Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 14 November 16 >

November 15[edit]

Category:Environmental management[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:C2D, to align with main article Sustainability and environmental management. It was opposed for speedy renaming because Environmental management redirects to Environmental resource management; however that's quite something else and therefore the latter article isn't even in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 15 November 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.

Ancient and medieval ships[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 where not in a more specific sub-cat already. As for the comparison with biographies: those were the subject of a specific RfC, which decided to reinstate year-specific categories for births and deaths (where known). However, small categories for many other types of events and works have been merged. – Fayenatic London 17:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, until 1400 there are too few notable ships; ancient and medieval categories are more robust. Keep 15th century category though. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no merge "Medieval" is not tied to any specific time-frame. The Medieval period various form region to region and culture to culture. In Scandinavia (and the Nordic countries), Medieval times first commenced in the 11th century for example. Look it up. RhinoMind (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus in Wikipedia is that the Middle Ages started much earlier than in the 11th century, see Middle Ages. Vikings are specifically mentioned as a medieval topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The 7th century was in the Nordic Iron Age. Btw., listing the Viking Age as a Medieval period, is culturally biassed. Viewed from a Scandinavian POV it is not part of medieval times. Academic journals makes a clear distinction. However, the subject might perhaps be subject to difference of opinions among academics? RhinoMind (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom as these are small categories. And while definitions of the Middle Ages differ among sources, the main article Middle Ages defines it as the period from the 5th century to the 15th century. Note however that there is an overlap with Late Antiquity, the period from the 3rd to the 7th century. Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No merge. These are part of the extensive year of launch cats for ships; 1897 Ships etc. In the same manner, WP Bio has 'year of birth'. Brad (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom -- A 1897 category is reasonable, but there is too little content to have anything but one or two pre-1400 categories. If preferred we could make the categories for pre-400 AD and 400-1400 AD, bit that detail is probably better in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 18 November 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:Politicians from Helmville, Montana[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:People from Helmville, Montana Category:People from Powell County, Montana and Category:Montana politicians (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with only two entries. Also upmerge to Montana politicians.

A couple of other things. Helmsville has a population of 26 is not likely to have other people from it. A merge to 'People from Powell County, Montana' would be more appropriate and deletion of the category 'People from Helmville, Montana'. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge to Category:People from Powell County, Montana. A politicians subcat is not needed for a town with only two politicians to file in it; this is done for large cities with a lot of politicians to categorize, and is not an automatic thing that every city or town on the planet gets to have — but with no other contents besides this subcategory, Category:People from Helmville, Montana would still be a SMALLCAT even with these people upmerged. So it should be deleted as well, because "People from" isn't a thing that every town automatically gets either: it's still a thing that a place gets only when there are a reasonable (i.e. >2) number of people from there with Wikipedia articles to file in it. Bearcat (talk)
  • Upmerge to Category:People from Powell County, Montana. per Bearcat. 2 articles does not a category make. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Bearcat, but also to Category:Montana politicians
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:Politicians from Harwich, Massachusetts[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:People from Harwich, Massachusetts. No need for merging to other targets, the one person is already in the tree of Category:Massachusetts politicians. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Every place does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one politician from that place to file in it — large cities with a lot of politicians to categorize can have one, but small towns with just one or two cannot. Note also that deletion of this category will also empty out Category:People from Harwich, Massachusetts, by occupation, so that should also be batched along with this. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full upmerge but several of the Harwich parents need upmerging too. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 20 November 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:Lists of awards by South Korean musicians[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. Cerebellum (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The member pages are lists of awards received by South Korean musicians, so that would be an easily-understood name. However, the parent is Category:Lists of awards by musician and the hierarchy is Category:Lists of awards by award winner, i.e. the word "by" does not signify "(awards) received by" but "(lists) analysed/sorted by". Therefore the last word should be singular. – Fayenatic London 09:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this could have been a speedy nomination WP:C2C, but I think it's worth setting out the rationale for the name, and discussing whether it is clear enough. I would not object to changing to the alternative Category:Lists of awards received by South Korean musicians, but that should only be chosen as part of a wider and rather extensive change. – Fayenatic London 09:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The singular form is harder to parse, and it implies that the scope is all lists of awards, organized by which South Korean musician recieved them, which doesn't make sense. Pppery 19:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- While the list articles exist we need a category to hold then. My question is whether we need the list articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:C2C. But I can well imagine that we nominate the entire tree for renaming and insert "received" in the category names. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while acknowledging C2C. I'd rather see this close as "no consensus" and the larger nomination discussed by Marcocapelle. The merge target here is poorly worded. At first, second, and third glances, I would assume it's a typo. ~ Rob13Talk 07:15, 22 January 2017 (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_November_15&oldid=1074817229"