Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 22

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

April 22[edit]

Category:Television shows set in the fictional populated places in the United States[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 category; merge its contents to Category:Television shows set in the United States. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see the point of this category. No inclusion criteria, no description of purpose Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CAWylie: don't you mean "merge", then, rather than "delete"? They are different outcomes. – Fayenatic London 11:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Categories cannot be "merged". The articles' categories listed in them must be changed (back). — Wyliepedia 23:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CAWylie: Right, that's what happens when we tell a bot to merge categories: the members are moved from one category to another, by editing the articles (or sub-cat pages). In contrast, when we program a bot to delete a category, the member articles are edited remove the category altogether, so the only way to trace and put them somewhere else would be by reviewing the bot's contribs (usually Special:Contributions/Cydebot). – Fayenatic London 15:47, 24 April 2016 (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.

Latin and Particular churches[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 and reinstate former categorisation. – Fayenatic London 01:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Is effectively a duplicate of Category:Catholicism and of Category:Roman Catholic Church in the former case and of Category:Eastern Catholic churches in the later case. There is no nuance of the articles that is not adequately covered by existing articles and their parent categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2016 (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:Religion and law by country[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/rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_24#Religious_law, at which "Religious law" categories by country were renamed to "Law about religion". Now, we no longer need this extra layer for France, and the US categories can be renamed to match the others. – Fayenatic London 13:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: "merger" here requires copying the head categories onto the target. – Fayenatic London 13:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- It makes sense. The target is a better description. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2016 (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:Television series by DreamWorks Television[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) 05:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: DreamWorks along with Amblin Entertainment, are now part of Amblin Partners, DreamWorks TV shows are now marketed under the Amblin Television brand. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2016 (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's Republic of China painters from Beijing[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, see discussion below. There is no Category:People's Republic of China people. Timmyshin (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominate the following:

  • Support All Even as someone with reservations about China=PRC, the articles for each city is just the city name so the corresponding articles don't need a country and I don't think there are so many non-Chinese painters to require a subcategory by nationality. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all (1) Non-Chinese painters from these provinces (etc.) will be rare; (2) No need to disambiguate, as there are no other places with the name; (3) We decided some time ago that the (Nationalist) Republic of China would be known in WP as Taiwan, so that there is no need to split out PRC; and (4) There is no particular need to distinguish the period of PRC (since c.1948) from earlier periods of Chinese hiostry. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "People's Republic of China" here denotes the period (as opposed to ROC, Qing dynasty, Ming dynasty, etc.), not nationality. Some of the parent categories are already quite large and need to be organized by period, others will become bigger as more articles are created. I'm studying Chinese art history and can easily identify a few hundred missing articles of notable artists that can potentially be added to these categories. Also, the nominator should have had the courtesy to notify the creator Nlu. -Zanhe (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the creation of "a few hundred missing articles", the majority of these parental categories are very small (<10 articles) and further categorizing them is considered WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. Besides, in which other country are painters (or any other profession) categorized by both administrative area and period? Timmyshin (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which other country is as big as China and has an art history as long? Many Chinese provinces are as big or bigger than major European countries and have art histories at least as long. Chinese painters have been recorded by name since the 3rd century (Cao Buxing, Wei Xie (no article yet), Gu Kaizhi, etc.). Not every period needs to be divided by province (for obvious reasons less art has survived from earlier periods), but more recent ones, especially PRC and Qing, certainly do. -Zanhe (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This has nothing to do with China's size or history but everything to do with policy. WP:OCLOCATION: "In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics." Also see WP:NARROWCAT. Timmyshin (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chinese provincial boundaries are far more relevant than American state boundaries, which all have their own artist categories, because of more entrenched regionalism in China. Chinese art is commonly divided by regional lines, see Shanghai School, Wu School, Lingnan School, Anhui School, etc. -Zanhe (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Zanhe's argument, which was the rationale for creating them in the first place. (I.e., PRC denotes period, as opposed to ROC or a prior dynasty.) --Nlu (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I might have opposed the proposal if there would have been enough content for a more complete split by period in each city, but since that is not the case it doesn't make sense to have a split for just one single period. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect and Marcocapelle: There seems to be some confusion here. The categories are not divided by cities, but by provinces (Beijing, Chongqing, and Shanghai are exceptional because they are province-level municipalities). -Zanhe (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not really change things. There is not enough content for a more complete split by period in each province. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert, this might be true except for the fact that the populations in these Chinese provinces are much larger. Most of them can be fairly large-sized nations by themselves, by population. Also, as to your earlier comment, "relatively the same boundaries through multiple political regimes" doesn't really argue for or against the concept, actually, but isn't quite true anyway (they have had the same boundaries only since the Yuan Dynasty (arguably Song)). --Nlu (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the size of population that matters, but the amount of articles per period in every of these provinces. As said before, there isn't enough content for a split by the intersection of province and period, while of course it's perfectly fine to categorize by province and by period separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2016 (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's Republic of China people by occupation[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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In my opinion, unnecessary categorization as there is already Category:Chinese people by occupation. On en.wp, China = People's Republic of China, it's the primary topic. We only have Category:Chinese people but no Category:People's Republic of China people. Category:Chinese people by occupation has over 80 subcategories, but Category:People's Republic of China people by occupation only has 5. For consistency, it's much easier to delete the 5 (and their subcategories), than to create hundreds of subcategories for no real benefits to our readers. Timmyshin (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominate the following categories for deletion (their contents upmerged with Category:Chinese ...):

Object to deletion. I also object to merger in some cases. I checked calligraphers and painters, and found them to have subcategories by period. Defining some of these as PRC is distinguishing them as belonging to a recent period, as opposed to the Han or Ming period. I agree to the principle of moving these to "Chinese" categories, but in some cases something in the category name as to their period needs to be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. That would be akin to removing Category:Victorian writers from Category:British writers by period because Britain ruled Ireland at the time. -Zanhe (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsensical examples. British history is very different from China's. The independence of Ireland for Britain is by no means comparable to the all-encompassing upheavals that typified dynastic changes in China, which is why almost all books about the history of Chinese literature or art are divided by dynastic periods. -Zanhe (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly my point. You are the first one to bring up Great Britain in a totally irrelevant analogy. Timmyshin (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My original analogy is relevant (China's rule of Vietnam vs. Britain's rule of Ireland), but you distorted it by equating Britain's loss of Ireland with China's dynastic changes, which is nonsensical. -Zanhe (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your analogy is nonsensical. Victorian era is but the reign of one monarch, how can this compare with a dynasty? Timmyshin (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh... I brought up the Victorian era for the very narrow sense that Britain ruled Ireland at the time, in the same way that the Tang dynasty ruled Vietnam, which you said should be excluded from China for that reason. Then you distorted the analogy in all kinds of ridiculous ways to muddle the water. I really don't see any point reasoning with you any further. -Zanhe (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - "People's Republic of China" is not a one-dimensional concept. It's considered equal to "China" only in the spatial sense, but temporally, it represents only the most recent period of China's long history. In these categories, "People's Republic of China" clearly denotes the period, not the space. -Zanhe (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - per Zanhe. --Nlu (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also a further comment; analogy to American states is not a bad analogy, but a major difference is that there is a big population disparity. --Nlu (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2016 (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/2016_April_22&oldid=1138409492"