Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 9 September 11 >

September 10[edit]

Metropolitan boroughs[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. Timrollpickering 14:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(11th)

Nominator's rationale: The articles use "Metropolitan Borough of..." except those such as North Tyneside which don't require disambiguation. The consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 30#Greater Manchester Metropolitan Boroughs as to use "Foo Borough" but at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 21#Metropolitan boroughs and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 9#Sutton would suggest that this format was WP:LOCALCONSENSUS even though it can be helpful with hotcat. There are 2 "City of ..." categories where "Foo District" is used which I would argue is their common name as the OS uses "Foo District" as an alternative label and there are other units called this, but as with the discussion at Category talk:Lancaster, Lancashire#Split category? the "City of ..." is the usual format. I haven't included Category:Gateshead, Category:Leeds, Category:Rotherham, Category:Solihull and Category:Walsall which have 1 category for both settlement and district, which can probably be split outside this discussion. Category:Bury was renamed and deleted as ambiguous and Category:Sunderland doesn't exist, but Category:City of Sunderland does. Note that because there were so many this has includes nominations from the 11th (which I have indicated and will direct here) and I will add a list in my userspace of all the other sub cats when this has got consensus just in case it doesn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the rationale in the 2014 discussion still stands. It deals with the hotcat (and sorting) issues, and there are many precedents for giving a category a different name from its main article. Brevity is worth having if it is unambiguous - particularly in subcats.--Mhockey (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should we treat these ones differently to the others, what about moving many more of the district articles to Bury District, Wakefield District, Carlisle District instead per the OS alternative label, @Mhockey:. However then we run into the problem with UAs such as City of Peterborough where the full name is used [1] and for other UAs just have their name [2]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't you're arguments about hotcat and sorting issues also apply to the articles, finding "Bury District" is easier than Metropolitan Borough of Bury, so lets not put the tail in front of the dog, by doing this first with the categories. I'd also point out the the Commons categories all use the "Metropolitan Borough of..." and "City of...". Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I'd be happy to see the article at Bury Borough or Bury Metropolitan Borough, but I don't know if that would be supported. (But I would not suggest Bradford City for City of Bradford - in British English you would never see Bradford City as the name of the district.) I checked to see the legal name of the borough, and it seems to be just "Bury" (The Metropolitan Districts (Names) Order 1973), so that does not help much: Bury Council itself uses "Bury" ambiguously, sometimes to refer to the borough and sometimes to the town within the borough (e.g. the council website refers to "Bury" as one of 6 towns in the borough). When the council website needs to disambiguate, it uses both Borough of Bury (e.g. here) and Bury Metropolitan Borough (here).--Mhockey (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you think that "Metropolitan Borough of..." is also contrived then? I don't think Bury Borough or Bury Metropolitan Borough would be much better, I'd prefer "Bury District" as that's what the OS uses as an alternative label. They were originally at "Bury (borough)" etc until 2005. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess the OS chooses a label which applies to both "boroughs" and "cities". But it does not seem to be a label which is used locally, as far as I can tell. I wouldn't say "Metropolitan Borough of..." is contrived, but it would be nice to find examples of it outside WP.--Mhockey (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • For non-metropolitan districts the OS uses "Foo" and "Foo District" as an alternative label, regardless of if they are just have district status, borough or city. For metropolitan boroughs they also do the same, including for cities. For unitary authorities they use "Foo" with no different label for district status and borough status, buth with cities (with the exception of York) they use "City of Foo" as the preferred label. For London Boroughs they use "Foo" and "Foo London Boro" as an alternative and "City of Foo" for cities, with "City of Foo London Boro" being the alternative label. I'd assumed that "Metropolitan Borough of Foo" was an official and common term but actually it doesn't appear to be, but maybe still common enough to use. This council website that you linked links to our WP article. There is an example here among others of MB being used outside WP. I would say that for non metropolitan districts that "Foo District" is more common in a generic context than plain "Foo". Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:50, 18 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:John Duncan Fergusson[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 10:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only a couple of image files, seems like an unnecessary use of eponymous categorization to have per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:11, 10 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:Articles with incomplete book citations[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 10:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This maintenance category used to be populated by Template:Ref expand. Template:Cleanup partial cites was merged into Template:Ref expand per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 8#Template:Cleanup partial cites and, as a result of the merge, the maintenance category previously used by Template:Cleanup partial cites, Category:Articles with incomplete citations, has been retained for use by the new merged Template:Ref expand, instead of this category. Because this category and its monthly subcategories are now disused, they can be deleted. Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 10 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:Alien Wikipedian[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 10:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If this is meant to reflect nationality, more specific categories with better titles exist. If it's meant to suggest extra-terrestrial origin, it's of no encyclopedic value. —swpbT go beyond 19:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. Why??? why an alien from Mars can not join to wikipedia ? a gate for alien should open and alway open for them. They'll bring many thing you never know and can not understand. Đông Minh (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; this isn't April 1st. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this makes no sense. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- If there was any prospect of a genuine member of this category, we might allow it, but there is not. I do not believe the user page of the one member is accurate. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:51, 14 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:Christian boxers[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 10:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS —swpbT go beyond 19:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in a good amount of articles in either category there no reference to the subjects religion in the text. Religion is mostly irrelevant to most boxer's careers anyways. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see a connection between the specific sport and religion. Dimadick (talk) 13:28, 17 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:Christians by occupation[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. This category seems to entirely overlap Category:Christian religious workers, there there was no particularly convincing rationale to keep this otherwise lone-subcategory parent. ℯxplicit 03:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS —swpbT go beyond 19:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The only subcategory, Christian boxers, created 4 September 2018, does not seem to be a combination itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right, as mandated by WP:OCEGRS. It may be nominated as well. Place Clichy (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although this is a new category, it should be considered as a part of Category:People by religion and occupation; some of the siblings seem to be worth keeping already. However, apart from the boxers category which has also been nominated, the only other categories for Christians by occupation that I am aware of are cases where the individuals' practice of their occupation is related to their religion, and these are currently all in Category:Christian religious workers (which I have added as a sub-cat). – Fayenatic London 18:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing intrinsic linking the two terms. Best kept separate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for consistency, as there is Category:People by religion and occupation. Have just added a category to this category. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be early enough to create this extra category layer once 5 or more subcategories would exist to populate it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 18 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:Collaborative Art[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 10:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dubious category, one dubious member. —swpbT go beyond 19:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should be an "artists" category anyway. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 13 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:Sci-art[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 10:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely dubious category with one dubious member. —swpbT go beyond 19:15, 10 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:Research Creation[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. – Fayenatic London 21:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely dubious topic with one member of dubious notability. —swpbT go beyond 19:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The category has not been categorized, and there is no article on the subject of the category. Those circumstances lend support to the nominator's assumption that this is not a notable topic. --Bsherr (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt that there could a definition specific enough for this to be useful. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 16 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:Size change in fiction[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: withdrawn in order to re-submit as a new multiple nomination. – Fayenatic London 20:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 18#Foo in films --> Films about foo, better to make it clear that categories of this nature are to be applied when a subject is the primary focus of a work of fiction, not an incidental element. DonIago (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale could extend to saying that Shapeshifting in fiction should be Fiction about shapeshifting. I'd be okay with adding that category to this CfD. DonIago (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do show please. I hope it will attract the interest of more editors. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admins: Please close this CfD. As per Dimadick's request, I will re-open as a multi. Well, adding another category here may be easier, but I couldn't figure out how to make that happen. DonIago (talk) 18:46, 17 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:Films about Facebook[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, add articles to parent categories as appropriate. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Maybe in time, but I don't think we're there yet. DonIago (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete suffers the same problems that nearly all "X about Y" categories have. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I would add that only one of these is really squarely a film about Facebook. The others are dependent on social media, but the fact that Facebook is the platform involved is incidental. This is not far off from having films with substantial scenes set in McDonald's alongside The Founder in a category for "Films about McDonald's". bd2412 T 02:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I may have spoken too soon, as there is a Category:Films about McDonald's, which does contain The Founder, but also has a subcategory of four documentaries about McDonald's. Still, it doesn't have fictional films that are largely set in McDonald's rather than being about the company. bd2412 T 02:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Small category, with little chance for expansion. Also at least one of the films is not "about" Facebook. The horror film Friend Request depicts a college girl "befriending" a girl close to her own age, who turns out to be a stalker. She is then subjected to cyberbullying. That the two girls met each other on Facebook is barely plot-relevant. Dimadick (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Films about social media, and add The Social Network to the other parents Category:Films about companies and Category:Works about Facebook. – Fayenatic London 22:21, 17 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:History of the Burgundian Netherlands[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. Timrollpickering 13:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, having multiple category layers for this few subcategories is merely a hindrance for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per nom. A great part of this tree (Establishments, centuries, decades, millenia) may be further merged with the equivalent in the Southern Netherlands category. "Southern Netherlands" is a generic name for an area which was referred to as Burgundian Netherlands, Spanish Netherlands, Habsburg Netherlands, Austrian Netherlands etc. at several points in time. With variations of geographical extent, of course. Place Clichy (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is also my understanding. Southern Netherlands would be a generic geographical designation for the area, including Liege and other enclave principalities, from the 1580s split to the creation of Belgium in 1830, under successive Spanish, Austrian, French and Dutch lordship. Place Clichy (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for things so remote in time, every article is essentially a history article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:02, 15 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.

