Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 10 November 12 >

November 11[edit]

Category:Television series set in Joseon Dynasty[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. In future, please remember to appropriately tag the category. This case is sufficiently straightforward that I am ignoring the tagging requirement. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the correct way to write it and it also matches other categories of the same type such as Category:Films set in the Joseon Dynasty. Nicholas0 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, can you really set something in a dynasty? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname otherwise -- the Joseon dynasty ruled Korea for some 500 years until 1897. Category:Television series set in Joseon Korea would be a clearer title as most of us do not know what Joseon signifies. The rest of the tree (films, etc.) needs to be renamed to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This s part of a set of articles and sub-categories in Category:Joseon Dynasty, e.g. History of the Joseon Dynasty. I think that it would be desirable to have a Requested Move discussion to rename them using "Kingdom of Joseon" or "Kingdom of Great Joseon" rather than "dynasty". Meanwhile, rename as nominated; it could have been a speedy nomination for consistency. IMHO Peter's suggestion would be anachronistic as "Great British United Kingdom" for the Kingdom of Great Britain. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 16 November 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:American people of Huguenot 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: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rational To begin with, this category was deleted before, and then recreated in defiance of that deletion. The rational still stands. Huguenot's are help up in reliable sources as an example of a religious group that integrated into the mainstream of American society so well they ceased to exist. I have at least one, probably two Huguenot ancestors, but that is in no way defining to who I am 400 years later. This is a non-defining fact to most people involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or heavily purge -- The main Huguenot emigration from France was after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in the 1680s and the following decades. Even the American Revolution is 80-90 years after that, some three generations later, by which time the majority of Huguenots will have bene assimilated. The exception may be communities in London, associated with French churches there. By that stage, we are talking categorising a person when about 1 in 8 ancestors was a French Protestant. We are now about 335 years since the Revocation, at least 12 generations after it, at which point we each have 4000 ancestors from that generation. That one person among 4000 was a Huguenot is an utterly NN characteristic; if it were 500, it might be different. My purge alternative would involve limiting it to a people a few generations after the Revocation or with a large number of ancestry line that qualify. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Eustachiusz (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete American towns were founded by Huguenots. Churches and houses named after Huguenots are still standing. Living Americans have surnames inherited from Huguenots. Genealogical books about American Huguenots are still being published. There are many ethnicities in my ancestry, but I will always take great pride in being an American of Huguenot descent. Aqchampion (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NON-DEFINING, WP:DNWAUC etc (and this applies to all/most descent categories). E.g. Marlon Brando is well categorized byCategory:20th-century American male actors - it's silly to categorize him by the nationality of a great^n-grandparent. DexDor (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. I have Huguenot ancestors too, but I'm not defined by the fact — I'm not even defined by the fact that they were French, because they left France in the mid-1700s, went to Prussia, and got assimilated as culturally German and religiously Lutheran by the time any ancestor I'm ever actually going to have so much as a photograph of was born. So their Huguenotness is just an interesting bit of genealogical trivia, not anything that actually had any effect whatsoever on my upbringing — it's a thing I didn't even know at all until I found a couple of distant cousins from that line, who had already researched the line further back than I knew, on a genealogy site within the past few years. While everything Aqchampion said above is true, those are reasons for an article about American Huguenots, not a category for them. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 14 November 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:American obstetricians[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. ℯxplicit 04:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost all of these doctors are both obstetricians‎ and gynecologists. The speciality seems to be generally called Obs/Gyn Rathfelder (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although in the US at least it is normally abbreviated Ob/gyn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as in the United States these are definitely closely associated practices. This is like having separate categories for nose doctors and throat doctors. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 21:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – we have the distinct trees Category:Obstetricians by nationality and Category:Gynaecologists by nationality. People who are both should be in both. Oculi (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is almost all of them, though at present some are categorised as obs, some as gyn, and some as both. It may well be the same in the rest of the world. Rathfelder (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See Obstetrics and gynaecology Rathfelder (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I checked a random subset of articles in both categories and in about 60% of the articles in each of the two categories the person is described as a obstetrician‎ and gynecologist. Taking in mind that the article texts may sometimes a bit inaccurate, the true percentage of overlap may be slightly higher. Imho there is too much overlap to keep the categories separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Oculi. While these category trees do overlap significantly, they are ultimately distinct and were kept separate just last month. We should not merge individual nationalities as long as the parent categories are kept separate. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:53, 25 December 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:American gynecologists[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. ℯxplicit 04:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost all of these doctors are both obstetricians‎ and gynecologists Rathfelder (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure whether the situation is the same in other countries. We may want to merge all of them. But there is no reason why a combined category cannot have two parents. Rathfelder (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the combined category be (a) for people who are both an obstetrician‎ and a gynecologist or (b) for people who are either? DexDor (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further inspection I'm proposing to merge all the gynecologists and obstetricians. Although there are two separate fields of expertise the practitioners are almost entirely active in both. Rathfelder (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge In the US there is way too much of an overlap between practitioners to make two categories reasonable. For that matter, having looked at some of the medical doctors by country sub-cats, I think we have a need to prune a lot. We have far too many single entry categories throughout this tree for a reasonable structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I checked a random subset of articles in both categories and in about 60% of the articles in each of the two categories the person is described as a obstetrician‎ and gynecologist. Taking in mind that the article texts may sometimes a bit inaccurate, the true percentage of overlap may be slightly higher. Imho there is too much overlap to keep the categories separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Justin and Oculi. While these category trees do overlap significantly, they are ultimately distinct and were kept separate just last month. We should not merge individual nationalities as long as the parent categories are kept separate. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:54, 25 December 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:Historic centre of Córdoba, Andalusia[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 December 25#Category:Historic centre of Córdoba, Andalusia. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, it doesn't add anything to Category:Buildings and structures in Córdoba, Andalusia. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:52, 11 November 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.

