Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 12 August 14 >

August 13[edit]

Anglicanism in French Polynesia[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 the third to Category:Protestant missionaries in French Polynesia; the sole member of the fourth is already in Category:French Polynesian Protestant missionaries, so that and the otherwise-empty parents can be deleted. – Fayenatic London 23:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of these pages are people who are of the Anglican Church and no sources claim they are Evangelical Anglicans. They are all members of the London Missionary Society which is made of up of Evangelical Anglicanism and other reformed denominations. “The London Missionary Society was a missionary society formed in England in 1795 by evangelical Anglicans and various nonconformists. It was largely Reformed in outlook, with Congregational missions in Oceania, Africa, and the Americas, although there were also Presbyterians (notable for their work in China), Methodists, Baptists and various other Protestants involved. It now forms part of the Council for World Mission (CWM).”. None of the articles themselves seem to source that the four individuals pages: Auna (missionary), Henry Nott, George Pritchard (missionary) and Lancelot Threlkeld were specifically Evangelical Anglican members of the LMS, so it is not appropriate to use these categories on those pages. Not all LMS members to French Polynesia are located in these categories either for example William Ellis (missionary) is identified as a Congregationalist. I propose deletion and moving the four pages back to generalized Protestant categories. KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Protestant sibling or parent categories, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure -- This whole tree contains a total of four articles. All concern London Missionary Society. My impression is that this was primarily a congregational mission, though the article says others were involved. The missionaries (except a native who was sent to Hawaii) were all English. LMS was responsible for evangelising much of the Pacific. Whether the people were Anglican or Congregationalists in England they were LMS missionaries in the field and founded an LMS-related church. It is much more to the point to call them LMS missionaries, rather than by their English denomination thus Category:Protestantism in French Polynesia and Category:London Missionary Society missionaries in French Polynesia and merge the rest into this. I suspect there will be some siblings for LMS missionaries in British protectorates in the Pacific. I know 4 articles is rather small for a category, but I expect there is scope for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea but it requires a Category:London Missionary Society missionaries to begin with, and it is not certain that this category will become big enough for diffusion by receiving country. Anyway that idea can be implemented in parallel while the nominated categories can be merged as discussed before. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2018 (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 science fiction conventions[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) 06:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scope note is abitrary (not US or Europe). The concept doesn't appear to exist outside of this category. Fuddle (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete International conventions should be ones that have a presence in multiple countries not ones outside of certain continents. The two examples they use for rotating conventions are Worldcon which is primarily held in the US and Europe and SMOFcon which doesn't appear to ever been held outside of Europe or the US. GameInfirmary Talk 23:25, 13 August 2018 (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:People associated with Conway Hall Ethical Society[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/2018 September 4#Category:People associated with Conway Hall Ethical Society. ℯxplicit 04:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCASSOC, the society is not even mentioned at all in most of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Peterkingiron's comment suggest that this may be a significant group of people, whose involvement in this society is defining because of their historical influence. The category is therefore worth further discussion. I have just tagged the category talk page with WP Philosophy, Religion, UK etc which may spur further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on relisting comment, no doubt that this is a significant topic, but the people can also be kept together in a list. The list that is currently in the Conway Hall Ethical Society article may well be expanded with the members of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment -- Listifying in the main article is a valid alternative. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I have added all the category members to the lists in the main article, but some of the connections are tenuous or unspecified. During the task I noted that some regular speakers were never formal members, e.g. Archibald Robertson (atheist), so "members" would not be a suitable alternative category. – Fayenatic London 10:58, 1 September 2018 (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:Iranian Esperanto Association[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 with selective upmerge to parents where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 22:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, all is interlinked. Upmerge as appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 13 August 2018 (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 science fiction conventions[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 as nominated. The contents are sufficient to retain the national category. A parent category for North America can be added separately. – Fayenatic London 10:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the pattern set in Category:Science fiction conventions by location. Fuddle (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both would be fine. There are already Asia and Europe