Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4[edit]

Category:Actors by city or town in Curaçao[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) 07:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. The island of Curaçao is too small to need a category of actors-by-city. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge wheather or not the particular city sub-cat is needed is debatable, but we do not need this added level of category just to contain one sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge - Curaçao is hardly big enough to need such splits. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 5 February 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:Nepal Pratap Bhaskara[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 all. – Fayenatic London 00:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Nepal Pratap Bhaskara is given to members of the royal family who are already well categorized under Category:Nepalese royalty. The other two awards are given both domestic royalty and also to foreign royalty and officials like Henrik, Prince of Denmark and Emperor Akihito. In both cases the award is secondary to the underlying reason for notability. If you want to see the clutter these type of awards create at the article level, just look at the train wreck at the bottom of this article. (If we decide to delete these categories, I listed the recipients in each main article.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Mimich as the primary category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Nepal. – RevelationDirect (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete all none of these categories cover contents that are helped by being so categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 20 March 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:Fictional dandies[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 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a clearly defined category. Few, if any, of these characters have been identified as a dandy in universe, so majority of these characters are put in this category based on editors personal opinion of the character. JDDJS (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category follows the list in the main article Dandy. Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That list should be removed from Dandy as well since not one single entry on that list is sourced. JDDJS (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term is not used in the works themselves for some of these people, and the term is just not tightly defined enough to be useful for categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no opposition to a sourced list (if one could be constructed) in the article; presumably, "dandy" is a label a third party uses in reference to someone (subjectively applied) akin to having categories for Category:Good-looking people or the like, but if someone can reliably source some list, more power to them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a category for real-life dandies has previously been deleted, as has a category of related terms; see CFD 2010 Jan 3 and CFD 2012 Nov 23. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories need to be based on reliable sources. For most of the contents the articles never even say the subject is a dandy, let alone give reliable sources to demonstrate this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 20 March 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:Roman Catholic organizations by century of establishment[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 the top one for now, but I recommend that editors hold off on nominating others for a month, pending the proposed RfC discussion, as the DRV was inconclusive. The sub-cats that were subject to the speedy nomination therefore lapse for now. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:C2C and WP:C2D, align with Category:Catholic organizations, Category:Catholic Church and ultimately with article Catholic Church. A nomination including child categories was declined for speedy rename (see collapsed below) so let's first discuss the top category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
discussion upon speedy nomination
  • Oppose, because this creates ambiguity. The Oct 2016 CFD was flawed, because the nominator failed to even mention the previous discussions, and the closer made no mention of taking them into account. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with a few more equivalent remaining categories supposedly to go the same way. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I thought the cfd decision in Oct 2016 to drop 'Roman' was rather bizarre, as previous cfds had been almost unanimous in the opposite direction. User:BrownHairedGirl is considering a drv on that rename and there is further discusion at the talk page. (There has been a recent regrettable tendency to overlook ambiguity in category names, although WP:C2D explicitly states that "This applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous".) Oculi (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Maybe a DRV is not needed yet as we can first have a renewed discussion here. The issue is apparently about Catholic Church (disambiguation) in article space. I'm not sure whether we have any precedents when the category name does not follow the main article name in case a disambiguation page exists that is not the main page. In any case it is not desirable to have some categories at "Catholic" and others at "Roman Catholic", I suppose we all agree on that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For consinstency reasons. The parent category is called Category:Catholic organizations. Dimadick (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename There certainly are some institutions, biographical articles, etc. that relate exclusively or particularly to the Latin Rite but *Roman* Catholics are only a subset of the Catholic Church in general. Even though they are 98%, it's still not an identical nomenclature and it's not proper to lump all Catholics together under Roman Catholicism in particular. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see: Roman Catholic (term)#Common misconception. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as I said in the previos discussion: If the name is unambiguous enough for the article, it's unambiguous enough for the categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Again, as I said before there's no reason for this rename. Some non-Catholics are prejudiced against 'Roman' Catholic, but there's nothing pejorative about it's use.Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose After thinking about this for a while, I have become convinced that we should move things back to Roman Catholic. The term is not synonymous with Western Rite Catholic, but with Catholics in communion with Rome.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless anyone would start an RM procedure on Catholic Church, the choice for now is between having the article at Catholic Church and the categories at Roman Catholic or having both article and category names at Catholic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedure note. I have opened a DRV of the October 2016 CFD. I suggest that closure of this discussion of sub-sub-categories should await the outcome of that DRV on the head categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The speedy request was demonstrably flawed because WP:C2D explicitly applies only when the head article has an unambiguous name, and per Catholic Church (disambiguation) that is not the case here. I am sure that this was an unintentional oversight, but it is still disappointing to see a category-experienced editor misrepresenting the criterion.
