Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 9 April 11 >

April 10[edit]

Category:Standalone accompaniment instruments[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 23:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary criterion for inclusion —swpbT 19:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically any instrument can be used for this purpose. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not any instrument is used as a standalone accompaniment; that is, as the sole instrument accompanying a singer, choir, or instrumental soloist. The three standard standalone accompaniment instruments are guitar, organ and piano. I do not propose extending the category to every variant of these three instruments (electric guitar, Hammond organ, electric piano). While other instruments are occasionally used as standalone accompaniment instruments (e.g., there are some recordings of singers with a double bass, this is rare)OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 03:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To editor OnBeyondZebrax: If we accepted the claim that only those three instruments belong (I don't), the category would be inappropriate under WP:SMALLCAT. Otherwise, it's inappropriate under WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Either way, WP:OVERCAT doesn't leave any room for such a category. Information about how commonly different instruments are used as solo accompaniment belongs in article space, if it can be cited. —swpbT 19:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the articles about the three instruments don't even mention that they are unique standalone accompaniment instruments, let alone provide sources to support that claim. And if even they would, it would be more like a nice-to-know, not a defining characteristic as a basis for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 22 April 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.

Category:United States airliners 2020–2029[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary period —swpbT 19:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; we have no guarantee that the Aurora D8 will be made available between 2020 and 2029. Give it a few years, and recreation may well be appropriate; dividing Category:United States airliners by decade is entirely sensible, and once we have one or more articles about airliners that indeed got introduced in 2020-2029, having this category indeed will be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The article is about an Category:Airliner under development, which we might rename the category to. Whether it will in fact be launched in 2021 is WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 15 April 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.

Category:Argutinsky-Dolgorukov[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one page. The linked Russian Wikipedia category has 4 articles, but for the time being this one is not justified. – Fayenatic London 16:13, 10 April 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.

Category:Association football people 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: do not rename; there is no consensus to remove this from the parent hierarchy either. Many parts of the hierarchies in English Wikipedia have inconsistencies between one level and another, but the hierarchies nevertheless remain (i) mostly true and (ii) useful for navigation. – Fayenatic London 06:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The category should either follow the convention of Category:Sportspeople by sport and nationality or it should be removed from it. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
  • Category:Association football people by country to Category:Association football people by nationality – C2C: per the convention in Category:Sportspeople by sport and nationality. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. @Armbrust this is a container for categories of footballers in a country, who may not be of that nationality. See the similar distinction between Category:Association football players by country and Category:Association football players by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl: In that case, however, it shouldn't be in Category:Sportspeople by sport and nationality at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Armbrust: you may be right about that, and if so, then some juggling of parent categories may be required.
    However, the underlying question is that since this all arises from a desire not to put expatriate footballers in Fooland under a "Fooish people" category, hoe far up the tree do we pursue the distinction? I am far from sure that it is a good idea to retain this distinction in the category system, because I don't think that our general intermixing of people-by-nationality with people-by-place supports it. For example, an American expatriate artist in Paris may be there for all their notable career, possibly many decades, so it would be folly not to categorise them under Category:People from Paris .... but that places them under Category:French people. I see no problem with that, but the sports categories are based on the assumption that such fuzziness doesn't exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Armbrust: This is a can of worms that is way too complex for a speedy. @BrownHairedGirl: I think the sports categories don't assume that kind of fuzziness doesn't exist, it's more that it's very common for footballers in particular to move around the globe, often on an annual basis - but for a very short time, maybe 6-8 years at the peak of their careers. So they don't get entrenched in the way that your artist would, so they don't identify as "French" - but at the same time, their two most defining characteristics at any one time are the team they are playing for and their international team (which is defined more strictly than citizenship - you can have two passports but only one football nationality). And for many footballers from smaller countries like say Ryan Giggs, they are defined more by the club than their country as they win many more trophies with their club than country. So personally I'd let sleeping dogs lie.... Le Deluge (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is too simplistic. We recently had a case about an African player, who was for a few years playing for an Armenian club. I objected that he was not an Armenian, I was told that we make no distinction between being Armenian and "from Armenia". BHG's example of an American expatriate artist in Paris would properly be categorised as "from Paris", because he was living there, but also "from New York" (or wherever), because he was born there. Nationality is a narrower concept (or at least a different one). Many expatriates retain their original nationality (in this case American), but may be naturalised in their adopted country, but they may long remain expatriates with the local equivalent of an American Green Card. In the case of football, a Nigerian player playing for a UK Premier League club, will normally not be eligible for the England team, but be playing internationally (or eligible to play) for Nigeria. There are separate rules on this, which represent a third strand - not residence or nationality, but something governed by the sport's international body. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:50, 22 April 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.

