Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 21 June 23 >

June 22[edit]

Category:Unitarian chapels in Nottinghamshire[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: dual merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Unitarian chapels in Nottinghamshire

Nominator's rationale: Category:Unitarian chapels in England is its main parent category, and has no other subcats. Also, there are only two chapels included, which is too low to warrant a category. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge to the 2 parent categories. Oculi (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- The parent is not large enough to require splitting yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 24 June 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.

Early medieval French 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: No consensus. Timrollpickering 11:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split since there aren't any 5th- to 8th-century people who are known as French people. In this period France became increasingly part of Francia, the kingdom of the Franks. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Germanic people on this era precedent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The Franks were only an elite. The majority of the people were natives, descendants of Romans or Gauls, and speaking a Romance language. That is why modern French is related to Latin, not German. The first item in the proposed mergers is also inappropriate: that should be a parent for the target, not itself a target. We have recently had discussions on the Merovingian and Carolingian kingdoms. The targets here should match: Category:6th-century people of the Merovingian kingdom. The 5th century is more difficult: parts of France belonged to splitters of the Roman Empire in the early 5th century; indeed until Battle of Soissons (486). For most of the 5th century, Category:5th-century Gallo-Roman people would be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the 5th century category, while the Romans were withdrawing from Gaul, if there would be a clear indication that these articles belong in Category:People from Roman Gaul then that would be the proper target indeed. However I can't read that in these articles and so "European" is the only thing we can be sure of. For the 6th-8th century, there hasn't been a Merovingian kingdom, the kingdom was called Francia, or the kingdom of the Franks. Until 750 the Merovingian dynasty ruled the country, but the country didn't take the dynasty's name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the difference is I hadn't seen that one. Now I'm SO there too. I think all these are crazy. Anachronism is greatly preferable to this. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 25 June 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:Miami-Dade County, Florida[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 at least until an RM has taken place about the article name. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move Category:Miami-Dade County, Florida to Category:Miami–Dade County, Florida and all sub categories, since the hyphens should be dashes. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I help edit county roads as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads. According to rules there, all pages, articles, templates, categories, etc., are supposed to have dashes, not hyphens. I have been doing county road editing and came across this situation. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see the OP has recently moved the article Miami-Dade County, Florida from hyphen to dash (but left the article text as hyphens) (without referring to any guideline or discussion) and that also most/all of the references on that article use hyphen. That move should probably be reversed. DexDor (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment -- I would have thought hyphens were more appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 24 June 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:Trade associations[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. Timrollpickering 11:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Better characterisation of the contents. Not all are associations. Rathfelder (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, most importantly there should be more consistency in this category tree (associations versus groups, with or without industry). But I do not think that trade associations need to be associations by all means, in other words I doubt if the name of this head category is wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Trade Association" is a clear and well-known term. The target is the reverse of that. If there are a few items in the category that really do not belong, the solution is to purge them. Some of the health-related items may for example be more in the nature of professional organisations than trade associations. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 24 June 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:Obscenity controversies in television[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 11:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a 'scare category' where various episodes and television programs are classed without much reason beyond 'a parent's group said it was obscene' (I removed one example with no sourcing to the obscenity) or an editor's personal opinion. Some of the entries are one episode out of many in a certain piece of media, a couple are people involved in allegedly obscene shows without proof, others are just quickly-cancelled television shows (and one was a radio show), and one involves racist blackface rather than obscenity. It just feels like a 'list of obscene programs' article was deleted and various others tried to keep the info in category form inappropriately (as has been done with several 'list of' television items). Nate • (chatter) 10:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a pointless category which will cause difficulties in terms of specifying what is controversial and what is not. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (possibly upmerging in a few cases) or heavily purge. Afaics only one article here may actually be about an obscenity controversy. DexDor (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And as I said before, that was a radio show, so it's not even the proper category. Nate • (chatter) 02:30, 28 June 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_June_22&oldid=871691582"