Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 15 March 17 >

March 16[edit]

Tsardom of Russia[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with (grand)parent Category:Tsardom of Russia and other categories in the tree such as Category:Tsardom of Russia people. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Category:1950s in Russia and other more recent categories. I can see the value of categories for "___ in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic", "___ in the Russian Empire", "___ in the Tsardom of Russia", and "___ in the Russian Federation", and I can see the value of having a single category tree of "___ in Russia", but mixing the generic "Russia" and any of the specific period names would be confusing and unhelpful. Please rename none or all. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have recently renamed Russia categories to Russian Empire categories for the period from 1721 to 1917 and Soviet Union categories (as the Soviet Union is the successor state of the Russian Empire) have existed for a very long time. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the USSR related? It should be RSFSR in the 1950s if it should be Tsardom of Muscovy in the 1550s. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said, the USSR was the successor of the Russian Empire, and is also the predecessor of the current Russian Federation. The RSFSR is neither, it was merely a first level country subdivision (although I don't oppose having categories by subdivisions of countries). Marcocapelle (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Though the country changed its name according to the status of its ruler, it was essentially the same place throughout. Even 1917-91 when RSFSR was one of the USSR republics, it was still "Russia". True, the boundaries have changed from time to time, but we do not need a new set of categories every time there is some constitutional change. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "the boundaries have changed from time to time". A bit of an understatement when it comes to the Tsardom of Russia (1547-1721). Starting with an area of 2.8 million square kilometers[1], it had expanded to 5.4 million square kilometers by 1584. From 1551 to 1700, Russia grew 35,000 km2 (about the size of the Netherlands) per year.[2]. And by 1721, Peter the Great had annexed several areas of the former Swedish Empire: Estonia, Ingria, Karelia, and Livonia. He had even established a new city in the annexed territory of Ingria: Saint Petersburg. Dimadick (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • REply -- We cannot have a new category tree every time a country conquers another. The core remains the same, whtehr individual items will qualify for the category will depend on where the boundary was at that time. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply but do we need a "by year" tree structure for them all? Would a "by century" structure not suffice, leaving the "by year" tree to the appropriate political entity in place in a given year? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all It is ahistorical to speak of a Russian state in the periods nominated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:14, 30 March 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:Muscovy Company[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, without prejudice to recreating the category if and when there are more pages to populate it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, contains only one article and a subcategory; having the subcategory with a link to the article in the header should be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate -- At first sight this looks like a typicial case of an eponymous category, but I do not think this works here. The normal solution would be to upmerge, but this would give the "people" subcat some inappropriate parents. I suspect that the article is rather incomplete. There is probably scope for articles on the Company's establishments in Archangel and Petersburg, probably also the trade treaties between England and Russia, where the Company will have played a major role in supporting the negotiations. I would not be surprised if the company was funding the English diplomatic mission to Russia, at least in the 17th century. Certainly the company was active in the late 18th century, as it must have been the source of data on Anglo-Russian trade provided to the Board of Trade, at the time of trade treaty negotiations in the 1780s: they are in poods and must have been obtained from Russian customs records. Such treaties were intimately connected with the business of the merchants who were members of the company. Furthermore, the nature of Russia probably meant that English merchants in Russia needed a company to represent them to the Russian government. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be scope for lots of articles but I don't expect that lots of them are going to be written soon in order to make this a viable category. I have no problem with recreating the category if lots of articles are going to be written after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 27 March 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:Railway accidents[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to parallel the corresponding Aviation categories - not all crashes are "accidents", but include deliberate train-wrecking, terrorism, and other factors that can be subsumed in "incidents"; we can change the subcategories, sub-subcategories, etc. - some of which are already "accidents and incidents" if this achieves consensus. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for reasons given y nom. Grutness...wha? 22:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment can you also add in the subcategories? Hmains (talk) 18:37, 17 March 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:Yoruba-speaking 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 WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 13#Category:Yoruba-speaking people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per similar AFD discussions in the past, see 1, 2, 3. I do not see how the ability to speak Yoruba is relevant to the individuals whose article is in this category. For those who it is, there is already a whole bunch of more relevant categories under Category:Yoruba-speaking people by occupation. Per WP:NONDEF. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This category is equally as important as similar existing categories like Category:Yiddish-speaking people and Category:Cornish-speaking people. Why single this one out? The category is very relevant because while the subjects are fluent in Yoruba, they do not using it mainly in their occupations as compared to those in the related subcategory: Category:Yoruba-speaking people by occupation. From my observation of the categories Category:Yiddish-speaking people and Category:Cornish-speaking people, it seemed they were retained because the speakers of these languages are a smaller population compared to dominant speakers of the English Language in the British Isles. Nothwithstanding, I wouldn't have supported the deletion of categories such as Category:Welsh-speaking people and Category:Scottish-Gaelic speaking people for any reason whatsoever. The Yoruba language is native to West Africa and it is one of the few African languages with similar categorization in the English Wikipedia. As such it is in a "minority" class status like the others. - Eruditescholar (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eruditescholar: I think your opposition and usage of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS skirts the reason behind my nomination of this category for cfd. As you point out Yiddish and Cornish are comparitivly minor languages, while Yoruba is a very popular language with double digit millions of fluent speakers. The main issue here is WP:NONDEF, how for example is fluency in Yoruba relevant and important to Hakeem Olajuwon's life and career? A category such as this could be theoretically made for any language but that does not make it useful in terms of categorization. There already exists Category:Yoruba people for those individuals of Yoruba ethnicity, so this category seems to be rather unneeded. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe rename to Category:Yoruba-speaking peoples and repurpose to include various tribes that use the Yoruba language? I agree that the category's quite useless as it is, but if we have enough articles about Yoruba-speaking tribes, this would work well to hold them; an ethnic group's traditional language is definitely deserving of a category. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: I am not opposed to your idea per say, although in my opinion perhaps a title such as Category:Yoruba tribes might be more appropriate. Either way it does not seem that categorizing article of biographies per language fluency like this is useful unless it is relevant to the subject's career (i.e. a category such as Category:Yoruba-language writers). Inter&anthro (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said I agree that the category's quite useless as it is; there's no real reason to have this category and use it for individual biographies. My reason for preferring the current title, pluralised, rather than "Yoruba tribes" is that I don't know how the Yoruba self-define; maybe it's on the basis of language (in which case I'd support your title), but if some tribes speak Yoruba but aren't ethnically Yoruba, your proposal and mine would inconveniently produce different results. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Category:Yoruba subgroups already fits this purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Inter&anthro: I have been restrained by logistics to make further contributions to this discussion until now. I was going to add yesterday prior to my restraint that the main purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to users. In my opinion, WP:NONDEF does not apply here because the people in the category Category:Yoruba-speaking people are speakers of the Yoruba language but they do not use it mainly in their respective occupations like those in the related subcategory Category:Yoruba-speaking people by occupation. Other reasons why the category is important is that there are many people from other ethnicities who speak the Yoruba language and not all Yoruba people are fluent in the Yoruba language. This phenomenon is mostly evident among some Yoruba people in the diaspora. -Eruditescholar (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the defining characteristic here is not language but ethnicity. Nearly all articles of this category are also somewhere else in the ethnicity tree of Category:Yoruba people. The fact that Yoruba emigrants may no longer speek Yoruba language is irrelevant for this category, because these people will not show up in this category anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: the article of which you speak of (Lucumí language) is already in the categories of Category:Yoruba diaspora and Category:Yoruba language, both of which I feel are more appropriate for said article to be placed in than Category:Yoruba-speaking people. This is especially true because Lucumí is a liturgical language and hence not spoken on a daily basis. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:58, 19 March 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:Aptornithidae[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 to parent Category:Neognathae. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same reason as Category:Rougetius except that it is a monotypic family. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
also fails WP:SMALLCAT. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could be. I thought I would propose deletion first though and see what others think. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge to Category:Gruiformes per Marcocapelle. Grutness...wha? 11:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main article is Adzebill (covering two closely related bird species, whose remains have only been found in New Zealand), but it mentions that their classification is disputed. Most studies place them in the Gruiformes, but contradictory 1990s studies placed them with the Galloanserae (Fowl), and their closest living relative (the kagu) has been placed variously in the Gruiformes, the Eurypygiformes, and the Ardeidae (Heron). Older studies also placed the Adzebill with the Ratite and the Dinornithiformes (Moa), though these theories are not supported by more recent evidence. Dimadick (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whatever the classification of the Adzebill is; the category we are discussing here fails WP:SMALLCAT. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We have to merge it... but merge it where? This is why classification matters here. Dimadick (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Category:Gruiformes is controversial, we can surely put it in parent Category:Neognathae. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say merge with Category:Neognathae while the classification is controversial as well. It is definitely classified under Neognathae. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:51, 27 March 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:Emerging standards[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An inherently obsolete category - some of these standards appear to have been "emerging" for the last 10 years. All the articles seem to be about Wireless networking standards, but that is by no means the only arena in which standards emerge. Rathfelder (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete/Merge We shouldn't categorize based on current status. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge. There is no Emerging standard article, for the obvious reason that it's a ridiculously ambiguous title. Grutness...wha? 11:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; the argument makes complete sense, and merely deleting wouldn't help the articles in question if they're not already in the wireless tree. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 16 March 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:Greek mathematics[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, i.e. do not rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: cf. main article or Category:Ancient Greek astronomy--this is about classical Greece. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, some articles like Abacus and Greek numerals are about the entire premodern Greek history, not just about antiquity. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a straight rename. It would need a split: the "people" subcat looks as if it is mostly modern people. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just purging the people category should be sufficient, a split is a bit overdone. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Greek numerals were in use in the Byzantine Empire and still have some usage in modern Greece (depending on the context). Dimadick (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cat should match the main article (and I would oppose renaming the article per common name; see references listed in the article). Name is also unambiguous: a category about mathematics in modern Greece would be named 'Mathematics in Greece'. The people category is different and should be split between ancient and modern, with the modern one being unqualified. —Ruud 00:10, 21 March 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.
  1. ^ Richard Pipes, Russia under the old regime, p. 80
  2. ^ Richard Pipes, Russia under the old regime, p. 83
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_16&oldid=871691054"