Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 21 May 23 >

May 22[edit]

Category:Telly Awards[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 11:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Telly Awards article was deleted because it was a blatant hoax. This corresponding category should be deleted for the same reason. Neelix (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To clarify, the Telly Awards article that was deleted was a complete nonsense hoax. It used to be a redirect to Telly Award which had an air of legitimacy but that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Award, per the nominator, because it was "a minor award with self nomination and the winners have pay for their own trophy and the engraving. Thousands are given annually...." If the awards aren't notable, the categorization isn't either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Clearly contrary to WP:OC#AWARD. I would normally suggest listifying, but that is not approprioate here. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 26 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.

Members of the House of Habsburg[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 09:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and per WP:OVERLAPCAT with Category:House of Habsburg and Category:House of Habsburg-Lorraine. For members of the House of Habsburg, Bohemian prince and Hungarian prince and Tuscan prince and Archduke of Austria were just formal titles hardly worth mentioning. This is a follow-up nomination on this discussion which has been withdrawn as it will most likely result in "no consensus".
Note: preferably don't do an automated upmerge of the above categories to Category:House of Habsburg because that would cause many members of Category:House of Habsburg-Lorraine to become duplicated in its parent Category:House of Habsburg. I hope that the closing admin knows a clever way to bypass this problem (I don't). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Project European history and and Project Austria have been notified of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • DElete -- I am not clear what the criterion for being a Bohemian, Tuscan or Hungarian prince is, but I doubt it is worth haivng this split of the House of Hapsburg. I am less sure about the archduke category. Most of the ruling archdukes were also emperors, but there authority over the princes of the empire was slight. In contrast, they actually ruled Austria, I would have thereofre thought thsat we ought to retain a category for Category:Ruling Archdukes of Austria. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article and confirmed by the content of the category, "from the 16th century onward, archduke and its female form, archduchess, came to be used by all the members of the House of Habsburg". So it's really a title, not as an indication of rulership. Note that the actual rulers of the Habsburg Monarchy are not even in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 26 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.

7th-century BC deaths[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. MER-C 09:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: this was later reversed (where the dates were justified), see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme. – Fayenatic London 07:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


See: Category:7th-century BC deaths

the rest of the 7th-century BC deaths
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, often only one article in each category. This proposal is merging everything into decade death categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Not enough content for anything less than decade deaths. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 26 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.

6th-century BC births[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. MER-C 09:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: this was later reversed (where the dates were justified), see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme. – Fayenatic London 07:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


See: Category:6th-century BC births

the rest of the 6th-century BC births
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, usually only one article in each category. This proposal is merging everything into decade birth categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Not enough content for anything less than decade births. IN any event, there may be some uncertainly as to the precise year: the date probably depends on later statemetns about their age, which only give an approximte year of birth. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 26 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.

7th-century BC births[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/delete as specified. MER-C 09:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: this was later reversed (where the dates were justified), see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme. – Fayenatic London 07:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


See: Category:7th-century BC births

the rest of the 7th-century BC births
Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete. Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, usually only one article in each category. After the proposed merge, the categories in the bottom of the list will become empty. This proposal is merging everything into century births categories, it is just too early for decade births categories. (Decade categories can be applied for the next century though). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:51, 22 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.

Category:Politics of Comoros[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. I was cautious about closing this with so little participation, especially as usage varies within the cited article Politics of the Comoros, but I tried an Ngram and this would support the proposal. – Fayenatic London 22:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Like "Maldives" (cf Category:Politics of the Maldives), "Comoros" is a plural noun (the country is officially "The Union of the Comoros" and consists of the individual Comoro Islands). This means the categories associated with the country need to have "the" in the names. There are a good deal of other categories to nominate, but I am starting with these to test the water (although hopefully it should be fairly straightforward). Number 57 11:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Now/Change Venue The main articles are Comoros and Maldives so the categories should blindly match without the "the" unless there is some category-specific issue. (Conversely, The Bahamas categories should contain the "the".) If the main articles are renamed after a discussion on the talk pages, I would support renaming the whole tree per WP:C2D. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RevelationDirect: It doesn't matter whether the main articles include "the"; a sentence with the word Comoros in has to use the word "the" to make it logical. We do not have Category:Politics of United States despite the fact that the article is at simply United States, because the word "the" is necessary to make the category name correct. In addition, the Comoros article could not be moved to The Comoros per WP:THE (unlike The Bahamas or The Gambia, it is not part of the country's formal name); however, this does not exclude it from inclusion in the naming of the categories, as per my point about the US above. Number 57 21:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The" can be part of the title if it is part of "another official or commonly used proper name (e.g., The Hague, The Crown)" in WP:THE so I think an article rename is (arguably) within the policy. Fair point on the US categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @RevelationDirect: For Comoros to be moved to "The Comoros", you would probably have to show that the "The" is capitalised in mid-sentence, which it isn't, so I don't think that would fly. In the meantime, if you think I have made a fair point on the comparison with the US categories, perhaps you could withdraw your opposition to the renaming of these categories; leaving it as "Politics of Comoros" is wrong, regardless of the title of the Comoros article. Number 57 00:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Moved to neutral based on longstanding US and UK categories, although I would favor adding "the" to those main articles as well. Looking at several Bahamas articles, like Nassau, Bahamas, it doesn't look like "the" is capitalized mid-sentence but maybe that's a problem with the articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A similar country that comes to mind is The Gambia, usually with a capitalised "The". Also perhaps "the Philippines". Hugo999 (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to conform with general English usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 31 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.