Years and decades in Sri Lanka up to 1800[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/delete as nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just one article per category. The bottom part of the nomination (with deletion proposals) consists of container categories that naturally become empty after implementing the proposed merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 11 November 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:Beet the Vandel Buster[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. In the future, please double-check that the smallcat being nominated isn't housing article that should be recategorised in the parent categories of the nominated category. The Bushranger One ping only 09:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 12:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 11 November 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:Magical Princess Minky Momo[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. The Bushranger One ping only 09:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 12:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 11 November 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:Cold War (1945-47)[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, echoing User:Peterkingiron's sentiment that deletion does not suggest that the proposed articles might not be useful, but that the category itself is not needed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently a WP:SMALLCAT with only one page, and I don't see a reason for such a specific and arbitrary date range. This isn't a separate Cold War with these dates, but this is a small sliver of the overall Cold War. -- Tavix (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the lable WP:SMALLCAT for this category. First of all I can translate for English Wikipedia the article «Cold War» at the coast of Pacific Ocean (to write the artickle in English Wikipedia under similar title). I do not know how to mentioned category for the part of article Greece history as this part History of Greece#Greek Civil War (1944–1949) was not only Civil War, it was strugle of Greece communists and monarhy and communists had support from the USSR, monurhy from the capitalists countries camp. This period of Greece history can be mentioned as Cold War period also from 1945 to 1949. Here I have to pay attention that families of Greece communists and the rest of communists were replaced in the USSR during the war and on the end of war and this repatriation can be mentioned as separate article also. I was talking with one Greece woman which family was replaced to the USSR and she tald me her parents history how Soviet cargo ships with Greece communists passed Turkish Straits (Dardanelles and Bosphorus): the Greeks including woomen and children were placed in down cargo holds on tweendeckers and the cargo was loaded on tweendecks due to Turkish checked the ships with dogs and to awoid any dog will catch the smell of people Greeks had to be places under cargoes. After arrival in Black Sea Soviet port the Greeks were replaced (repatriated) to the Midle Asia of the USSR by rail way due to Greeks were mentioned as unreliable. This can be also separate article which can be included in the Category:Cold War (1945-47). I have to pay attention that after World War II the Civile Intelligence actiones were increased and in 1946-1953 the USSR commenced to reorganize own Intelligence activety due to ne possibilities with radio and electronic after World War II. I already wrote three articles which were included in Category:Cold War statues due to this statues were planned in 1946-1947 and Josef Stalin took part in this. Smebody placed other articles in this category but this other articles about other statues are not Cold War statues as this statues did not take part in Soviet Intelligence. My article often shorted by unknown persons which mostly registred for short period and did not ask me about it. It is whiy my articles of Category:Cold War statues were shorted and nobody understand now why this statues are Cold War Statues. This my article were shorted:

As confirmation I cab add one more article Statue of Afanasy Nikitin, Tver which was added by the sculptor, which added previous Cold War Statues, and the person from the Tver was Frol Kozlov, - he has the right hand of Nikita Khrushchev and Soviet cargo ships reported directly to Frol Kozlov in case any incident at sea during voyage to Cuba including Cuban Crisis. Due to I mentioned Cuban Crisis I want to pay attention for following relation:

