Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 29 October 31 >

October 30[edit]

Category:Wildgraviates[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:Counties of the Holy Roman Empire. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 18:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge since "Wildgraviates" is not a generic name, there is only one Wildgraviate, per Wildgrave. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 30 October 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:Landgraves of Germany[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 both together into a new Category:Landgraves of the Holy Roman Empire. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the target category only consists of the eponymous article and the nominated child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Query What about landgraves from countries other than Germany? There were lots in the Holy Roman Empire (e.g. Landgraves of Brabant). Wouldn't a "by country" category tree be useful? Or would this be ahistorical? Might "Landgraves of the HRE" be preferable? Were there any landgraves not in the HRE? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:55, 31 October 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:Musical subgenres by genre[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 11:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the name of Category:Music genres. The category is about genres of music, not about genres of musicals. I'd like the category to have a simpler and clearer name. Especially considering it as a logical subcategory of Category:Music genres. One way of looking at it is to say: "This are subgenres of rock music". Another way (my way) is to say "This are genres related to rock music". Very often the latter way of thought is better, because e.g. when looking at fusion genres, they are not really subgenres of either "parent" genre, they are a genre on their very own, related to different genres. This is why I don't think the term "subgenre" has to be maintained at every cost, no, it's even better to simply say "genre". It is automatically clear, that "genre" means "music genre" here, as it is e.g. in Category:Musicians by genre "What? Musicians by literature genre?!". It sounds more confusing than it has to, as by Wikipedia category convention I am not allowed to separate the "by x"-part of the name from the "main" part. If I could, I would have nominated this: Category:Music genres (by genre) CN1 (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I informed about that cfr in the project, the main article and the category itself, but to date no one is interested in answering? CN1 (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Comment I am sad that no one in the whole Wikipedia looks at this and writes an opinion. three months now almost. CN1 (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename, but possibly not to the nominated target. It sounds a bit redundant, and might not be clear that its scope is for "subgenres" (if that's an actual term) of large-scale genres. Checking further, I feel that most of the top-level categories in this tree are somewhat ambiguous, but I'm also not sure how else to name them; there might just not exist a sufficient number of distinct terms. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @烏⁠Γ For me my suggested name is quite clear. Written out longer, it is: Category: Music genres, sorted by genre, this is literally, what my suggested name says. It sounds more confusing than it has to, as by Wikipedia category convention I am not allowed to separate the "by x"-part of the name from the "main" part. If I could, I would have nominated this: Category:Music genres (by genre). CN1 (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @烏⁠Γ One way of looking at it is to say: "This are subgenres of rock music". Another way (my way) is to say "This are genres related to rock music". Very often the latter way of thought is better, because e.g. when looking at fusion genres, they are not really subgenres of either "parent" genre, they are a genre on their very own, related to different genres. This is why I don't think the term "subgenre" has to be maintained at every cost, no, it's even better to simply say "genre". It is automatically clear, that "genre" means "music genre" here, as it is e.g. in Category:Musicians by genre "What? Musicians by literature genre?!". CN1 (talk) 12:06, 31 October 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:Counts Goblet d'Alviella[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: nomination withdrawn. MER-C 20:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate -- I had to do some digging on this. I found what I was looking for in the French WP, which says that the title Comte d'Alviella was created in 1838. A number of the other people in the target are also described as Counts in the lead of their articles. All are descended from the Belgian Prime Minister of 1832-4, but some of those in the House category may not be counts. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populated. Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:57, 13 November 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.

