Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6[edit]

Category:Metropolitans of Kyiv and All Ukraine[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:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church following February 21. – Fayenatic London 15:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Since only Mefodiy (Kudriakov) is using the title Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine, it made more sense to categorize him together with the other primates of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church into the category that is currently named Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Kiev and all Rus'. This nomination is a follow-up on this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It is a pity that the discussions of 21 February are still open. When only one person has held a title, the practice has been to redirect an article on the title to that on the man. I am afraid that there is too much nationalist politics here for a permanent solution: the church in an independent state does not like being governed by the leader of its equivalent in another. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 17 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:Nintendo GameCube DK Bongos games[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 11:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems like WP:SMALLCAT and a trivial intersection. It's not part of an established tree (Games by controller and system?), and we can be reasonably certain that it will never get larger. Conceivably, Donkey Konga 2 and Donkey Konga 3 could get standalone articles, but that's it. BDD (talk) 20:39, 6 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:WikiProject Computer science stubs[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. – Fayenatic London 16:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category (both these categories are categorizing article pages, not talk pages). Wikiproject categorization should be on talk pages (e.g. Category:Stub-Class Computing articles). DexDor (talk) 19:36, 6 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:People excommunicated by the Church of Christ (Temple Lot)[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 15:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only a single page in category, and unlikely to be many more. pbp 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If upmerged, would also need to be merged to Category:Church of Christ (Temple Lot) members. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I would be inclined to keep, simply because the proposed target is more like a "container category" for people who were excommunicated from a class of denominations. In my opinion, the target is not really intended to contain individual articles, just subcategories. (I created the nominated category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that several of the subcategories contain 5 articles or fewer, and are likely never to contain many more than that. I grant that the situation is not ideal, but at present, the category should be deleted for failing WP:SMALLCAT. pbp 14:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would doubt that they will never contain more. But WP:SMALLCAT doesn't really apply: the category will not by its very definition only have a few members (this church still exists and still excommunicates people). WP:SMALLCAT is often misunderstood to be a reference to all small categories, which it is not. It is a reference to categories that by their very definitions can only ever have a limited number of articles. It can also be argued that it's part of an overall categorization scheme that subdivides by sect. That said, it's not a particularly "large" overall scheme, so the latter argument is not as good as the former. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support double merge, it seems very reasonable if the target category would consist of its two bigger child categories and 11 individual articles (which would require 3 more merge nominations). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Double Merge Per Marcocapelle. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There are literally several hundred sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. To merge the excommunicated from.... pages into one category would put them all under the same umbrella as the LDS Church, which is very POVish toward the biggest of the Latter Day Saint sects. It would be no different then putting the LDS Church in a category like "People excommunicated from Christian churches". It isn't specific enough.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 18:03, 20 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.

Latter Day Saint hymnwriters 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 Scottish and Welsh to British, no consensus on others. – Fayenatic London 16:01, 29 May 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.

American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters[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 15:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters to Category:American hymnwriters, Category:American Latter Day Saints and Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters
  • Nominator's rationale This is a triple intersection of nationality + religion + occupation. Triple intersection categories are highly discouraged. Beyond this, this is the only subcategory of Category:American hymnwriters. Hymnwriters of all other faiths are categorized as American, but Latter Day Saint hymnwriters are categorized in a sub-category. The current set up also violates the rule that categories by Religion, ethnicity or sex should not be the only way a person is categorized in a given occupation. So people in this sub-category need to also be in a non-religion specific sub-category of Category:American hymnwriters. I tried to fix the problem, but my fix was reverted by an extremely experienced editor who is an administrator. This shows that counting on non-diffusal rules to stop dispersion into poorly named categories does not work. The best solution is to upmerge this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No other sub-category of Category:Christian hymnwriters is subdivided by nationality. Category:Roman Catholic hymnwriters is not. There is no good reason to subdivide the Latter Day Saint category in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and further diffuse Category:American hymnwriters parent by denomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Previous discussion ended in no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Due to its very different theology LDS (also Jehovah's Witnesses) need separate categories. Other Christians are unlikely to sing LDS hymns. I am doubtful about splitting the others by denomination as Baptists will sing Methodist (Wesley) hymns, Congregationalist (Isaac Watts) hymns etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your claim has been shown to be false with citations to non-LDS use of the hymns of Orrin Hatch and Janice Kapp Perry. They have had work recorded by non-Latter-day Saints in Nashville. Beyon that, you ignore the reality that the category is not split by religion at all. This is the only subcategory of Category:American hymnwriters. The current system suggests that Latter-day Saints are less American than any other religious group in the United States. This is the ultimate in ghettoization. Your attempt to justify it by claiming that Later-day Saints are fully marginalized in fact, which I can disprove, is more disturbing. Religious oratorios by Rob Gardner (composer) have been performed by Christian organizations with few if any Latter-day Saints involved in them. The use of Wikipedia to justify and further the marginalization of a specific group of people in a profesion on religious grounds is objectionable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 18 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.