Only onemy article regarding Cold War remained more or less in maden condition: Mister X (1958 film). Can be it is due to Rossia editors see that this film give good profit with this explanation. But I wrote the truth. I have pay attention that names of this fim heroes were used in Soviet intelligence in 1980-s also as I was marked as Toni: Two girls with the same Soviet femail name Tonya were sent to me and in case I married with one of them I can be named on Russian "Toni boy". It is the same is Lenin who changed family name to Lenin:

  • or due to he was resettled in Sibiria as revolutioned as revolutioner and Lena River, whith was named due to femail name Lena.
  • or durу to he had girlfriend or womanfriend Lena

In both cases he can be named as Lena Boy, but on Russian it is Lenin Boy or Boy of Leny. In cas I have girlfriend Tonya I can be named as Tonya Boy, but on Russian it is Tonin Boy or Boy of Toni. So I can be named Toni in case relationships with Tony. It is ald Russian Revolutionery posibilities to code the name or nick name. Regarding the article Mister X (1958 film) and article Glikeriya Bogdanova-Chesnokova, one of the main actresses of this film, I can plus that my sister was named so that had similar short mane as Glikeriya Bogdanova-Chesnokova, this short name is Lika. I am from Odessa and Glikeriya Bogdanova-Chesnokova was married the brother of Leonid Utyosov, both nrothers were from Odessa and were powerfull persons for this city. One more artist of Mister X (1958 film) was from Odessa also. It was commencement oа the Soviet Intelligence actions via my family in Odessa but finaly the family was disorganized to govern by KGB properly and to place the family in the worst situation to take result for the Intelligence and KGB. As result, I had to start Own Backward Intellugence to destroy all and I nade it succesfully to safe family, the rest of family. It was due to my mother's family name is Zhukovskaya and Zhukovsky family was old historic family from Prusia territory but before Prusia was added. One more article can be written for Category:Cold War (1945-47): Repatriation or replacement of German population from Prussia in 1945-1947 years. The general Georgiy Zhukov was one of Soviet generals who took part in military operations and replacememnt of population operation on Prussia Terriroty. It is very interesting that the general Georgiy Zhukov and his family was placed in Intelligence activity and mostly population has not know it as this period was mentioned as Georgiy Zhukov opal and this opal commenced from Odessa, he was a the main General in Odessa military district in 1946-1947 and during his power in Odessa the antenna field was built at Odessa to have radio connection up to Indian Ocean and Gibraltar Strait area. Due to Georgiy Zhukov took part in repatriation of population from Prussia could be plenty questions to him and the imitation of his opal had place. But Zhukovsky family was represented as the native people of Prussia territory and in this case repatriated Germany populatios could be named as occupants and in this case USSR may not back Prussia. Only other side is here also. Zhukov family no need Zhukovsky family as Georgiy Zhukov took part in military operations in Russia in 1945 and in case Prussia will back the Zhukov family can be leaders of this country. It is why Zhukovsky family was used to substitute Zhukov family dueing heavy Intelligence period and that was attemption to kill some male members of Zhukovsky family as men are bearers of the surnames. I was happy to remain alife due to USA and GB Intelligence support, Lucky Dog due to alife and Sea Dog due to seaman. On my opinion this category must be and USA historics have to check Cold War period and theremore the first time termin "cold war" was mentioned in Octoner 1945. Following articles can be wrote and placed in Category:Cold War (1945-47):

It is very bad that my articles shorted mostly as articles of Category:Cold War statues can not be mentioned in present shorted condition as Cold War Statues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Грищук ЮН (talk • contribs) ---

  • Delete - This adds nothing to Category:Cold War history of the Soviet Union, in which the one article is already categorised. If it were not there already, I would have voted to merge. I observe that Category:Aftermath of World War II in the Soviet Union and Russia and at least two other articles relating to 1945-8 (before Churchill's Iron Curtain speech and the Berlin airlift) are already in that Soviet cold war category. There are many articles that could go in the category that we are discussing, but it is covering much too short a period for such a category to be useful. I am not suggesting that the proposed articles might not be useful, if we so not have something similar already. It is just that the category under discussion is not necessary. I hope that the contributor Грищук ЮН can provide a lot of useful articles; but please not new categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is more an issue for article space, since we do not have an article Cold War (1945-47) and the above content might fit in that. But if written, that article should be placed in Category:Cold War by period, not in the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 19 November 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_November_11&oldid=1138411309"