Countships[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. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename as this category is about a county (geographical area), not about a count (noble title). See also this previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query I'd have a concern about the parent category if this is successful. I assume that all the other countdoms will be similarly renamed to "Counties of Foo". In the case of Ireland, we have Counties of Ireland. When Ireland was first shired, the territory of a county was identical with the extent ruled by a baron or count. This quickly changed when sub-infeudation took place. By the time that the last county was shired, countdom and county had ceased to be synonymous. So counties of Ireland means something entirely different to counties of Belgium. Would their parents not get terribly confused? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that it may become confusing, especially in Category:Former counties where the contemporary administrative counties and the semi-independent medieval counties are together in one category. By the way you're using a word that doesn't occur in the category tree, namely "countdom". Could that be a more appropriate term here? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid that "countdom" is a neologism of mine! :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think the issue should impact this nomination but, while keeping this discussion in mind, I'm open to anyone's future nomination to split Category:Former counties. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would be ideal if we could have one category tree for autonomous counties (the ones ruled by counts/earls/insertothertitlehere) and another for purely administrative ones (e.g. current UK counties, like the ones in the US and Liberia), but aside from the naming issue, we'd potentially have the problem of autonomous counties gradually becoming purely administrative over time; having both categories on one article would be awkward, and splitting a good single article just to fit the categorisation would be bad. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one subcat is already categorised as a county of France and of Holy Roman Empire. Adding a Belgian category is anachronistic. The name Belgium was first coined for the United Kingdom of the Netherlands of 1815. On its break up in c.1830, the name was applied to what had previously been the Austrian and earlier Spanish Netherlands. It appears in the medieval period to have been partly under French and partly German (HRE) suzerainty. This is an unnecessary category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a fair point here. I wouldn't oppose deleting. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 9 November 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:Bacon scholars[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 as proposed. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 17:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Given the other meanings of "Bacon", it might be a good idea to specify here ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely rename. I came here expecting to vote merge or delete for a reason such as "studying specifically bacon is such a miniscule topic that it doesn't need a category tree separate from other meat scholars, if they exist". Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • They didn't teach you about that one at career days—"meat scholar"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, Good Ol’factory; I only encountered the concept of foodways once I was in grad school, taking some interdisciplinary classes with PhD-candidate anthropologists :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per both Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - amusing, but renaming is necessary for clarity. Neutralitytalk 21:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but Category:Scholars of Francis Bacon might be even better. My first reaction was that this was about the winners of an academic scholarship named after or founded by Bacon. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 8 November 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:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need a hall of fame for disruptive user names. We're better off with blocking them and letting them be forgotten. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe deletion would be a mistake and the last thing wanted is to completely forget them. This and other similar cats serve a useful purpose for admin , maintenance and tracking purposes. This is not and shouldn't be viewed as a hall of the infamous as it was always intended to be used constructively for admin purposes. Like other similar categories (see Category:Tracking_categories and start with "We" and look for "Wikipedians...."), this cat is intended as (and now is) a tracking category. It's used for the admin and maintenance of the project along with bots to populate. One useful example I recall, and still believe relevant for the this category under CfD is when looking at the admin notice board for names of concern, being able to compare any similar or names and or identify patterns, which can assist an admin or users making reports to identify inter alia potential sockpuppets. Further to this example, when a report is being made or actioned, one may recall several months ago a similar sock name but be unable to recall. Using this cat to do that is one potential advantage and losing it would be a disservice. In sum, of the several categories of this type, a few were converted to tracking categories earlier, but this and 2 others were overlooked and I can see the rationale for CfD though I do believe going ahead would be a mistake for the reasons noted above. NJA (t/c) 08:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NJA. Tracking categories, maintenance categories, etc. aren't halls of fame: they're useful for identifying patterns, for bot work (bot can mine the category contents, for example), and presumably other purposes that aren't coming to mind at the moment. This has a lot of members who aren't indefinitely blocked for username violations (apparently due to the category not being removed post-unblock), but that's a mistake that will be easy to bot-fix; it's not irredeemable and shouldn't be broken for long. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 30 October 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:Portraits on coins[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 as proposed. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 17:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains only list articles. I propose renaming it to match the head article, List of people on coins. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 30 October 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.

