Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 26 April 28 >

April 27[edit]

Periods in history[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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 14:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: downmerge, as the scope of each of these categories completely overlaps with one of its subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I agree in principle, but I do not believe that "Fact is that we categorize by polity" is true. Look at Category:History of the United States by period: I see a lot of categories looking like Category:History of the United States (1980–91)‎ (which pretty much overlaps with Category:1980s in the United States...). Granted, USA has pretty much one polity, barring some Colonial era footnote-stuff, so it needs child categories, but here you go. We could of course say that it is polity on the top level, and date ranges as child categories (through we not just use the centuries and decades/years in a Foo country then), but while again, it sounds like a sound principle, is it indeed written down anywhere? Looking at UK history, I also see no division by polity, just stuff like modern/medieval and eras, then going into decades. Category:Late Modern France seems to match the polity division, barring some minor eras, etc. So does Category:Modern history of Germany. As you will note, I am not objecting - much - but it would be good to write down this rule/logic somewhere, then proceed on standardizing as much as we can. Last thing to note: long ago when I was active in writing history of Poland articles, I stressed strongly the need to make sure people understand the difference between a former polity article (which should be structured just like that for modern polity - with sections on economy, administration, and history) and history of said former polity/era; note in particular that for example a History of Poland (1918-1939) (or whatever it redirects to) should be a section/child for Second Polish Republic (entity which existed in 1918-1939). I thought it would be logical to apply this division to categories, too, alas I see your point that in the category the overlap is much bigger. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge one way or the other. These two categories cover the same thing. I have no opinion on which form is better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seeking clearer consensus on which way to merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: both sets of categories are now tagged. – Fayenatic London 19:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) Regarding the direction of merge, I would definitely favor keeping the polity categories, thus keeping the merge direction as nominated. The periods in "History of" categories were derived from the polities. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:54, 4 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:Australian Christians[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 19:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current category name follows the pattern of the relevant category trees. Unfortunately it is confusing as Australian Christians (political party) is the name of a political party (a breakaway from the Christian Democratic Party (Australia)). Some form of disambiguation is needed somewhere. Timrollpickering 15:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might want to wait renaming until there is a need for Category:Australian Christians (political party). For now, neither the leader nor the president of the political party have their own article. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's absolutely no reason to rename this category at the moment, given its compatibility with the rest of the category tree and the absence of a competing category for the political party. Even if we later have a category for the political party, it will be a far smaller topic than Christians who happen to be Australian, and either deleting this category or making it a disambiguation category will likely to lead to confusion: someone knowing that the Christian categories are normally "NATIONALITY Christians" will likely put Australians here, and this is much more probable than someone incorrectly putting an AC partisan here or putting a Christian from Australia into the political party incorrectly. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The possibility that a future category for a small political party, for which there isn't a demonstrated need today, might create an ambiguity with this is not in and of itself a good reason to deviate from a standard naming convention. For one thing, even if and when the political party does warrant a category, this grouping will still be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the category name and the political party will still be a secondary one. So this topic should remain in line with the naming convention, and the political party category (if one ever exists at all) is the one that has to be dabbed. At any rate, because the party specifically identifies its political platform with Christian social conservative values, the likelihood of there being someone who attains notability for their association with the party, but who is not personally a Christian and would thus be misfiled if they were added to this category, is effectively nonexistent. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The fact that a party has appropriated a name does not mean that we need to change everything else. If we do need to change (and I hope not) Category:Christians in Australia might be the answer. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:50, 1 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:Lieutenant Governor's Ontario Heritage Award winners[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) 09:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for one winner of a minor award which would not constitute a claim of notability in and of itself. As always, every award that exists at all does not automatically get its own category the moment one former winner of it happens to have an article -- we categorize on WP:DEFINING characteristics (i.e. ones that are central to what made the person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in the first place), not on every single fact that might happen to appear in their biography. This is not an award that constitutes a notability claim per se -- a person would not get a Wikipedia article just for the fact of winning this, if they didn't also have a stronger notability claim that passed our SNGs for the work they did to get the award. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1) Offends against WP:OCAWARD, though we would normally listify. (2) I a dubious whether the one person, a prolific local historian is in fact notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 1 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:Muskoka Conservancy Award recipients[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) 07:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for winners of a minor local award which would not constitute a claim of notability in and of itself -- of the three people filed here, two have passes of our notability standards for their occupations and one's up for AFD, but nobody would ever get an article because of this award per se in the absence of any other more substantive notability claim. As always, every award that exists at all does not automatically get its own category the moment one former winner of it happens to have an article -- we categorize on WP:DEFINING characteristics (i.e. ones that are central to what made the person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in the first place), not on every single fact that might happen to appear in their biography. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 27 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:ACC Athlete of the Year[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 13:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. The ACC Athlete of the Year is a marginal award relative to the careers of those involved. In many cases, the player's award is not mentioned in the body of the article itself. TM 15:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1) Offends against WP:OCAWARD, though we would normally listify. (2) I a dubious whether the one person, a prolific local historian is in fact notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron: please would you clarify your comment? It sounds as if you looked at a small category, but this one has over 70 people in it. – Fayenatic London 19:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarify -- We do not allow awards categories. The normal outcome is listify if necessary and delete. My second comment must have referred to another CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:45, 24 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.

