Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 22 June 24 >

June 23[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Belizean House constituencies established in 1961[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. MER-C 12:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Belize was known as British Honduras until 1981. This better reflects both the category Category:Politics of British Honduras and the main article British Honduras general election, 1961 than using Belize. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 23 June 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:Jamaican people of African 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. MER-C 12:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More of a request for comment than an outright deletion - Seeing as around 98% of Jamaicans are of African ancestry is this category really doing anything of use? Does it seek to contain the vast majority of entries on Jamaican people? SFB 23:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With this high a percentage of the population being within the scope of the category it falls as non-defining overlap. The guidelines on such categories specifically direct against similar categories for countries where a lower % of the population would be implicated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Johnpacklambert. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JPL. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 25 June 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:Territory of Alaska[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To be more in line with Arizona Territory and the others at Category:Former organized territories of the United States (excluding Orleans Territory). Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 23 June 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:1920s establishments in Belize[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 up to 1972, keep from 1973. Split 1970s and 20th century. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
remainder of 1920s-1981 categories
Nominator's rationale: Belize was British Honduras from 1862 until 1981 and these categories should be renamed. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We use the name of the place at the time referenced in the category for categories like this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename until 1972, retain Belize for 1973 onwards. Tim! (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to 1972 - Strictly we should perhaps have both for 1973, as it was British Honduras in January to May, but that seems to be taking things to an extreme. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per nom until 1972.GreyShark (dibra) 10:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ CARICOM - Member Country Profile - BELIZE, Caribbean Community. (accessed 23 June 2015)
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:Horror anime[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is redundant to the already in-use Category:Horror anime and manga. 十八 21:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or replace with a soft redirect to point people to the right place. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:03, 24 June 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:Female biathletes by nationality[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: upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: By nationality container category created for one category. SFB 21:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge, but not because it only has one subcat (which could easily be "fixed"), but because it's unnecessary as there's no other subcategorization scheme of female biathletes in use. DexDor (talk) 21:04, 25 June 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:Argentine female high jumpers[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
other countries
Nominator's rationale: Categorising of people by gender+sport+sub-sporting event+nationality is almost always a very narrow category type that will never be populated beyond a couple of athletes for the majority of nations. The entirety of the Category:Female high jumpers tree consists of 170 pages (i.e. less than one category page of results), and given the 200+ nations and the fact that a small number of nations provide most of the athletes this does not prove to be a useful level of intersection. Only three categories in this set manage more than ten entries – the mode is 1.
The division by specific track and field event also greatly reduces the potential usage of most of the subcategories of Category:Female athletes by nationality, many of which don't garner more than a dozen per nation across the sport as a whole. The point of categories is to group like articles - a move to divide down to specific athletics event+nation+gender generally serves to make category sets more diffuse and less useful. Taking in the whole data set of nineteen track and field event athlete categories, plus 236 nations, plus gender, we end up with a labyrinthine potential for nearly 9000 basic athlete categories for the sport of athletics. That is not helpful to readers. Considering real world usage, these individual combinations are largely not a topic of study in their own right. SFB 20:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was doing Wikignoming today and came across Category:Female high jumpers which was tagged as a container category, had many subcats, but yet still had many articles. I started trying to maintain whoever made this a container category by continuing the existing line of subcats and creating some additional subcats along the same lines. If there is consensus to merge all these subcats into the parent cat of Category:Female high jumpers then the container tag should also be removed as it would no longer make sense. --Slivicon (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Slivicon: Yes, that was a misleading banner that is not present in any of the other female athlete categories. It was added in 2013 but never enforced (I've been gradually building up the female athlete categories in the last two years, so there probably were few or no direct categorisations at that time). Certainly no criticism to your approach though, because it's a simple change that looks innocuous but has far reaching impacts for anyone reading (or managing) the athlete categories. SFB 20:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Category:New Zealand female athletes, for example, is currently neatly divided up into different events - why change that? I don't understand why the nom thinks this is a problem and disagree with, for example, describing it as "labyrinthine" (the number of steps between bottom and top of this category tree is not large). DexDor (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep long-standing consensus to cat sportspeople by country, sport and gender. The main argument is "...will never be populated beyond a couple of athletes..." Looking at the Australian category, within Category:Australian sportswomen there are plenty single-digit sub-cats (Australian female equestrians‎, Australian female beach volleyball players‎, etc) so I don't quite see the logic behind the nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lugnuts: It is different in that high jump is an event within a sport (track and field) so the equivalent would be the creation of Australian female dressage competitors or Australian female volleyball setters, rather than their existing parents. SFB 18:32, 25 June 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.