Georgia (U.S. state) colonial people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People of Georgia (British colony). --slakr\ talk / 02:39, 11 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.

American colonial people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename the following:

The full list in the original nomination, however, does not appear to have clear consensus. In the future, I'd recommend not batching different-subject renames (e.g., "people" with "colonial governors" with "women"), as it makes it a pain to figure out who's actually supporting what (and whether it's merely implicit or safe to assume it's so) when they're opposing half of the nomination but not explicitly supporting the other half, so here if I had doubts as to the intent, I tried to go with the more conservative assumption.

--slakr\ talk / 02:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

original nomination
  • Then it might be an idea to nominate the American one separately. Again, for the state categories this nomination makes a lot of sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except one per John. Forbes72 (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose colonial governor ones. The phrase "colonial governors" is well-understood, I'm not seeing the ambiguity. Neutralitytalk 17:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose colonial governor changes. The phrase "colonial governors" is used for such categories and articles from many countries not just here. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather maintain support for the governors nomination. "Colonial governors" implies that it's a particular type of governor or a particular title but in fact these people were just governors. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Category:American colonial people to Category:People of colonial America. It is clear in WP that 'American' refers to the US and it people, including governing entities of the US area prior to there being a US. On the other hand, it is not clear that 'colonial America' includes just and only the US area; it could include colonial Canada, Newfoundland, Mexico, central and south American and so on. This category does not include and is not meant to include anything more than it does now: US land area. The rename would not make that clear. Hmains (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think of the alternative Category:People of colonial North America? Obviously this name would broaden the scope a bit but at least it would make it clearer. Also, in colonial times, a clear separation between American colonies on the one hand and Canadian colonies on the other hand didn't exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is about the areas that became the US and not about the areas that became Canada. Nor about Mexico and the Central American part of the North American continent. Clearly, this is not about 'North America'. Hmains (talk) 05:41, 26 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:CERN Personalities[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 12:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Common style for categories of this sort, compare for instance Category:People associated with the University of Oxford and countless others. Favonian (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to conform to common usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, thank you very much for your comments, I appreciate it. I will rename the category asap, but what are you proposing on the linking that I want to do with my category and Cern's website?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellipapa (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellipapa: Unfortunately, you can't do that yourself as it requires changing all the articles that are included in the category. Just lean back and wait for the process to take its course. Favonian (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment technically it is possible for a user to unilaterally rename a category by changing it in all articles, and this has been done. However, it is considered out of process and not the way things ought to be done on wikipedia. If one wants to rename a category one should nominate it here, and wait for an adminsitrator to close the nomination, then the renaming will be done automatically.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as above. Neutralitytalk 15:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am wary "associated with" categories, because they are liable to be open-ended, which cannot be allowed. I do not like the present name, but the target is even worse. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Adopting another common format would be Category:CERN people. I think I favour that general format, simply because it's shorter and somehow a little less squishy and vague than using "associated with", even though the ultimate meaning is essentially the same. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Good Ol’factory: Category:CERN personnel, Category:CERN staff, Category:CERN scientific staff? Those demarcates the category much more clearly. Universities tend to have "faculty" cats. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "People" can be good precisely because it keeps it broad. Because of its size, we would want this category to be relatively comprehensive, and not by implication omit anyone who should be categorized in relation to CERN. A narrower category might do so inadvertently. Universities have more people to categorize, but they also often have "people" categories, which houses subcategories of alumni, staff, faculty, chancellors, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:05, 26 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.

