Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 6 January 8 >

January 7[edit]

Category:Recipients of King Christian X's Liberty Medal[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) feminist 12:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The King Christian X's Liberty Medals were issued in 1946 and were equivalent to a sort of campaign medal for the people outside of Denmark that helped during World War II. Recipients include Winston Churchill and Nils Swedlund and, while most article do mention the award in passing, a campaign medal from a foreign country does not seem defining. If we decide to delete this cateogry, the recipients are already listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified AusTerrapin as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Denmark. – RevelationDirect (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a category that is defining for individuals such as Winston Churchill.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining. Also, the category is quite small and with no scope for expansion, so the list of recipients on the article about the medal is perfectly sufficient. Jellyman (talk) 13:49, 28 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.

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: relisted here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 4 February 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]
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:International boy bands[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:Boy bands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has an ambiguous rationale. What is an "international boy band"? There is no article/definition for that. With no definition, articles are unverifiable for adding to it. Without a definition, we also cannot conclude this is a defining characteristic for anything. I pinged the category's creator asking for an explanation of the category in October, and I've received no response. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought this might be boy bands with members from multiple countries that didn't fit into a nationality cateogry. But Backstreet Boys is in there apparently because they did a few concerts in other countries. Seems pretty WP:PERFCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename This category may have been created to cater for boy bands that included members from more than one country. Very good examples would be Latin American bands composed of members from various countries. Or boy bands made of Americans and Europeans in one band or Americans and Asians or African bands with members from various countries in Africa. Probably poorly named and up for deletion, we need to come up with an alternative category for such bands that do not have one clear ethnic origin. werldwayd (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without a clearly defined scheme, I say upmerge to Category:Boy bands. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The normal practice is to put things in a parent where we cannot put them in a more specific one, not to have a special one for items that do not fit. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per above. From my perspective 98 Degrees are international while for an American Take That are... and neither contain "boys" any more... And some of the bands actually included in the category, including 3+2 and La Pandilla, are mixed-gender... Furthermore, both of those appear to consist of members from the same country (Belarus and Spain, respectively) so the idea of "members from more than one country" doesn't fit either. I might finally point out that some of articles appear to be worthy of CfD which may help solve any nagging doubts... For example, even Yandex has very little of note on 3+2 and es:La Pandilla (banda) is entirely unsourced — Iadmc♫talk  20:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge is fine by me if my delete vote above would remove some articles from this tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 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:Roman Catholic lay ecclesial movements[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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as it's not clear how the inclusion criteria of the two categories differ. Roman Catholic lay ecclesial movement is a redirect to Catholic lay organisations which is also listed as a main article on the category page. Potentially we could create Category:Associations of the faithful per the other main article but that would simply be a new category, not the successor of this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - They sound like much the same thing. Leave a cat-redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as a Catholic, I don't get the difference either and clicking through the various articles doesn't help much. Perhaps the difference is between those initiated by lay people (and not necessarily accepted by the magisterium) and those initiated by the magisterium (on behalf of the laity), but I don't know... — Iadmc♫talk  20:44, 11 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.

Category:Catholic lay societies[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) feminist 08:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as it's not clear how the inclusion criteria of the two categories differ. The two categories share the same main article Catholic lay organisations. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 7 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.

Category:Municipal districts in Nova Scotia[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: Withdrawn by nom. Hwy43 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The official name of this municipal status type in Nova Scotia (NS) is "district municipality" not "municipal district" as evidence by NS legislation that is the primary and definitive source of official municipal status type names, the Municipal Government Act, and other provincial publications such as this. Hwy43 (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BrownHairedGirl, it is evident I need to provide a bit more rationale to help overcome perceived primary usage perpetuated by StatCan incorrectly referring to these as "municipal districts" rather than "district municipalities". Further, there are five articles (as you noted) affected that perpetuate StatCan's error as well. I'll be back to bolster. Please keep an open mind! ;) Hwy43 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hwy43: no prob, I'm open to persuasion. But if there is a prob with article titles, it's usually best to start by getting a consensus to rename them (via WP:RM), because CD tends to usually prefer category names to follow article names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, thanks. I'm realizing this as I prepare my additional rationale. Once presented here, I may request this be placed on hold pending an outcome of moves on the five affected articles. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional background: Nova Scotia (NS) has 12 district municipalities, British Columbia (BC) has 50 district municipalities, and Alberta (AB) has 64 municipal districts. Statistics Canada (StatCan) recognizes all as census subdivisions (CSDs) for census purposes. However, for decades, StatCan has incorrectly classified NS’s "district municipalities" as "municipal districts" (like AB’s municipal status type) in its CSD type classifications. As a result, the error is perpetuated through numerous official census publications. For example, the census profile for Guysborough then explicitly states, in error, that the CSD is a "municipal district". As StatCan is traditionally one of the most definitive and reliable sources for population and demographic information for Canadian communities, its error has been observed and replicated into Wikipedia as perceived common usage.