Ancient crimes[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 century categories, merge years to centuries. – Fayenatic London 08:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Crimes by year

the rest of the ancient crimes
Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete per WP:NONDEF, only one article is about a crime, all others are biographies. The one exception concerns Assassination of Julius Caesar - however Category:44 BC crimes does not have to be upmerged because the article is well-categorized in the crimes tree anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now If you're arguing about the inclusion of specific articles, that's not for CFD. There is a consensus for the crimes categories so WP:NONDEF would only make sense if you're saying that crime only existed in the 6th-century onward which is not your point I think. For example, Category:11th-century BC crimes and Category:1005 BC crimes only exist for Ish-bosheth which I agree is a biography and not really a crime to me but that discussion belongs at Talk:Ish-bosheth (or just removing the category and seeing if you have consensus to do so) not here. It's possible to create an article about the crime (separate or re-organized) so this discussion will just be excessively complicated if we're arguing about whether each article in each category rightfully belongs in this category structure or could be put in this structure if re-done or whatever. If the resolution on the articles is against inclusion into these categories, then those categories would become empty and proper for CFD C1. If you're pushing to upmerge them per WP:SMALLCAT that I can agree with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you arguing that the articles don't fit the categories (which I thought was your issue) or that the categories shouldn't exist no matter what? For the first, I think Peterkingiron is right that we should split into possible crimes, criminals and victims or something. Otherwise, I agree that the categories are too small as is and suggest upmerging into millenniums. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant the former, but you're actually right that category size is also an issue to consider. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into murder victims and murderers, then merge by century. The 11th century BC content is too small to be worth having a separate "crimes" category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's not going to be consensus about listifying then I would consider splitting by victims and murderes, and merging per century, per Peterkingiron, to be the second best solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably the sequence should be to merge to centuries for now, with the possibility to create victims and murderers subcats later. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 15 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:13th century in Ethiopia[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 22:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remainder of establishment categories
Nominator's rationale: A large structural change but everything from 1137 to 1935 and 1942 to 1974 (or maybe just 1137 to 1974) from Ethiopia should be moved to the Ethiopian Empire which was the entity at that time. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can't we regard Ethiopian Empire and Ethiopia as the same country? I'm asking because in another discussion I was in favor of using the name "Holy Roman Empire" instead of "Germany", because I don't think that Germany can be regarded as the successor state of the Holy Roman Empire (neither geographically nor historically, only linguistically). But the situation may be different for Ethiopia and Ethiopian Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy rationale for doing so? The geographic areas is different as the Empire included areas now within Eritrea so it's not accurate to say those areas were areas in Ethiopia (and Eritrea didn't exist then). I've been more in favor of labeling these are Category:1968 establishments in present-day Ethiopia and then having a skeleton structure for past stuff but there's no consensus for that I can see. The Empire is a huge part of the history for the present country but I haven't seen any clear consensus on anything about countries other than a weak one for using the name at the time itself. Category:6th-century establishments in Ethiopia is a complete oddball but I think it's better to wait after these settle. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there isn't a guideline about issues like this, hence there is a lot of discussion for every single polity. Actually we need a guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Emperor Haile Selassie was known as the Emperor of Ethiopia and the term Ethiopia should be retained to refer to the country whether it was a monarchy or a people’s republic. Eritrea became independent in 1993, long after Ethiopia was an Empire (?) ruled by an emperor. France had two periods in the 19th century as the First French Empire and the Second French Empire but those years remain as “years in France”. Years in the British Empire is for events outside the British Isles in the wider British Empire. While there was a Roman Republic and then a Roman Empire, this is because the term “Rome” refers to a city not a country. Countries like France, Germany, or Poland changed in boundaries/extent over the centuries (with Poland disappearing altogether), but we don’t have say “1968 establishments in present day France”. Likewise India lost Pakistan and then Pakistan lost Bangladesh. NB: I do not see any need to add suffixes like “colony” or “protectorate” or “mandate” to the titles of years in countries when they were dependencies either. Hugo999 (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree in opposing, per the French example. Another comparable country is Hungary: the medieval and early modern Kingdom of Hungary was much bigger than the current republic, yet the current country is the natural successor of the former kingdom and we use "Years in Hungary" throughout its history. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Project History and Project Africa have been notified of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose -- We frequently have categories covering countries whose extent varied between periods. With Muslim settlement on the African coast, I would question how real and continuous was Ethiopia's control over the coast. Eritrea was an Italian colony for a period before the Italians conquered Ethiopia. We do not need to add Empire to distinguish the kingdom. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 26 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.

Category:Stop-gaps[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 11:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: vague and unhelpful category. A definition of a stopgap as a temporary fix seems totoo subjective to be a useful category.96.52.0.249 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The membership shows the degree of subjectivity here. Mangoe (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. These article have little in common but I can't say any aren't a stop-gap measure of some sort. I don't see how this article aids navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subjective grab-bag. Neutralitytalk 01:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- too subjective - unless someone can suggest some robust boundaires for this. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_22&oldid=1074815375"