    The C2C argument is contingent on a multiply flawed CFD in October, on which I have now opened deletion review.
    Substantively, renaming these categories creates avoidable ambiguity in an utterly huge set of categories, with consequent risk of miscategorisation which will be very hard to detect -- there is no automated way of monitoring it, and far far too many categories for any human to monitor. There are probably too many of these categories for anyone to even tag them all with a hatnote to warn about the ambiguity ... that would not help much anyway, since most categorisation is done via tools such as HotCat and Cat-a-lot which don't display any hatnote to the editor.
    For me, the ambiguity is a reason not to rename, but what I don't see anywhere is any substantive argument from those supporting this change about how readers or editors would be helped by introducing intentional into such a huge swathe of categories. All I see is mechanistic arguments of "should match" ... but why blindly apply that on such a huge scale when there is ambiguity? How exactly does that help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that it is an entirely mechanical argumentation (although that was originally the case by posting the nomination for speedy). I can only agree with User:Od Mishehu: if the name is unambiguous enough for the article, it's unambiguous enough for the categories. In fact ambiguity isn't mentioned too often by opposers above, it is either misconception or a fundamental unhappiness with the main article not being at Roman Catholic Church. But the latter is a discussion we cannot have here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle, it's not a good idea (and not very AGF) to make unevidenced assertions of the motivations of other editors, so In hope you will withdraw that. For myself, I haven't formed a view on the merits of the name of the head article; my concern is that while that title may work fine for articles, ambiguity is much more problematic in category names.
    And in Marcocapelle's reply, I still see no answer to my question of how it helps readers or introduce this ambiguity to category titles. So apart from the regrettable ABF, this still looks to me like a purely mechanistic argument.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Okay let's take this from a different angle: what potential ambiguity is there in Catholic organizations? Answer: there are also independent Catholic communities who consider themselves to be Catholic while they are not in communion with the Catholic Church. Next question: do we actually have articles about organizations of independent Catholic communities? Answer: I have no idea. Next question: what harm would there be if organizations of independent Catholic communities have been or will be classified in this tree? My answer: I can't think of any. Next question: what harm would there be if we would bring articles about organisations of independent Catholic communities (if they exist) together in a subcategory within this tree? Again my answer: I can't imagine how that could be harmful either. A different question: should we parent the category into the tree of Category:Catholic Church? Answer: no, not only because we have independent Catholics, but also because there are a lot of non-ecclesiastical Catholic organizations such as Catholic trade unions and Catholic political parties. The Catholic organizations category does belong within the tree of Category:Catholicism though. So in all honesty I don't see any ambiguity problem with Catholic organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Marcocapelle's first question above, there seem to me to be probably at least a few groups which might qualify as Eastern Catholic "organizations" as per Catholic religious order. That grouping might include at least a few EC monasteries. Also, there are at least a few groups in Category:Old Catholic denominations. Groups of both types might, presumably, qualify as "Catholic" groups, but maybe not necessarily "Roman Catholic". There may be a few Old Catholic religious orders as well, I dunno. Personally, I would have no objections to a broad "Catholic" category which might contain multiple subcats for independent Catholic, Old Catholic, and Eastern Catholic along with Roman Catholic, although, perhaps, there might be some gain in having text included in the category indicating exactly what material should go where. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please see: Category:Independent Catholicism, where Category:Independent Catholic organizations consequently have its logical location, embedding Old Catholic etc. Problem solved. Chicbyaccident (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Old Catholic" and other groups that claim to be Catholic while rejecting the authority of the Pope are too small, to be worth considering in light of the fact that common use is "Catholic Church", etc. to refer to those who accept the authority of the Pope. I have read about Old Catholics much more than most, and live in a city with an Old Catholic parish, but I still have yet to come across any common use of the term Catholic Church that would suggest being more specific is useful. In fact I have known people to use the term "Roman Catholic" to mean Italian Catholics as an ethnic group, as opposed to Irish Catholics, specifically in the context of Metro-Boston ethno-religious identities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support The attempt to needlessly lengthen these names with "Roman" is a clear violation of the common name rules. The common name is Catholic Church, and this should be reflected in our category structure. I have decided my previous thoughts on the issue underestimated the importance of following common names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If something is Roman Catholic, I see it as completely unhelpful and indeed misleading to the reader not to make that clear in the article title. I think the argument that some super category simply uses the title Catholic is a red herring. The purpose of subcategorisation is to create more specific categories based on various properties. Since Catholism comes in different "flavours", I see no reason why Roman Catholic subcategories should not be called that if they contain only Roman Catholic articles and Roman Catholic sub-sub-cats (and so on recursively). Ditto categories for other kinds of catholicism as per WP:PRECISION. Kerry (talk) 13:57, 26 March 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:Dead-end pages from August 2016[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: administrative close. Category has already been deleted per WP:G6. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has been emptied Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 07:26, 4 February 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:Foreign observers of Russia[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 after partial merges to Category:Western writers about Russia or Category:Russian studies scholars. There was no consensus about the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of foreign observers of Russia, but support there for deleting the category. – Fayenatic London 12:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge actual scholars Right now this includes a list article which has entries such as "922: Ahmed ibn Fadlan travelled from Bagdad to near Kazan, saw Vikings, 1682: John Milton A Brief History of Muscovy compiled from other sources, 1687: Foy de la Neuville possibly travelled in Russia" This is a random assemblage. For the persons who are truly academics of Russian culture/history, the parent cat is appropriate. (I am also proposing the list article be deleted.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain or improve: Seems like a good category to me. No obvious reason to delete. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the people spent defining amount of time in Russia then they belong in Category:Expatriates in Russia or specific sub-cats there of. If they are Russianist scholars they belong in such categories. This hodge-podge category is just not a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category and the list article are both about those who have written about Russia, not necessarily academics. I tend to think either the category or the article could exist; I don't think both should be eliminated. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after partially moving articles to Category:Western writers about Russia or Category:Russian studies scholars, because "observing" is too vague but writing and scholars aren't as vague and we already have categories for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 6 February 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:Sexuality in the former Soviet Union[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 Category:LGBT culture in the former Soviet Union to Category:LGBT culture in the Soviet Union; this contains a film category with a single film article. User:Le Deluge has already created the first three target categories as parents over the "former SU" categories, but as those "former SU" categories mostly contain nothing about the Soviet era, I will delete them (emptying them, rather than merging the contents to Soviet Union), moving only Category:Sexuality in Russia into the top one, and LGBT history in Russia into the second one. – Fayenatic London 00:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tautologies. There is no current Soviet Union. It was dissolved in 1991. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename This matches the current article Soviet Union rather than the former Soviet Union. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, by far most content is contemporary, i.e. post-Soviet. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I took the liberty to add a third and fourth category to the nomination. The third category should be renamed or deleted consistently with the other two categories. The fourth category is the only category that has Soviet content and should be renamed, not deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment, I see now there are more similar "in the former Soviet Union" categories that are container categories with contemporary countries that were once Soviet subdivisions while these subcategories mainly have post-Soviet content. Let's leave them for a next nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 4 February 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:Fictional Yakuza members[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) 07:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category JDDJS (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Single article category with limited scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 21:20, 4 February 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:Companies based on São Tomé Island[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) 07:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT (only 2 articles). We don't have anywhere near enough coverage either of São Tomé Island or of the Category:Companies of São Tomé and Príncipe to need such a narrow category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 4 February 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 Zaire[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. Small category (only one battle included) and the consensus is leaning 'keep'. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Zaire was renamed to Democratic Republic of the Congo. Same country, same borders, different regime. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "Zaire" was just a different name of the same entity. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection. But do we have guidelines about how to handle countries - or geographical entities - which change their names? When the battle, which is the only thing in the category, took place it was called Zaire. Should there, in principle, be two categories?Rathfelder (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might have two categories, in theory, but that's not very meaningful with the little content we currently have. A better alternative is to proceed with renaming the nominated category and add the one article also to Category:Zaire. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The change of names was connected to a change of regime in control. It is a different country and we should categorize battles by the actual countries involved, not modern approximations of what the countries were.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is substantially the same country even while under different names. It was called Democratic Republic of the Congo before and after it was called Zaire. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- At the time the county was called Zaire. It did not involve DRC, which did not then have that name. It will however be appropriate for it to remain in a DRC tree. That is exactly how we handle year categories, which are the closest precedent I can think of. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that just a name change turns a country into a different country. For categorization, of course we may create categories containing the alternative name (because the alternative name reflects another period of history) insofar sufficient content for these categories is available, but we don't have to make the tree with the alternative name as refined as the main tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it is almost an apples-and-pears comparison (the change in Zimbabwe was way more impactful than in Congo/Zaire), for categorization I would still argue that Rhodesia is a (notable and defining) period in the history of Zimbabwe, rather than a different country. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 7 February 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_February_4&oldid=1074283414"