Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 16

< June 15	June 17 >

June 16[edit]

Category:Fictional beauticians[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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 6#Category:Fictional beauticians. ℯ xplicit 00:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional beauticians to Category:Fictional beauticians and cosmetologists

Nominator's rationale: more inclusive; main article covers specialists such as "Esthetician", "Beautician", etc. All these names redirect to article. --Omanyd (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With the ongoing effort to close the "wage gap" for women, I've learned that most got cheated by virtue of a lower wage "job title" that performed the equivalent work of a "higher wage" one. That got me thinking and so I am curious. What is consensus of various Category:Fictional characters by occupation categories with distinct job titles; yet they technically synonymous and/or perform the same job function? (i.e. garbage-boy, janitor, custodian, etc.)

Support To make the category more inclusive. Dimadick (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question, do we really need this kind of categories? I can imagine that we have categories for fictional law enforcement agents, fictional slaves, fictional pirates, i.e. for any occupation that really defines the fiction. But beautician seems just too trivial and non-defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we have a parent Category:Beauticians but none for cosmetologists. What's good enough for real people is good enough for fictional characters. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 30 June 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 housewives[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete, nor to rename. The current name matches the real-life parent Category:Housewives. If any male characters come to mind where this role is defining, I suggest creating an intermediate level called Category:Fictional stay-at-home parents to match the other parent category. – Fayenatic London 07:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional housewives to:

Category:Fictional homemakers (Gendered-neutral term)
Category:Fictional housewives and househusbands (inclusive)
Category:Fictional female homemakers (consistent with Category:Fictional females by occupation)

Nominator's rationale: with the increasing "stay-at-home" dads/husbands, media is bound to reflect the culture. --Omanyd (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, we already have a rather under-used Category:Stay-at-home parents which would be a suitable umbrella category. I'm trying hard to think of any fictional househusbands (or real life ones) to justify un-gendering the nominated cats. Sionk (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question, do we really need this kind of categories? I can imagine that we have categories for fictional law enforcement agents, fictional slaves, fictional pirates, i.e. for any occupation that really defines the fiction. But housewife or homemaker seems just too trivial and non-defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly consider homemakers/housewifes/stay-at-home-parents to be trivial. Most households and families would collapse without them! Sionk (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Too common a characteristic is require a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you clarify your comment? "is require" does not make much sense. Do you mean that the characteristic requires a category, or that it does not? Dimadick (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had read this as "to require" instead of "is require", but maybe User:Peterkingiron should confirm. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a trivial characteristic for fictional characters, who are defined by this role. Dimadick (talk) 17:48, 2 July 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:Libertyville District 70[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) 09:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Libertyville District 70 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unlikely to ever have more than 1 article: This is a grade school district, and it's unlikely to have subtopics that meet notability criteria. Closeapple (talk) 08:30, 16 June 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.

17th-century Dutch people by occupation[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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 4. – Fayenatic London 07:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch theologians to Category:17th-century Dutch people, Category:Dutch theologians and Category:17th-century Christian theologians
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch musicians to Category:17th-century Dutch people, Category:Dutch musicians and Category:17th-century musicians
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch economists to Category:17th-century Dutch people, Category:Dutch economists and Category:17th-century economists
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch jurists to Category:17th-century Dutch people, Category:Dutch jurists and Category:17th-century jurists
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch physicists to Category:17th-century Dutch scientists, Category:Dutch physicists and Category:17th-century physicists
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch astronomers to Category:17th-century Dutch scientists, Category:Dutch astronomers and Category:17th-century astronomers
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch microbiologists to Category:17th-century Dutch scientists and Category:Dutch microbiologists
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch naturalists to Category:17th-century Dutch scientists, Category:Dutch naturalists and Category:17th-century naturalists
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch anatomists to Category:17th-century Dutch scientists and Category:Dutch anatomists