Portraits on banknotes[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 and delete the top three; List_of_people_on_United_States_banknotes and List of people on banknotes exist already, and the numbers do not justify standalone lists for Iran or Iraq. Delete the fourth, as we do not need a Category:Lists of people on banknotes for just two lists. – Fayenatic London 07:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we should categorize the biographical articles about the individuals on the basis that their portrait has appeared on a banknote. If extended, such a scheme could be created to cover people with portraits on coins, on stamps, on the cover of Time magazine, etc. Several of these types have been deleted in the past. Several lists already exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:PERFCAT. These people are on banknotes because they are notable, not notable because they are on banknotes. For nearly identical earlier nominations, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 28#Category:Places illustrated on Turkish banknotes and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 17#Buildings and structures illustrated on banknotes. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the links to those discussions—I knew there had been something similar recently, but I had been searching for portrait-related discussions and had come up empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or listify) - per the previous discussion. Neutralitytalk 22:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is it practical to keep these categories (or at least the Americans) but instead repurpose them? Do we have a decent number of articles on the portraits themselves? I assumed we'd have an article on Stuart's unfinished painting of Washington (it's the traditional image used to depict Washington, including appearing on the US$1 banknote), but File:Gilbert Stuart 1796 portrait of Washington.jpg doesn't appear on such a page, and Unfinished Portrait doesn't link to it. I don't suppose we have a significant number of articles about Iranian and Iraqi portraits that have appeared on banknotes, but I wouldn't be surprised if we had a sufficient number of such US portraits. Given the prominence of banknotes in the US, any portrait's appearance on one would surely warrant categorisation. Delete if we don't have enough articles about the portraits, because categorising people from banknotes doesn't seem to be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nyttend proposes a good suggestion, as such an appearance would be significant for the portrait. However, as it is doubtful there are enough articles, this should probably be deleted until they exist. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 07:51, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I searched around, trying to find some articles about portraits that later appeared on banknotes, but couldn't find any. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one would have thought by the titles that the entries would be files of the portraits not biographies. None of these folks is notable for where their mug appears, they were notable beforehand. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify the national items, then delete. Rename the final item to match the coins item (nom above this one), to make it a parent for the lists or merge it there as a "currency" category. The present category is an abuse: in effect it is a performance by performer category, the performance being having your portrait on a banknote. Alternatively it is an award: we almost invariably listify and delete award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-defining characteristic as applied to the articles involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 18 November 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 with famous sword[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 20:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being connected to a particular person might be defining for a particular sword, but having a notable sword is not really defining for the individuals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nondefining; we have appropriate cats for the swords themselves. Neutralitytalk 22:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The definingness doesn't work both ways in this case, and even if it were a keepable category this wouldn't be its correct name. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gosh, this one's a stretch, we generally don't categorize people by what notable items they possess from time to time:. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We cannot keep this as a category, but I do wonder whether there are the makings of a list article here, if we have articles both on a person and his sword, perhaps People with named swords. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see how swords are defining for King Arthur and Ali. Dimadick (talk) 10:30, 14 November 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.

Enclaves and exclaves[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 as proposed. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 17:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think that these two categories should be merged together and renamed Category:Enclaves and exclaves to match the article name Enclave and exclave. They are not precisely the same thing—as the article states: "An enclave is any portion of a state that is entirely surrounded by the territory of a single other state. An exclave is a portion of a state geographically separated from the main part by surrounding alien territory. Many exclaves are also enclaves." Whether you call something an enclave or an exclave sometimes depends on what definition one applies: there are true enclaves and exclaves, pene-enclaves and pene-exclaves, and so forth. Confused yet? So are the users that apply these categories. There is a tremendous amount of overlap, as would be expected, and often users appear to not know what they are doing in establishing whether a particular territory is an enclave, an exclave, or both. I think it would be easiest for everyone if we just categorized them together, left redirects on the nominated categories, and let the articles sort out these fine details. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While pene-enclaves etc. aren't enclaves etc., you make a good point: they're easy to get confused, and we probably don't need two whole category trees for these concepts, as demonstrated by the fact that we only need one article for them, not two. Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. While the terms refer to distinct things, there is a high degree of overlap by which many entries within one class are also members of the other, depending solely on which direction you're applying the definition from — so the distinction isn't a helpful one for us to maintain separate categories for. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator). I didn't cite the guideline, but I suppose WP:OVERLAPCAT has some relevance here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Neutralitytalk 03:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and put an end to our troubles. I had a hard time trying to sort things out here once upon a time and then quit. An exclave of one country may be an enclave of another. Some subcats here may also need to be merged if this is merged. Hmains (talk) 04:25, 5 November 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_October_30&oldid=1074815644"