Kiribati before it was[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. MER-C 12:46, 1 July 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:Districts of Ljubljana[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category includes districts of the City Municipality of Ljubljana, not of the town of Ljubljana, which is "only" a settlement in this municipality. The parent category is therefore 'Category:City Municipality of Ljubljana'. Eleassar my talk 15:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, does anything like "greater Ljubljana" exist, i.e. is there a risk of ambiguity of the category name? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is, because the word 'Ljubljana' often implicitly includes the entire territory of the municipality (cf. municipality, settlement). --Eleassar my talk 07:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The map ([1], see the list at the left and the list in City Municipality of Ljubljana) shows that there are several settlements in the City Municipality of Ljubljana that are not included in the settlement of Ljubljana. See also the difference in the area: 163.8 km2 (the settlement) versus 275 km2 (the municipality). The municipality had 285,857 residents on 1 January 2014,[2] the settlement of Ljubljana had 277,554.[3] --Eleassar my talk 20:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there are a few very small villages just outside of Ljubljana that belong to the municipality of Ljubljana. I wouldn't consider this to be a case of ambiguity in the category name. Keep as is. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The word Ljubljana can mean two things: the municipality and the settlement, it is therefore ambiguous; however it primarily refers to the settlement, not including the villages outside it. The distinction in the terms of the area and the population is small, but in the legal and statistical sense, it is clear and significant; and the subdivision is a legal and statistical topic. --Eleassar my talk 20:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: See also e.g. the Sostro District: it encompasses almost solely the territory of other settlements rather than Ljubljana.[4][5] Similar for the Rudnik District.[6][7] So it's hard to consider that there's no difference between 'Districts of Ljubljana' and 'Districts of the City Municipality of Ljubljana'. --Eleassar my talk 21:02, 25 June 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:Unsourced BLP Deletionist Wikipedians[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: procedural close, as the old discussion was not closed when it was copied and pasted here. Gparyani, when you relist, you have to close the old discussion with {{cfd top}} and {{cfd bottom}}. I have to close this one now, because earlier on I closed the old one, not realising you had relisted it. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No one has the corresponding userbox on their user page, so the only thing saving this from speedy deletion as an empty category is the userbox itself. Plus, given that deleting unsourced BLPs is official policy, there is really no need for this userbox/category pair. See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User blp delete Gparyani (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The userbox (template) shouldn't be in this category. DexDor (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The corresponding userbox has now been deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gparyani (talk) 05:09, 23 June 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:Scripts without ISO 15924 code[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: listify. I'll leave whoever does this to determine where the content goes. MER-C 13:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a script (e.g. Gugyeol) does not (currently) have a ISO 15924 code is not a defining characteristic of the script (and the article should not be placed under Category:ISO standards which this category currently does). DexDor (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to a section in ISO 15924 -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per IP above. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note regarding listifying: None of the articles currently in this category mention that the script doesn't have an ISO 15924 code (on any particular date) and one of the articles has an infobox that specifies an ISO 15924 code. Thus, I don't think a list generated from what's in this category is clean enough for (a non-expert in this field) to put the list into the article. It could be listified to Talk:ISO 15924 in case it's of use to anyone working on that article. DexDor (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, too. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to a new page. I suggest not to add the list as a sub-section in ISO_15924 since Mr. Everson would object this. --✉ Hello World! 11:03, 1 July 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.