in the tree, so continents have been established. Fuddle (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2018 (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:Science fiction media conventions[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 where necessary to Category:Science fiction conventions or subcats by location. PetScan shows that only 5 member pages are not already within Category:Science fiction conventions by location. – Fayenatic London 10:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The meaning of 'media' is unclear and there is no corresponding article for SF media conventions. Fuddle (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2018 (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 communists of the Stalin era[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. A rename proposal should be made in a separate nomination. ℯxplicit 04:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorization by non-notable intersection. How an American communist is defined by being active during the period in which a ruler was in office in another country is beyond me. TM 12:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Category:American communists, which ought to be the merge target is large enough to be worth splitting. A split by date is a viable option. We might repurpose this as Category:American communists active 1920-1950, with siblings for earlier and later periods. As the one communist state of its period, Russia and its rulers has a major influence on communists elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. In addition a split by party, as already been implemented, seems sufficient to avoid an excessively large Category:American communists, we do not need a split by period in addition. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Particularly as the request is deletion, rather than renaming or even upmerging. The intersection is obviously a notable one. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles in the category are already in Category:American communists or a similar category, so upmerging is not necessary or useful.--TM 12:26, 15 August 2018 (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:Smilodon[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: procedural close and repopulate, as it was emptied out of process by the nominator, and the page was never tagged with a link to this discussion. – Fayenatic London 07:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete because it has only one page in it, making it superfluous.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "It's empty because I've just removed the contents (but I never mentioned that)" is not a good nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there was a good-faith reason to gut the category. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It comes down to whether two articles, which were significant sites for finding smilodon fossils, belong in the category or not. SilverTiger is presumably removing them because they aren't themselves smilodons. Yet WP categorization has never been ontologically defining: this is not what category membership implies. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2018 (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:Dutch Frisian people[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/2018 September 4#Category:Dutch Frisian people. ℯxplicit 04:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the articles of this category (not the subcat) contain early modern and modern West Frisians while they were concentrated in the nearly mono-ethnic province of Friesland. When merged, the medieval subcategory should be removed from the target category (it could still be linked with a See also note). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 07:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to something else -- I did not vote before, because I was unsure what to do. Dutch Friesland (or West Friesland) is to be distinguished from East Friesland, which is part of Germany. Historically, its people were also people from Friesland, which means that the category is liable to pick up irrelevant articles. The classic case on this is Birmingham (whose categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands), to keep out articles about Alabama. We need to retain a disambiguator in the category name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a misunderstanding, Friesland is a Dutch name of an official Dutch province, never called West Friesland, and is not ambiguous. It might alternatively be called West Frisia in English (although If 'm not sure if that actually happens, the page of West Frisia is poorly documented), since it is the western part of the unofficial wider coastal region of Frisia to which East Frisia and North Frisia also belong, but certainly not West Friesland. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ​​​ most of the contents are within the target category or its sub-cats already. These are the exceptions:
  1. May be sufficiently categorised already:
    1. Frederick of Utrecht – in subcat Category:Medieval West Frisians which is sufficient
    2. Gerard Edema – Dutch emigrant; in Category:British people of Frisian descent and Category:Frisian painters which appear sufficient
    3. Frederick Manfred – not Dutch; in Category:American people of Frisian descent which is sufficient
    4. Emo of Friesland – in subcat Category:Medieval West Frisians which is sufficient
    5. Ygo Gales Galama – in subcat Category:Medieval West Frisians which is sufficient
  2. Can easily be categorised in a subcat:
    1. Johannes Bogerman – East Frisian; important C16 Dutch theologian; became a pastor in Sneek, Friesland, so could be added to Category:People from Sneek
  3. Not from Friesland but Frisian identity might be WP:defining, as part of Category:Dutch people by ethnic or national origin:
    1. Simon Heere Heeresma – from Amsterdam; in Category:Frisian writers
    2. Hendrik Godfried Duurkoop – East Frisian; C18 Dutch diplomat
    3. Pier Vellinga – living scientist from Amsterdam, in Category:Frisian scientists
    4. Wiebbe Hayes – surmised Frisian descent, from Winschoten in Groningen Province bordering Friesland