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, again a series of scattered Dutch history categories created by User:Hocimi. Note, perhaps "scientist" is an anachronistic target, but we have scientists categorized as such in earlier centuries as well, so let's leave that discussion for another time. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support but natural philosophers, not scientists, though parented in the scientists tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Category:17th-century naturalists is supposed to contain natural philosophers. This may be an acceptable alternative merge target instead of Category:17th-century scientists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron and Marcocapelle: please specify for which of the last five categories you are agreeing to vary the nomination. Physicists, astronomers, microbiologists, naturalists and anatomists are all nominated for merging to scientists; which of these are changing? – Fayenatic London 10:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Option B

Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch theologians to Category:17th-century Dutch people, Category:Dutch theologians and Category:17th-century Christian theologians
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch musicians to Category:17th-century Dutch people, Category:Dutch musicians and Category:17th-century musicians
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch economists to Category:17th-century Dutch people, Category:Dutch economists and Category:17th-century economists
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch jurists to Category:17th-century Dutch people, Category:Dutch jurists and Category:17th-century jurists
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch physicists to Category:17th-century Dutch naturalists, Category:Dutch physicists and Category:17th-century physicists
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch astronomers to Category:17th-century Dutch naturalists, Category:Dutch astronomers and Category:17th-century astronomers
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch microbiologists to Category:17th-century Dutch naturalists and Category:Dutch microbiologists
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch scientists to Category:17th-century Dutch naturalists
Propose merging Category:17th-century Dutch anatomists to Category:17th-century Dutch naturalists and Category:Dutch anatomists

This is what I believe the alternative proposal should look like. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:54, 1 July 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:Exploration ships of the Netherlands[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. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Exploration ships of the Netherlands to Category:Exploration ships of the Dutch Republic

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, these are all 16th-18th century ships of the Dutch Republic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename as proposed. Josh (talk) 16:35, 16 June 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.

Organisations based in Bolivia[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 per option B, to use -s- spelling. – Fayenatic London 22:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Option A - "Organisations" to "Organizations"

Category:Organisations based in Bolivia to Category:Organizations based in Bolivia

Option B - "Organizations" to "Organisations"

Rationale: These categories all have the same national scope, so they should have the same ENGVAR usage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussions have been opened to handle similar issues for other countries
Brazil - closed as Organisations Greece - closed as Organizations Iran - closed as Organisations Poland - closed as Organisations Israel - closed as Organizations Puerto Rico - closed as Organizations France - still open Angola - still open Turkey - still open

Option A Per WP:RETAIN and to be consistent with the parent category, Category:Organisations based in Bolivia which has been stable for more than a decade. Also, the majority of child cats use the same spelling as the parent, so there are less categories to rename with option A. AusLondonder (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Option A per AusLondonder. I do agree that the outcome should be A or B (and not 'no decision'). Most of Category:Organizations based in South America by country use 's', surprisingly. Oculi (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~OPtion A~~ since it is in the Americas. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This nomination was originally closed as rename as option A at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 29#Organisations based in Bolivia. However, Oculi pointed out option B is what they mean here. Relisting for clarification. Pinging Od Mishehu, AusLondonder, and Peterkingiron.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Option B - use 'S', is the correct implication of WP:RETAIN. (I have made this error twice now. Perhaps I should avoid these cfds.) Oculi (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Option A. Normally I would never engage in 's' versus 'z' discussions but in this case Peterkingiron may have a fair point in the sense that it's perhaps confusing if countries are just randomly assigned to a 's' or 'z' spelling. For consistency reasons it may make sense to have this organis/zed per continent. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 of the 13 in Category:Organizations based in South America by country use 's', so consistency would favour 's'. Oculi (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I would expect that the current 10-3 distribution is entirely coincidental. My earlier preference for option A was admittedly based on treating the Americas as one continent (which may not be completely fair) and moreover option A is what I think Wikipedia users would expect the spelling to be in South America (which is actually more important). Still, more important than the actual choice of s or z is that it should apply to all of South America. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S per consensus above (changed vote). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 18 June 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.