AFL player categories[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. – Fayenatic London 21:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no reason to keep the AFL stuff separate. These players are as much a part of the history of the NFL teams as more modern players. Also see discussion here. Notable things we aren't discussing here include merging categories associated with the same team before and after a name change and the Los Angeles Chargers business, which is going to be a mess because the name was used twice with a great amount of history between the usages. ~ Rob13Talk 07:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for discussion about the second merge target, which currently specifies that it should not hold player articles directly
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 14:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Support but -- I apply the rule "one franchise: one category". We have a long established principle for alumni categories that merged or renamed institutions over alumni categories for predecessors. The results can look a little odd. Here we seem to have teams that have been renamed that get a separate category for the same franchise, but if we apply the principle here New England Patriots would also be merged into the first of these. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13: the proposal seems to contain an oddity, it will imply that 9 out of 13 subcategories of Category:American Football League players by team will be deleted, while 4 of them will remain. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: In some cases, AFL teams exist that only played in the AFL. For those teams, a team category is appropriate. We should later restructure the AFL players by team category, probably by upmerging to get rid of it. This whole thing is a bit of a mess, I agree. Personally, I find it more undesirable to split the players of one franchise across two categories than to have only some AFL-specific team categories. ~ Rob13Talk 12:27, 12 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:Evil Minds[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) 09:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT —swpbT 14:02, 27 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:List of Notable Brahmins[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) 09:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF, longstanding consensus against categorization by caste. Also happens to be currently empty following Sitush's removal of the list articles previously in this category. Unclear what further purpose it would serve. Alcherin (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to nominator's rationale, it bears note that categories for people are not supposed to contain the words "list of" — we categorize pages that are lists in "Lists of...", but we do not use the singular "List" in the name of a category for the individual people or things that might be added to a list. And categories are also not permitted to include the word "notable" in their names, either; in principle, notability is inherent to whether or not an article should even exist at all, so it's not necessary to insert "notable" into the name of a category. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from what Bearcat said (that's enough for deletion), this would warrant renaming to Category:Brahmin people (or something of the sort) if it were kept; Category:Brahmins exists but is meant for the caste group as a whole, not individual biographies, according to a note at the top of the page. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 29 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:Brahmin rulers[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 23:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a long-standing consensus that we do not categorise individuals by caste, which is what this cat and its subcategories are doing. Sitush (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples of past discussions regarding caste categorisation of people can be seen linked at User:Sitush/Common#Castecats. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rather pointless intersection. Did rulers even come from the Brahmins? I thought rulers were members of a lower group of castes, and the Brahmin castes were priests and other religious leaders. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some did but a lot depends on how you define "ruler". For example, there were some zamindars and the Peshwas are often claimed to be rulers. FWIW, there were even rulers from the Shudra castes, which are at the bottom of the Vedic varna system. It's a messy topic area. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 30 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:Battles involving the Brahmins[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) 06:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the articles in this category seem to be here simply because they involved the Maratha Empire; with the exception of the Third Anglo-Maratha War, none of the articles even mention the presence of Brahmins, let alone support that statement with a reliable source. Furthermore I don't think a category of battles involving a specific Indian caste is necessary - it doesn't appear to be a notable intersection of topics either (WP:OCEGRS). Alcherin (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since they involved in the battles i created the category just like rajputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhiran (talk • contribs)
    • Category:Battles involving the Rajputs contains battles involving the Rajput states and groups, and the articles in that category always contain supported statements and significant coverage of the role of the Rajputs in those battles. Alcherin (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a pointless intersect created by someone who is seemingly obsessed with promoting Brahmins - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not useful and also erroneous.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:28, 27 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:Economic history of Amsterdam[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:History of Amsterdam, Category:Financial history of the Netherlands and Category:Economic history of the Dutch Republic. – Fayenatic London 06:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, there are very few cities that have their own economic history subcategory and Amsterdam doesn't have enough content to have one too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was quite a bit of economics in my Master's program. Is that relevant? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle, how well do you know the great importance of the Netherlands (the Dutch Republic in particular) in history of world economy and finance? Zingvin (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2017
  • Why asking these personal questions? If you know any other articles in Wikipedia about the economic history of Amsterdam, just add them to these categories and from there on we'll talk further. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content of this category appears to fit the latter category as well, though merely by coincidence. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 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:6th-century Islam[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, recategorising the timeline. – Fayenatic London 19:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as anachronistic, Islam started around 610 while 6th century ended in 600. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that article shouldn't exist, for the same reason as the category shouldn't exist, I have no objection to the proposed recategorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:03, 27 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:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan[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: soft delete. – Fayenatic London 23:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: if kept, rename, pre-Islamic is anachronistic terminology. By the way, this is (still) without objection against merging / deleting the category, see also this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Buddhism is totally unrelated to much of Pakistan's pre-Islamic history; see Mohenjo-daro for example. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not against creating a Hindu category, but the one article in the nominated category is about Buddhist heritage. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though not for the reasons the nom gives exactly; pre-Islamic is not anachronistic terminology, but we already have "prehistoric" and "ancient" categories, & the single article covers a mainly Buddhist period, which we don't have one for. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is an unnecessary fork of Category:Ancient history of Pakistan. However the sole content is an article on a district, which has history at many periods and thus does not belong in the subject category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) That is a correct observation, I would support delete too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_27&oldid=1138410524"