    5. Cornelius Gemma – from Leuven (now Belgium); in Category:Frisian scientists
    6. Christiaan Slieker – from Frisian family of travelling showpeople
    7. Douwe Bob – born in Amsterdam into a Frisian family
    8. Famke Janssen – born in North Holland, no rationale stated for category
Presumably it would not be appropriate to rename the category to Category:Dutch people of Frisian descent. I suggest that the remaining question is whether Frisian identity is WP:defining for enough of the last group, as part of Category:Dutch people by ethnic or national origin, to make the category worth keeping. – Fayenatic London 13:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for sorting this out! With the latter 8 biographies, most of these people were born outside Friesland so a descent category might be applicable. Category:Dutch people of Frisian descent would initially seem a weird category, but it is very much comparable to Category:British people of Scottish descent for people born in England with Scottish parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha! I did not know about that British one. Well, it is a long-standing precedent, and certainly seems comparable. Let's see whether other editors find the idea acceptable. – Fayenatic London 20:52, 30 August 2018 (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:WOW air[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 04:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous small category for just the eponym and a destination list. As always, every company does not automatically get one of these just because it exists; it would be warranted if there were a lot of spinoff content that needed this for navigational reasons, but is not needed if all that exists is the standard main article + destination list that every airline always has. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I was going to say delete but I noticed additional things that could go in this category. Four is the bare minimum to keep a category I would say and as it is still operating, I say weak keep. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 06:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Normally we don't, but "The main carriers at Keflavík are Icelandair and WOW air, each of which has the airport as its main hub", so I would allow this one. – Fayenatic London 11:02, 1 September 2018 (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:Medical Colleges in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa[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 to Category:Medical colleges in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. – Fayenatic London 22:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NC for this tree is "medical schools", not "medical colleges", and even if it were "medical colleges" MOS:CAPS would require renaming for the miscapitalization of colleges anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Pakistan they are known as Medical schools are known as medical colleges like Khyber Medical College. So thats why I named it like that. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 06:49, 13 August 2018 (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:Action spy films[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. Timrollpickering 11:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Intersection of Category:Action films and Category:Spy films but there's no specific article on an action spy film genre. Oddly enough Category:Spy films is a subcategory of Category:Action films (not sure I agree with this but it is the current situation). Pichpich (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2018 (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:Performing arts companies disestablished in 2017[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. Timrollpickering 11:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty now; 'performing arts' groups have been categorized under broader 'performing arts organizations' both for- and non-profit; ciruces have been categorized as 'entertainment companies' Doprendek (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I restored one entry to the category that was nominated for deletion per WP:CFD not to empty before nominating....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, but of course there is no problem to restore this when we have some 5 articles for each year. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2018 (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:Recipients of the Order of the Cross of Liberty, 4th Class[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. Timrollpickering 11:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:CATDEF & WP:OCAWARD; a fourth-order decoration. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) (Despite the 1st and 2nd names, these are 5th, 6th, and 7th level awards per main article and recipients usually receive multiple levels - RD)[reply]
Combined I was bold and combined them here since I think we agree and it will be harder for other editors to weigh in across two threads. To the closing admin/editor, please leave an extra day for full consideration. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All without Reservation Partly per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Every person in the two added categories is already categorized for receiving a grade of this award that is higher than the ones nominated. To see the kind of category clutter this creates, look at the bottom of the Simo Häyhä article. (The only people who don't follow this model in the original category are foreign diplomats/military officers who received it as part of protocol.) RevelationDirect (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a reasonable way to categorize articles. Also perhaps delete the 2nd and 3rd class categories as well because they are mass awards. 1st class and Grand Cross are more rare (Grand Cross has been awarded just 40 times). The Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Cross of Liberty should probably be renamed though, as the recipients are not crosses. --Pudeo (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2018 (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/2018_August_13&oldid=871694476"