Massachusetts[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 Category:Massachusetts colonial people to Category:People of colonial Massachusetts; no consensus on the governors. --slakr\ talk / 02:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious: for the sake of MOS consistency, should we rename People from colonial Boston, Massachusetts to People of colonial Boston, Massachusetts?? Quis separabit? 15:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That might make sense. However it is a sub-category of Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts. The of/from divide is complex, in part because functionally they are sort of the same word, although not always overlapping in meaning. Category:Massachusetts colonial people is a sub-cat of Category:People of pre-statehood Massachusetts which is a sub-cat of Category:People by era in Massachusetts which in turn is a sub-cat of Category:People from Massachusetts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once I've seen a suggestion to replace 'of' by 'in', with the purpose of differentiating it more clearly from 'from'. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose colonial governor change. The phrase "colonial governors" is used for such categories and articles from many countries not just here. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support including the governors category. "Colonial governors" implies that it's a particular type of governor or a particular title but in fact these people were just governors. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 12 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:Estonian freedom fighters[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 11:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename DELETE Category:Estonian freedom fighters due to subjective wording, i.e. "freedom fighters". Quis separabit? 04:25, 6 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:Red and white flags[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. --slakr\ talk / 01:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure about this, but I'd like to see a discussion on it. This is the only category I can find that categorizes flags by specific colours. We do have categories that group them by other design features: Category:Flags by design. I'm not sure that specific colour is a way we want to divide flags, so I lean towards deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. On the one hand, one can't deny that red and white is a defining characteristic. On the other hand, one may regard shared colors as similar to shared names, so we might delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, but that's probably not a very convincing argument. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points, and I think that's why I am unsure. It's pretty defining, but it still feels like categorization that is a bit arbitrary for some reason. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. If this category stays, I would expect Category:Red flags and Category:white flags to exist. If the parent's descriptiveness is in question, we shouldn't need to address the subcategories. Secondly, the divisions of color in a flag are somewhat subjective.(WP:SUBJECTIVECAT) Does the blue in Argentina's flag deserve to be in the same blue category as the much darker European Union flag, or do we split to light blue flags? Does the little bit of red in the Vatican's flag make it a red flag, or is only white and yellow? Too many trivial mostly subjective questions to implement colored flag categories. Overall, not a super strong case, but I think it's enough to settle on delete. Forbes72 (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I don't share my fellow editors' sense of ambivalence on this one. Grouping flags from different times, different places, with different symbols together because they share two colors doesn't seem to aid navigation to me. Color certainly could be part of a solid category like Category:White Ensigns but not by itself. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we're ambivalent only because color is such a defining characteristic of a flag. I've seen flag books that divide flags up and categorize them by color scheme, so it's not an idea that this category has invented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you mean, they *are* visual devices after all. I guess I look at them more symbolically than visually. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • So does this have implications for your vote? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • For me, I can see both sides, but I think that ultimately, Forbes72 makes some good points as to some of the problems we would encounter if we undertook to expand this type of thing and categorize flags by color scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, just trying to understand both perspectives. I'm afraid this would lead to categories with every possible color combination. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify This is a valid idea to explore from a vexillology perspective, but by no means does every single article on a red and white flag require direct navigation to every other red and white flag (which is the purpose of a category). The flags' being red and white is overwhelmingly incidental, rather than being a choice related to other such-coloured flags. SFB 19:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This seems to be a valid form of categorization - (unike the coats-of-arms-by-charge categories) each flag article should only be in one by-colours category. DexDor (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at List of flags by number of colors, I'm not sure each flag would be in just one color category. The ones at the bottom of the list with 10+ colors would probably too unusual to create a single category for. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But surely Category:Red and white flags is for flags that have only those colours. DexDor (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes—that's how this category is currently populated—with flags that only have red and white in it, and no other colours. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with this category, I just meant, if we expanded out this flag by colors tree, other flags with many colors would probably be in multiple categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather prefer DexDor's idea of having each flag in (max) one color category. In other words, flags with three or more colors would then just not be categorized in a by-color tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_6&oldid=1083983818"