a larger forum rather than just going after one category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carlossuarez46. I see no less than 25 such categories, many with a single article. This appears to be part of a larger categorization tree and as such WP:OC expressly doesn't apply -- unless the overall scheme is flawed. Why is Israel the only country category nominated? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And use as precedent for the rest. I don't believe the limitation on WP:OC for larger categorization scheme applies when most of the tree is underpopulated and a single editor has created most the tree without broader consensus.RevelationDirect (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Nlu created most of the by-country categories but not all of them. He also didn't create Category:Military personnel who committed suicide. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason whatsoever to delete, and these categories were certainly not just the work of a single editor. Manxruler (talk) 13:28, 7 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:Dutch Orangists[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: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* Propose merging Category:Dutch Orangists to Category:Dutch monarchists
Nominator's rationale: Today or yesterday I created Category:Dutch monarchists after being surprised to find out that there is no such category at Wikipedia. With many Dutch persons being outspoken and well referenced monarchists, it should have plenty of population potential. Only after creating, I found out that there was already a Category:Dutch Orangists. It is my believe that Dutch monarchists is a better category because monarchism is more universal, complies with the existing categories, and is easier to comprehend for an international readership. All these are huge assets in navigation and organization. In any case, either has to go because of the almost perfect overlap. gidonb (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the supposed fact that Orangism was a monarchist current is not properly sourced, and I'm not convinced that it was. In any case, merging the categories creates an anachronism: Orangism was a political current in the Dutch Republic (pre-1795), while monarchism generally means support for the House of Orange as heads of the Kingdom (1815–present). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User withdrawn I'm going to think this over a bit more and withdraw the nomination in the meantime. Maybe nominate it the other way around, that is delete the category monarchists without merger. gidonb (talk) 13:24, 5 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:Members of the CPPCC National Committee[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 the first, double upmerge the second to the first and to category:Hong Kong politicians. – Fayenatic London 14:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's long, but I think we should expand the abbreviation. The relevant article is at Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and the parent category is Category:Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. The Hong Kong members subcategory can be named in the same format while eliminating "of the People's Republic of China" as unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The target is an awful mouthful. For British MP categories we use abbreviations. I think this is an exception where abbreviations are acceptable. The expansion should be given in a head note. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't have to say it—readers just have to read it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And in any case, there's little sense in keeping the two nominated categories in the different formats they are currently in. "of the People's Republic of China" is redundant. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:15, 30 December 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 00:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename one, delete the other, and populate into the first <--- Even this short summary is a mouthful. Here we go:
Category:Members of the CPPCC National Committee to Category:Members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference - RENAME - Perhaps we ought to have a rule for allowing abbreviations from the third or fourth letter onward, but that's a separate discussion with its own pros and cons. Until such a discussion, I support Good Ol’factory's proposal for its consistency with the article and the guidelines.
Category:Hong Kong members of the CPPCC National Committee of the People's Republic of China to Category:Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference - DELETE, UPMERGE - The intersection between Hong Kong and the CPPCCNC does not come across as a defining characteristic. These individuals are already defined (time and again) as people and professionals from Hong Kong. Here we can load a little less on this long long long long, long long long long phrase :-) gidonb (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That proposal is a good one; the only downside I see is that it would remove most of those in the second category from the Category:Hong Kong politicians tree, since most of them are not otherwise in that tree. I think that might be a useful connection to keep, so if your proposal is implemented, I would suggest a double upmerge to both Category:Members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and Category:Hong Kong politicians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, include the members of this "non-defining intersection" in both parent categories. Thank you for the additional improvement and for your compliment! gidonb (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying and adding this addition in bold for the closing person: the improved proposal for the daughter category is to include these individuals also into Category:Political office-holders in Hong Kong, i.e. a double upmerge! gidonb (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The people (office-holders) are "in Hong Kong", although the office itself is not. It could be done as long as we're confident that it's the location of the office-holders that is significant rather than the location of the office ... It's not clear to me what the intent of the category is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these people are HK businessmen effectively appointed by the Chinese government to serve in the consultative body, who usually hold no actual political office within HK. They aren't politicians in the same sense as those serving in HK's legislature or government. It'd be funny to see these very two different type of people in the same category. 104.236.210.161 (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so strange if you consider that the meaning of "politician" is extremely broad. It can cover a wide range of positions, from appointed figureheads to grassroots activists and everything in between. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile they are known as delegates instead of members in the press. The subcat for delegates in the Standing Committee should be part of this nomination. 104.236.210.161 (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, @Good Olfactory: @Gidonb: the second target Category:Political office-holders in Hong Kong is currently split by office, and hardly holds any biographies directly. In my view that is how it should be, therefore I am reluctant to support the double merge. If you agree, and still think the HK intersection of CPPCCNC is not defining, should we keep/rename that category, or just do a single merge which would lose the HK connection? – Fayenatic London 09:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be fine with either, really, but I probably lean more towards just keeping/renaming the HK category as originally proposed. I don't think that the HK connection should be lost, if the category is upmerged, I really think the contents should at least be double upmerged to Category:Hong Kong politicians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe replace the second parent cat with category Hong Kong politicians. No ambiguity there. gidonb (talk) 22:23, 8 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_5&oldid=1074814848"