Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 22 August 24 >

August 23[edit]

Category:Jews and Judaism in the Byzantine Empire[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: reverse merge (option B). Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Option A merge, there is insufficient distinction between the two categories. Option B reverse merge, for the same reason. Option C merge both to a new category name Category:History of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire per article name History of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire. Procedural comment: I have tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose the latter as it would probably attract biographies, while this discussion is about categorization of history articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Option B this appears to follow a common category structure, where the "Jews and Judaism in Country X" is the generic category, encompassing the "History" category and the "Country X Jews". Consequently, if a category for merging to should be chosen, it should be the "Jews and Judaism in Country X" one. Constantine ✍ 09:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator I hadn't yet indicated a clear preference for any of the three options, because the most important objective is the merging as such. However, by now I would like to indicate a weak preference for C per main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 29 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:Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta[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 21:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category with one entry. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 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:Orders, decorations, and medals[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: do not split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Kind of a clumsy category. While perhaps motivated in a more narrow sense, such as Category:Orders, decorations, and medals by country, not sure if it is due as a general topic category. See main article Order (distinction). The items that don't fit in neither if these two should probably be contained in Category:Phaleristics and/or Category:Awards. However, hesitating and any arguments pro or con would be welcome. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Category:Orders is a non-starter as order (without context) is ambiguous. In any case Category:Orders, decorations, and medals by country would then have to be split likewise. Oculi (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "decorations and medals" seems to serve as a kind of a disambiguator for this particular use of the word "orders" rather than that the category is about two distinct topics. Category:Fraternal orders does not belong here as a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is the Victoria Cross, for example? It's a medal awarded as a decoration, and the recipient can be said to have been given an order. One can reasonably speak of it under any of these terms, depending on the context, and the same is true of many other such distinctions. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created Category:Orders as a disambiguation page. Feel free to edit the page if needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds clumsy but it works, and splitting it as suggested would create a load of problems. Rathfelder (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - threre is such a grey zone between the three notions that they are better treated together, in this rather well-organized long-standing hierarchy. Especially, when very similar awards would be treated as an order in a certain country, a decoration in a second country and a medal in a third, it creates an overlap which is better served by having a single international category tree, for the reader's sake. Place Clichy (talk) 18:26, 29 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:Ambassadors to the Republic of China (Taiwan)[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 both to Category:Ambassadors to Taiwan. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Why does this exist? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:56, 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:People associated with the Bengal Renaissance[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCASSOC, hardly any of the articles in this category even mentions "Bengal Renaissance". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably trim. It would be ridiculous to just delete this, but with 130 members, it might be too large. The Bengal Renaissance navbox thing has about 50 names. Several of these mention eg the Young Bengal group, which it is legitimate to count as part of the Bengal Renaissance. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see room for a new Category:Young Bengal leaders. But as far as the 50 articles in the navbox concerned, most of these articles do not mention "Bengal Renaissance" except in the navbox. That does not make it defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Derozian redirects to Young Bengal. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes no sense - the two things are different, which is why they have two articles. So why restrict the category to those from the smaller part? And the Indian and Bangladesh projects should be informed, rather than just Europeans with no knowledge of the area meddling in it! Another area of the BR was Brahmoism (but not plain Brahmo), and its later splinter groups, which many articles mention. You can be sure not every bio in the "Italian Renaissance" tree includes those words. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very few people in this category are defined as a Brahmoist. Some are of a Brahmoist family but that does not count as a defining characteristic if they were not active in Brahmoism themself. The Indian and Bangladesh projects are informed by the project tags on the category talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's always a highly dubious argument - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh/Article alerts averages less than 1 view a day. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notices left manually for WikiProjects Bangladesh and India.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 07:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These people should be, and those I checked are, in categories such as Category:Bengali-language writers (which could be split by century). A category such as "Leaders of ..." might be an alternative (although possibly not appropriate in this case). DexDor (talk) 18:25, 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:Education enrollment[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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article Rathfelder (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:58, 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:Films about special forces[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only featured one subcategory, which wasn't even an accurate subcategory, so I removed it. The only existing subcategory that *could* accurately be placed here is Category:United States Army Special Forces in films. I'm sure that there are films featuring non-American special forces, and if categories ever get made for those films, then having a "Films about special forces" parent category could be useful. But for the time being, having both of these categories is redundant. --Jpcase (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also - I'm not a military expert and can't say for sure what the term "special forces" refers to outside the US. In the American military, "Special Operations Forces" refers to various groups within the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force, while "Special Forces" exclusively refers to a single group within the Army. I'm pretty sure that most other countries use the term "Special Forces" synonymously with how the US uses the term "Special Operations Forces". So an explanation of what's covered under Category:Films about special forces should probably be added to the top of that page, if the category is kept. --Jpcase (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete suffers the usual problems of the "films about" categories: objectively define how much about special forces a film must be to be included, and what reliable sources say it's at least that much. Moreover, "special forces" is itself an ill-defined concept: are SS-Sonderkommandos and Einsatzgruppen included? what about James Bond 007 or Jason Bourne or Jack Ryan? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is kept, then I would suggest renaming it Category:Special forces in films, that way we could avoid debates over whether a film is *about* special forces, and instead, the category could simply include any films that *feature* special forces. I agree that "special forces" is a nebulous term though, so there would certainly have to be some discussion over what the category's scope should be. --Jpcase (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose delete for this particular reason (while I'm neutral about deleting for other reasons) and oppose alternative name. "Films about" is exactly right, as the category is about categorizing films for which this is a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate - what is the rationale for removing Category:United States special operations forces in films? Why are these not 'Films about special forces'? Raid on Entebbe was such a film. The usual rule is to add to the top category and create country subcats once more than 5 or so accrue for 1 country. Oculi (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are there really no films about Special Air Service and Special Boat Squadron, the UK special forces, or those of other countries? Potentially Keep as a parent for national categories. I am sure I have seen films (or TV docu-dramas) about at least one other special forces operation, apart from Entebbe, one where German Special Forces rescued hostages from Palestinian hijackers. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: I'm sure that there are such films - as mentioned above, I'd be fine with keeping this category, so the discussion can actually be closed, if others feel that way as well. I agree with you that this would work best as a parent category for various national categories. The only national category currently existing is Category:United States special operations forces in films, so at the current moment, Category:Films about special forces doesn't serve any purpose, but I don't have any problem with leaving the category alone until someone eventually populates it. --Jpcase (talk) 20:05, 27 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:19th-century Hebrew Christian movement[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 option A. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Option A rename to Category:Hebrew Christian movement per article Hebrew Christian movement. Option B rename to Category:Hebrew Christian movement (19th century), putting the disambiguator at the end of the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? do we normally put the Century at the end like that? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case 19th century is meant as a disambiguator and we always put a disambiguator at the end (if needed at all, see also option A). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 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:Ligurian Republic[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the category currently only contains the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after adding some more articles to the category. Tim! (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I don't agree with adding the two treaties to this category. The Ligurian Republic was not a party in those treaties and therefore it is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the treaties established the Ligurian Republic, so that's a defining connection, and you can't blame the Republic for not being a signatory to that one! The other treaty protected the republic - another pretty strong and relevant connection. – Fayenatic London 23:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually both treaties were signed after establishment of the Ligurian Republic (the first treaty a few months later), and the recognition of the Ligurian Republic by Austria was a rather minor aspect of both treaties as it was merely a recognition of a new status quo. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The topic is a relatively short period of the history of Genoa. Main article should be put in all appropriate former countries categories, but it is sufficient for other articles to be in a History of Genoa subcategory. Place Clichy (talk) 18:26, 29 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:Crown Prince Party[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 09:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Different medias have different definition of this term. Don't think it is a good criteria for a category. Also, the current category is far from complete. GZWDer (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this category is about a non-defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The main article seems to be Princelings, but the content seems to be related to nepotism from senior Chinese politicians. The boundaries of this category seem vague, so that in/exclusion depends on an editor's judgement. This does not provide a valid basis for a category. If kept it should be something like Category:Chinese Princelings, but better not kept at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 18:26, 29 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:Perso-Indian 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: Delete. Timrollpickering 09:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many of the articles in the list, such as "Zaheer Abbas", "Sayed Jaffar (field hockey)", "Faris Kermani", "Syed Kirmani", and "Agha Shahi" (just to name a few) don't include any references to support this category. The implementation and addition of the "category" seems to have been completely random and not according to any WP guideline. A merge won't work as a large amount of the listed articles bear no indication of any Iranian/Persian descent, nor being a supposed "Perso-Indian". - LouisAragon (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : As far i can see, there is not a single article in this category which is related to a supposed "Persian/Iranian ethnicity/nationality", this obviously goes against WP:RS, WP:VER. Support speedy deletion.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I also could not see any reference to Persian descent in any of the articles that I sampled. I suspect these are people from a former ruling class in India, whose mother tongue is/was Urdu. This was the court language of the Moghul emperors and thus of a Muslim ruling class. It is a diglot between Hindi and Farsi. However even if I am right, it is not a clear defining characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments and WP:EGRS. Place Clichy (talk) 18:26, 29 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.

