Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 22

< November 21	November 23 >

November 22[edit]

Category:Wikipedia award master templates[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 specified by Black Falcon. ℯ xplicit 01:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedia award master templates to Category:Barnstar award templates

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT according to its info text. Raison d'être unclear. Thus unclear why not to. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge {{Barnstar}} to Category:Barnstar award templates and the others to Category:Wikipedia award templates. This appears to be an attempt to separate "master" versions of award templates from more specific, hardcoded versions, but this can be done just as easily using sort keys. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:51, 23 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:Aliyah in ancient times[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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Aliyah in ancient times to Category:Aliyah

Nominator's rationale: upmerge as an unneeded category layer with just one single subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge as unnecessary layer, yes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 24 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:Indigenous Australians from Western Australia[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, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indigenous Australians from Western Australia to Category:Indigenous Australian people from Western Australia

Nominator's rationale: C2.C per Category:Indigenous Australian people and Category:People from Western Australia. I am listing the category here instead of WP:CFD/S because it was previously nominated with a "no consensus" outcome, mainly due to lack of agreement on whether the category is needed. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Tentatively, but there is something delicate and sensitive, and sore, to suggest that Indigenous Australian people are not Australians. In "Indigenous Australian people", Australian may be read as possessive, as in "Australia's indigenous people(s)", which is the historical embarrassment. Instead, I suggest renaming Category:Indigenous Australian people to Category:Indigenous Australians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note the parent article, "Indigenous Australians". Follow the parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization of people is one instance where we consistently follow the [X] people format in preference to the parent articles (see e.g. Americans and Category:American people), which are woefully inconsistent. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For as long as I have visited CfD, the rule "category names follow the name of the parent article" has been always the right thing to do. A lot more people invest a lot more effort into article titles. Category:American people has an error in its header following the 2011 RM Talk:Americans/Archive_1#Requested_move_.28second_non-archived_request_on_page.29. These indigenous Australian categories are quite a mess. I would fix them starting from the top. Rename Category:Indigenous Australian people to Category:Indigenous Australians to follow the parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As with every rule, there are exceptions. There is a distinct advantage to having all nationality categories use either Fooian people or Fooians consistently, as opposed to a messy mix of the two formats. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I was suggesting, of course, but that's an interesting observation. Are you concerned, then, that Indigenous Australian people would be confused with Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia? If so, that could suggest a need to rename Category:Indigenous Australian people, but to what? Indigenous Australians could be confused just as easily (more so, in my opinion), so the exclusion or inclusion of the word "people" may not make much difference. There's also the poorly named Category:Australian people of Indigenous Australian descent, which appears to be identical in scope to Category:Indigenous Australian people. Hmm... this is stickier than I thought, though I still think for now we should align this category with its parent. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have specific worries, just big broad worries that the whole tree is a mess. Category:Australian people of Indigenous Australian descent has some scarily sensitive connotations, it touches issues with bad blood. It has no parent article, such an article would have POV issues. Try searching Wikipedia for "Australian people of Indigenous Australian descent". The first focused articles listed are Stolen Generations and List of massacres of Indigenous Australians. The category has few members. It should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I'll do some more digging/cleanup and nominate that one shortly. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:15, 25 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:Insects of Spain[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, move articles to Category:Insects of Europe if applicable. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Insects of Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Insects of Austria

Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted and recreated without explanation - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_19#Category:Insects_of_Andorra. WP:NON-DEFINING (e.g. see Udea uliginosalis). Fauna-by-country is much better handled by lists than by categories. Could upmerge to Category:Insects of Europe, but probably unnecessary. DexDor^(talk) 16:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the national area covered is non-defining to the iscects. We could have a list article, but a category is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 26 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:My hero academia[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) 18:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:My hero academia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT). —Farix (t | c) 10:47, 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) 07:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Once we get to four or five articles, WP:SMALLCAT no longer really applies. This is suitable and useful. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom, after upmerging the main article only. I absolutely disagree that WP:SMALLCAT no longer applies at 4–5 articles, and this is a case in point: the value added by this category is very limited considering how closely and visibly the 4 articles are interlinked. A navigation template may be appropriate here, but there is simply not enough content to warrant an eponymous category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and !vote - if kept, it should be renamed to Category:My Hero Academia per key article. Can't really see the point in keeping it though - all there is are three lists which would be better linked from each other in "See also" sections. Grutness...wha? 13:33, 24 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:Historic capitals[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. ℯ xplicit 01:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Historic capitals to Category:Former national capitals

Nominator's rationale: largely overlapping categories Zanhe (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Current title is also misleading - all current capitals are also historic. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Same scope. Dimadick (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The merge proposed is inappropriate as it stands, because the contents consists of any sort of "capital" city in ancient Egypt, many of which aren't by any measure national capitals. For instance, it contains a number of "provincial" capitals, whatever "province" is supposed to mean in that historical context. I think all the contents are also in Category:Cities in Ancient Egypt, or I would suggest merging it there. Mangoe (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, a renaming to Category:Former capitals would make sense - the current name still isn't appropriate for the reason I mentioned above. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, Merge to Category:Former capitals of Egypt, which seems to cover much the same ground, and purge if necessary. However, I suspect that this amounts in practice to the same thing as Delete. This may seem an odd target in the light of the apparent scope, but in fact, as far as I can see, it is entirely about Egypt. Nevertheless, I am not an Egyptologist and have not checked every article. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron, this category is a duplicate of Category:Former capitals of Egypt. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:41, 26 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.