Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 27 January 29 >

January 28[edit]

Category:People by city or town in Libya[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 12:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per consistency with parent Category:People by country and city. There is no Libya-specific reason to deviate from the global scheme including smaller towns. In the contrary, a sufficient count of member articles are only to be expected for larger towns, given the limited coverage of Libya topics. PanchoS (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - are you saying there are no large towns in Libya that would warrant a "People from... " category? In theory I've no problem with "...by city or town" categories (there are several of them) because there is no separate "...by town" category tree. Sionk (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the difference between city and town cannot be applied worldwide; naming all categories "by city" is the most convenient solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the rationale given. I don't want this to be used as a precedent to rename all "...by city or town..." categories "...by city...". There are towns in Libya and at least one of the sub-categories here is a town. Sionk (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By what criteria are cities and towns distinguished from each other in Libya? Just curious. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:People by country and city shows a different standard. I'm neutral towards a rename of all child categories of that category together, but I don't think we should have just one single country deviate from all other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 19 February 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.

Broadcasting 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: Rename according to Option A. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
  • either Option A
Option A: 28 "Fooian broadcasting" categories to "Broadcasting in Foo"
  • or Option B
Option B: 19 "Broadcasting in Foo" categories to "Fooian broadcasting"
Nominator's rationale: The by-country sub-categories of Category:Broadcasting by country all use either "Broadcasting in Foo" or "Fooian broadcasting" ... except for one outlier, Category:Broadcast media in Pakistan‎.
  • Option A would standardise all categories (including Pakistan) on "Broadcasting in Foo".
  • Option B would standardise all categories (including Pakistan) on "Fooian broadcasting".
Note that the other subcats of Category:Media by country/Category:Media by country and type appear to be consistent within thenmsleves, but inconsistent with each other:
"Stuff in Foo" has a geograpohical scope which is slightly different to the national-origin scope of "Fooian stuff". However, I don't think there is any practical difference in actual categorisation unless people are being hyper-pedantic, so I see no reason to prefer the meaning of one of the other.
So far as I can see, the most widely used format is "Stuff in Foo", so Option A would be my preference, to minimise other changes. If Option A is accepted, then I will nominate the subcats of Category:Media by country+Category:Radio by country for renaming to "Radio in Foo". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option A: All in all, this is designed as a by-country category. Using nationality names tends to be inappropriate for the media of ethnic minorities, and is prone to confusion with eponymous languages, especially in an area working with language. For example: TRT Kurdî perfectly fits in Category:Television stations in Turkey, and it would fit in Category:Broadcasting in Turkey, but does it fit in Category:Turkish broadcasting? Less so. Or how about private, Catalan-language station RAC 1? This clearly is broadcasting in Spain, but is it Spanish broadcasting? Clearly in terms of being located in Spain and being under Spanish jurisdiction, but less so in terms of "Spanish culture" and certainly not in terms of Spanish language. Let's be more precise here and use the country names rather than nationalities. --PanchoS (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, PanchoS. That's a very good explanation of reasons to avoid the demonyms. I hadn't thought that aspect of it through, but I fully support your reasoning.
      Handily, it seems that in this case my lazy easy-path-to-standardisation aligns with the most precise and NPOV solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use' "Option A" with actual country names. The demonyms are not unique in all countries, they can refer to other things, such as ethnic and language topics -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A, PanchoS explained it. - Nabla (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer Option A. It is (or should be) by country. If a station is dedicated to one (minority) language, we could have a linguistic category, but I doubt most countries will have enough content to populate such subcategories: INdia may be an exception. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A, per PanchoS. 8bitW (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A Which makes it an actual tree of category by country. The demonyms may lead to confusion that these are ethnic or linguistic categories. An entry such as "Polish broadcasting" can be confused with Polish-language broadcasting, resulting in miscategorizations. Dimadick (talk) 21:11, 4 February 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:Indian filmmakers[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 Category:Indian film crew to Category:Indian filmmakers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Un-needed subdivision of Category:Indian filmmakers. There are no other "film crew" categories, and the parent Category:Film crew was merged to Category:Filmmaking occupations at CFD 2014 December 10 BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I guess you meant Category:Indian film crew, right? In that case I'd support an upmerge. --PanchoS (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. Many thanks, PanchoS. It is indeed as you guessed.
I clicked Twinkle on the wrong one of the pair of pages I had open, and have now fixed the nom above and tagged[1] Category:Indian film crew. Note to closer that the timestamp of the tagging is 00:46, 29 January 2016 ... so the 7 day period should be taken as running from that point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This is apparently the only "film crew" category and I see no reason to make a distinction. Dimadick (talk) 21:14, 4 February 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.

Czech 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/merge. – Fayenatic London 13:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: in accordance with this this earlier discussion, the polity in the Czech lands in these centuries was called Kingdom of Bohemia, while Czech nationalism did not start to flourish any earlier than in the 19th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Some one raised this once before. The Czech lands consisted of the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Margravate of Moravia. The Moravian Czechs were not Bohemians. I see that on the previous occasion, I raised no objection, since both states had the same ruler. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Technically there should be a parallel Moravian tree, but the king of Bohemia was always (or almost so) also Margrave of Moravia, so that it does not matter, at least for now. No objection to a manual split, if desired. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Margraviate of Moravia only existed from 1182 to 1918 (736 years) but from the list of rulers, the period seems to covers crown unions with the Duchy of Austria, the Duchy of Styria, the Duchy of Carinthia, the Margravate of Carniola, the Kingdom of Poland, the Kingdom of Hungary, the County of Tyrol, the County of Luxembourg, and the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. The situation seem to be more complex than a perpetual union with Bohemia. Also the term can be used for the so-called Great Moravia, which apparently also covered areas of modern Slovakia.Dimadick (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, Moravia was part of the Kingdom of Bohemia all the time (from 11th to 18th century), but in 1526 Bohemia (including Moravia) became part of the Habsburg Monarchy (including Austria, Styria etc.). So the personal union within the Habsburg Monarchy is not contradicting with the personal union with Bohemia.
Second, Great Moravia was way earlier than the centuries that are in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 5 February 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:Rus[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:Rus', keep category redirect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article for this category is Rus' (region), and "Rus" (or "Rus'") by itself is ambiguous as it could refer to the region, the people, the name, Kievan Rus', etc. Retain as a category redirect. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the apostrophe, but based on the content this seems to be a top category also covering history and about people, so I wouldn't favor adding (region) here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least add apostrophe. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to simply "Rus'" as this category also covers the people of that name. Dimadick (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean, keep as is? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's hard to see but there is an apostrophe, as in "Rus'". -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 6 February 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:National Womens Hockey League (2015)[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: speedy delete, author request/housekeeping. BencherliteTalk 01:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Already has category, forgot apostrophe in this category –B2Project(Talk) 00:34, 28 January 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_January_28&oldid=1138409853"