Fictional hairdressers[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 Category:Fictional barbers to Category:Fictional hairdressers. No consensus to do the same for Category:Fictional beauticians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge barbers and beauticians into hairdressers. At the top of the hairdressers category is a hatnote,
This category is for Fictional characters who are Barbers, Hairdressers, and Cosmetologists.
So why do we need separate categories for any of these? There may be real-life reasons for separating out the three concepts for living people and deceased people, but they're close enough that we can throw the fictional characters into one. Note that I drew attention to the hatnote at the previous nomination for the beauticians (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 6), so it's not as if this is a new thing or something that nobody's ever noticed. Also, I don't hugely care about the name; if you want to merge hairdressers and barbers into beauticians, or you want to merge all three of them into some other title, that's fine with me as long as the end result can cover everyone. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle, could we merge all of them into a new Category:Fictional cosmetologists? Oculi supported this idea the previous time around; Fayenatic London opposed, basically on the grounds that we don't have a category for real cosmetologists, but to that I'd answer that it's fine to have a more general category for fictional characters, while we should split up the real people more carefully. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any urgent reason to merge them? And a more technical question: just plain hairdressers aren't cosmetologists, are they? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe it inaccurate, because beauticians/hair salons/etc. all bill themselves as cosmetologists when they want to sound stuffy and elegant. If I'm right, why retard the merger; but if I'm wrong, please correct me. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people mentioned in the article Cosmetologists were either hairdressers or make-up artists according to their biographies, so the term 'cosmetologist' is merely confusing and ambiguous. I've also been looking at the articles about these fictional beauticians and it seems to me that the occupation of these fictional characters is far from defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 24 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_23&oldid=871694200"