A close look at the Google Hits provided above by BrownHairedGirl reveals that the majority in each search actually refer to district municipalities and municipal districts beyond NS. For the "district municipalities" search, all but three refer to "district municipalities" in BC, Ontario or elsewhere around the world. There are three however that refer to NS’s district municipalities using the proper term. [1] [2] [3]

For the "municipal districts" search, the vast majority refer to AB’s municipal districts. Of the few hits that remain truly in NS, the majority of them refer to "municipal districts" as being electoral districts (i.e., wards) within regional or county municipalities. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Dartmouth is no longer a municipality in Nova Scotia. It is within the Halifax Regional Municipality, while Richmond is a county municipality. In the Barrington article, it is evident "municipal district" is being referred to as the ward within the municipality vacated by an elected official. For full disclosure, there are 4 hits of the >100 that perpetuate the StatCan mischaracterization of NS’s district municipalities. [9] [10] [11] [12]

This scrutinization reveals that the common name of the municipality status type in inconclusive using a Google News search.

What I intend to do in the meantime is clean up the 12 district municipality articles so that they reflect factual accuracy and then move the five that have "municipal district" in their titles as I recognize CfD prefers category names to follow article names. Hwy43 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for Now/Wrong Venue Per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related page's name. I think your approach above is correct: get a consensus to change the article names first and, if and when that's done, by all means rename the categories. (No opinion on the underlying proposal on the naming.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: and @BrownHairedGirl: Is there a way to simply put this discussion on hold while I consult on the larger matter elsewhere rather than withdraw and then restart this? Hwy43 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hwy43: I would just withdraw it and then (cutting and pasting this same text) resubmit it later. The reason is that you'll get the majority of the feedback within 2 days and I'm afraid that, if this sits in an CFD older day, we probably won't get input later. (As a side note, if the article renames are non-controversial, you could also run these category updates through the speedy process here: WP:CFDS.) Hope that helps! RevelationDirect (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect:, thanks. Please consider this my request to withdraw this CfD until if and when the five affected articles are moved first. If you wouldn't mind, either please close this as withdrawn on my behalf or point me to instructions so that I can do so myself. In the meantime, I've started a feeler discussion on the move of the five articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nova Scotia#Municipal districts are actually district municipalities (potential article moves) and have specifically pinged the non-blocked editors that created the articles or processed previous moves of the articles. In the event the moves are deemed uncontroversial through that discussion, I wouldn't mind bypassing the formal requested move process. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:17, 8 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.

Category:Edmund Blunden[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: Already deleted by request of creator. Bduke (Discussion) 05:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. Shelley: A Life Story should be category should be under Category:Books by Edmund Blunden. Tim! (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia only has one article about a book by Edmund Blunden, so the proposed "books by Edmund Blunden" category makes no sense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would however fit into the tree Category:Books by writer which has many 1 member categories. Tim! (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If your suggestion is that Category:Edmund Bluden, and the similar categories I've recently created, be deleted, and replaced with 1 member categories for books then I've no objection, if the rationale is that this is consistent with the existing category structure. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:28, 7 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.

Pop punk (musical) groups[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 according to Option A. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pop punk groups and/or some of its subcats to a common format
OPTION A: Pop punk groups
Nominator's rationale: 3 of these categories (including the top-level) are called "Pop punk groups", but the other 14 are called "Pop punk musical groups". These should be standardised, to one format or the other.
I prefer Option A "Pop punk groups", because it is shorter and I think the word "musical" is superfluous. The head article is Pop punk, and there is also a List of pop punk bands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 7 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/2017_January_7&oldid=1138410875"