Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 1 March 3 >

March 2[edit]

Category:Macau stubs subcats[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging:

Rationalle. Not only don't these stub categories have anywhere close to the 60 stubs they need to be considered wellsized, but their permcats (non-stub categories) don't have that many articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge per nom. Note: IMO, stub categories should be much larger (e.g. China stubs) and editors can then intersect them with permcats if necessary - otherwise there's continual churn of stubcats. DexDor (talk) 06:45, 3 March 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:Bessarabian Romanians[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 12:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can think of a few reasons for deleting this. One, we generally do not categorize ethnic majorities of a particular territory/country. (I.e., we have "English people of French descent", but not "English people of English descent".) Two, while the term "Bessarabia" still exists, it's somewhat anachronistic, given that the last administrative unit with that name ceased to exist in 1917. It's therefore odd to have people in this category born in the 1950s and '60s. Relevant individuals from the historic Bessarabia fit into, say, Category:Politicians of the Bessarabia Governorate. More modern ones go in (for example) Category:People by district in Moldova. Three, there's a rather live controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Moldova. While of course some of these people identify as Romanians, many quite explicitly do not (e.g. Marian Lupu, quite vocally), and it seems pointless to try and figure out this question for each individual who potentially fits into the category. - Biruitorul Talk 18:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left a note about this discussion on the talk pages of WP:WikiProject Moldova and WP:WikiProject Romania. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge somewhere. I am not clear on the precise historical geography, but my understanding is that the former province of Bessarabia was similar (rather than identical) in extent to the present Moldova. A lot of the people in the category are members of the Moldovan Parliament. In this context, Romanian is an ethnicity for people, some with Russian nationality. One article that I looked at was a Bessarabian man who had campaigned for union of Bessarabia with Romania, but most are best described as Moldovan. I suspect that the majority of the population of Moldova are ethnic Romanians; if so, categorising them as such is not useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging is not really needed in this particular case, because all articles are already somewhere else in the tree of Category:Romanian people and/or Category:Moldovan people anyway. A substantial amount of articles is from the period that Bessarabia was part of Romania (1918-1945) so that people in Bessarabia had Romanian nationality. The best choices seem to narrow the scope of the category to that period, or to delete the category altogether. I would be fine with either. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant overcategorizing with an inherent POV. The relevant subcategories already work fine. Dahn (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is actually a subcategory of Category:People from Bessarabia, which seems to be a geographic category. For some people the category includes subcategories which distinguish the population of the Bessarabia region to "Bulgarians", "Germans" , "Jews" and "Romanians". I am far from certain that the distinction is so clear-cut over the history of the region. Also it is a mistake to equate Bessarabia with modern Moldova. Moldova holds part of the area, but the rest is currently held by Ukraine. Dimadick (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one born after 1917, and no one who was not notable by that date should be in this category. On the other hand it should include no one who died before 1812. However we essentially get this as a majority category, so it does not work. Bassarabia was part of the Principality of Moldavia prior to 1812. Which is why it gets placed in Category:People from Moldavia. People from historical region needs to be clearly limited to people from the place when it existed in any meaningful way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, meanwhile this discussion has also started and it seems like consensus growing (cf Johnpacklambert) that we should only categorize Bessarabian people while Bessarabia was a clearly defined administrative entity, i.e. an oblast or governorate in the Russian Empire. That argument supports this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 2 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:Historical Places[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Brand-new category, ill-defined and redundant to many other category trees. BencherliteTalk 09:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly pointless. Good-faith creation by an inexperienced editor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no plausable well-defined definition for "historical places", unless it's either places which are no longer being used (some of the subcats of Category:Disestablishments by type), or one designated as historical by some heritage register such as the National Register of Historic Places (see Category:Heritage registers). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The one article relates to a place established in 1856. As a European I regard that as quite a recent establishment; I appreciate that that may be quite old in its area, but that is only relative to its locality. The whole concept involves too much POV for any valid category to exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 6 March 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:Former MSNBC program hosts[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: create new Category:MSNBC program hosts and merge both into it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia doesn't split categories into former/current sub-categories. Upmerge both back to the original parent category. BencherliteTalk 09:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the nominator please link to wiki naming guidelines suggesting that current/former modifiers are not appropriate? Thank you. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly. Here's the policy (not a mere guideline): Wikipedia:Category names#Occupation: "Occupation categories should not be divided into "current" or "former" categories. For example, Category:Former child actors and Category:Current Minnesota Twins players should not exist." Hope this helps. (I should have been clearer in my nomination statement, since some non-occupational categories are legitimately divided between former and current). BencherliteTalk 13:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge "current" and "former" categories into a new sub-category called "MSNBC program hosts". The Category:MSNBC people also includes correspondents, executives, etc., so upmerging would remove the "program host" descriptor that clarifies their role within this organization. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge both to Category:MSNBC program hosts. For a UK category, it would be "presenters". WE do not allow current/former splits. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to new Category:MSNBC program hosts. It removes the distinction between former and current, and has a clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 20:17, 10 March 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:Supervedettes[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A "supervedette" is basically someone who has been a vedette for a long time and is well-known as such. With the exception of the age factor (supervedettes are usually at least in their late 30s, if not older), this concept is sort of the like the idea of a "supermodel". Anyway, there isn't really any objective criteria for a vedette becoming a supervedette, so per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT we probably should not be categorizing in this way. (The supermodels category was deleted in 2006.) There is no need to merge the contents anywhere, since all of those included are already in a nationality "FOOian vedettes" category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 2 March 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_March_2&oldid=1074816946"