Note: The category was listified to talk page with this[8] edit. DexDor (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:17th-century establishments in the English colonial empire[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. – Fayenatic London 10:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Every remaining decade and year is titled British Empire. English colonial empire redirects to English overseas possessions and again refers to British Empire. There's no reason for a break in the 17th-century anyways since Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for consistency with the rest of the tree (of which this is the top category) I would support the proposal, but actually I think this whole tree should be reverted to English. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why, User:Marcocapelle. By far the most commonly recognised and accepted term is British Empire, used by almost all sources without exception. You have during other category debates expressed a lack of knowledge regarding the United Kingdom, Great Britain and British issues. AusLondonder (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have I? Anyway, England and Scotland weren't united yet in the 17th century so I can't imagine 17th-century sources having referred to this as British Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The common term is British Empire not English Empire. However, since Great Britain did not exist before 1707, it really was the English Empire and not the British Empire in the 17th-century (1601-1700). England and Scotland had a personal union but were still distinct polities during the 17th-century, so I can see reason for renaming.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. By far the most accepted term in reliable sources is British Empire. AusLondonder (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and AusLondoner. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative -- Category:17th-century establishments in the English colonies. I would suggest that we include 1700-07 in this, so that we do not need a separate category. Except one Scottish colony that failed (Darien) they were all English colonies. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and AusLondoner. Bazj (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, "British Empire" is widely used for this period. All the colonies were founded after the union of the thrones, and the term "Britain" was in wide use during the 17th century, even if not yet an official name. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:08, 20 August 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:LGBT YouTube celebrities[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 to delete, but category was manually renamed to Category:LGBT YouTube personalities. A nomination to delete the new category is permitted. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to remind users that if they participate in a discussion, they should not also assess the consensus in the discussion and/or implement a change with a view to resolving the discussion. And they certainly should not remove the cfr template from the category while the discussion is ongoing, as was done here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As always, WP:LGBT, and Wikipedia as a whole, neither needs nor wants "LGBT occupation" intersections to exist for every single occupation or field of activity in which LGBT people might be found, but only those where the intersection of LGBTness with the activity is a WP:DEFINING characteristic in its own right. That's not the case here — while it's certainly true that YouTube can be a platform for LGBT visibility, it can be a platform for a lot of things and there's not much evidence that being LGBT constitutes any special class of YouTube notability. This, to me, is a classic "People who merely happen to be both X and Y" grouping, with no evidence that being both X and Y is a defining thing to be. Bearcat (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was wondering if User:Lugnuts, User:Slivicon or User:Johnpacklambert who have literally 'voted' delete would reconsider supporting a rename to LGBT YouTube personalities per discussion below? AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Rename (Creator). I am very dissappointed by this nominated, and the above votes which fail to substantially address the matter in any way. Being a gay YouTuber is certainly a defining characteristic. A number of sources have identified it as such. To delete this category would mean other categories, such as LGBT politicians would have no future. AusLondonder (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I now support a renaming per the sensible proposals of User:Peterkingiron to Category:LGBT YouTube personalities AusLondonder (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. DexDor (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:YouTube personalities (equivalent to delete if they are there already). If that category gets huge then splitting by some other means (e.g. nationality) may be appropriate. DexDor (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)\[reply]
Comment: This is a utter disgrace and a joke. Other categories that exist: Gay writers, Gay actors, Gay musicians, LGBT journalists, LGBT judges, LGBT models, LGBT physicians, LGBT architects, LGBT scientists, LGBT lawyers, LGBT fashion designers. I think nominating this category was petty, pointless and damaging. AusLondonder (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (or, better, find an appropriate LGBT merge target). The problem is not with the LGBT part, but with "celebrity". Whether some one is or is not a celebrity is a POV issue and cannot provide an adequate basis for a category. A possible target would be Category:LGBT YouTube personalities, which avoids this problem, but the head note would need to set out clearly that this is for people mainly important for being on Youtube; otherwise everyone who posts to YouTube, will think they can add themselves to the category, which would therefore become so big as to be unmanageable. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, User:Peterkingiron, that a rename would be a good idea. I have myself thought the name was problematic from the start. AusLondonder (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree re notability, only articles that have been found to be notable would be added, as is currently the case. AusLondonder (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject of an article is not notable, we do not have an article. I am suggesting that they need to be notable for being on YouTube. If a person merely performs once in a YouTube clip, the categorisation would offend against WP:OC#PERF, so that a well drafted headnote defining its scope will be needed. The potential parent Category:YouTube personalities has 238 articles, which makes it a candidate for splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per User:Peterkingiron. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename with a little bit of hesitation. Actually I think it shouldn't be so much about LGBT people on YouTube, but about the the LGBT topic on YouTube. In other words, if someone consistently discusses LGBT issues on YouTube, he/she should be in the category while LGBT people who never do that shouldn't belong in the category. (Ideally I'd rename to Category:LGBT issues on YouTube.) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The articles appeared to be bio-articles, not topic articles Marcocapelle's target might be a useful one to have, but I do not think it fits the content here. (not that I really care in this case). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have moved the category to LGBT YouTube personalities. No consensus seems to exist to delete AusLondonder (talk) 18:35, 5 August 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_June_23&oldid=1136462576"