Category:Apostolic nuncios[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, with support for nominating the sub-categories instead. – Fayenatic London 06:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Every subcategory uses a capital "N", so this one should too. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
  • Probably User:Le Deluge is right in (speedy) opposing. See for example this web page with a mixture of capitals and non-capitals. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The title (office) held by an individual may well be correct only with a capital, but the collective plural for them all should not be. British Ambassador to France, not British ambassador to France (because there is only one at a time), but "the British ambassadors to France, Germany, Poland and Italy". This is directly equivalent, because a Nuncio is primarily a Papal ambassador. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Peterkingiron. And following their rationale rename the subcategories instead. 77.180.77.189 (talk) 16:39, 2 May 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.

Category:Austrian people of Silesian German descent[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: relisted at 2017 May 11. – Fayenatic London 13:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: purge and merge, the category consists of four Austrian people whose parents were born in Austrian Silesia so they don't belong in the category (not of German descent) and should be purged. And as a fifth one there is Georg Wahl who was a German Silesian working in Austria for about 15 years. So he wasn't descending, he was just a German and should be moved to Category:German emigrants to Austria. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- As I said on a related discussion, being the descendant of a Displaced Person from the parts of Germany incorporated into Poland and other countries at the end of WWII may be highly defining, but Silesian is not an ethnicity. Perhaps rename to Category:Austrian descendants of displaced Germans, with the meaning of being a German displaced person, i.e. a refugee from lands lost by Germany at the end of WWII, being defined in a headnote. My proposed target would include refugees from the Sudetenland, the Polish part of Pomerania and East Prussia, as well as Silesia. Such people tended to have lost everything they owned before 1945, which is certainly defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While not disagreeing that there may be room for such a category, neither of the five articles in the nominated category would get into it, because the circumstances in these five cases are different from being displaced in 1945. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 15 April 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.

Category:Drohobych Oblast[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. – Fayenatic London 06:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, not enough content for a small short-lived (20 years) country subdivision. No need to merge anything, the articles are already in the right categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Consistency with other country's subdivisions. Give a some time. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point about consistency, I've added Category:Crimean Oblast to the nomination. This oblast existed for 45 years and still has no more than an eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both; we ought not delete just one or two of a defined series. Category:Wrangell City and Borough, Alaska covers an entity that's not yet existed for ten years; would you suggest that it be deleted if it had too few articles? Although it includes dozens of articles, only three of them (Frank Murkowski, Lisa Murkowski, and the {{catmain}} article Wrangell, Alaska, and two of those happen to be nationally prominent politicians, unusually for such a small place) have Ukrainian articles; it's quite plausible that there are plenty of notable topics that would be written about and put here if we English writers simply had access to the Ukrainian sources, just as plausible as the idea that there are plenty of notable Wrangell topics that would be written about if the Ukrainian writers simply had access to the English sources. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't create categories for every former subdivision. For example we don't have categories for subdivisions of the Assyrian Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bad analogy: do we even have a complete list of the satraps of that Empire? this might generate OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Even a defunct local government polity with a population of over 850,000 is quite big enough to have a category. The article lists places in it that have articles, which should be Category:Populated places from Drohobych Oblast, which means there is enough to keep the parent. I have not considered Crimea Oblast, but if this is the same as Crimea it might be better as a category redirect. It is useful to historians to know former polities. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 22 April 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.

Category:Ukrainian football forward, 2000s births stubs[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 and upmerge template (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I propose that this category is a few years too early. Those born in the 2000s would be 17 or younger. Very few would have encyclopedia-worthy careers at this time. Recommend deleting the category and upmerging the template to Category:Ukrainian football forward stubs. Nothing against recreating the category in a few years, once a reasonable number of stubs (> 60) exist for this category. Dawynn (talk) 03:05, 10 April 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.

Category:Soltaniyeh County geography stubs[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 and upmerge template (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inconsistent definition. Wikipedia can't even agree as to whether this is a county of its own or a district in Abhar County. Categories relating to the independent county definition are extremely small. Propose deleting and moving template to Category:Abhar County geography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 02:42, 10 April 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.

Category:Universal identifiers[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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is in the spirit of CFDS #C2D, but it doesn't precisely fit that situation. Universal identifier is a redlink, and Universal identifiers is a redirect to International identifier, a kind of identifier that's used to identify multinational corporations. The basic concept is covered by an article with a different name, Unique identifier (this is the standard term in the field, not merely a Wikipedia-created descriptive title), which covers all sorts of identifiers from international identifiers to national identity numbers, from Bates numbering to Smithsonian trinomials. The article and category for this basic concept ought to share a title, and when the article has the standard term as its current title, the discrepancy ought to be resolved by renaming the category. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 10 April 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/2017_April_10&oldid=1090392260"