Kingdom of Jerusalem[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: withdrawn. ℯxplicit 03:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just one article in every category. The articles are often already in some other subcategory of Category:Kingdom of Jerusalem and/or in a year category in Asia, therefore a full upmerge is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the Category:Kingdom of Jerusalem has a developed category tree by years, hence this proposal is disruptive by not suggesting first to merge into the Kingdom of Jerusalem by century. Furthermore, it is clear that the Kingdom of Jerusalem categorization is not WP:SMALLCAT, due to the extensive coverage of the period (the kingdom lasted for almost two centuries, covering directly or via allies and vassals much of the Levant) by written sources and plenty of articles. Just because not all articles are tagged by the year categories is not implying SMALLCAT, which is intended for topics which CANNOT be developed; which is not the case.GreyShark (dibra) 09:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the nominator apparently missed those categories:
category:1100s in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:1110s in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:1250s in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:11th century in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:12th century in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:13th century in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:Establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:Disestablishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:Establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem by century
category:Years of the 12th century in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
Category:Years in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
user:Marcocapelle i understand it was by mistake?GreyShark (dibra) 14:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, please note that:
category:1090s in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and
Category:1100s establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
were marked as empty and were not included in this proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 10:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the following categories have just been created to emphasize that this is not a WP:SMALLCAT:
category:Establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem by decade
Category:1102 in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
Category:1140s in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:1090s establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:11th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:1170s in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:1160s in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:1160s establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
category:13th-century disestablishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 10:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for these observations. It'll become to messy to correct all of this, in order to avoid a lot of confusion I will withdraw this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for withdrawing -- Asia is a very big place. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was a state. We should not be merging so as to remove national identity from categories. We might have "Crusader States" as a merge target, where we cannot get an adequate population for decades. I would not oppose merging years to decades, but if we need a multi-national target to merge years to, it should probably be Middle East. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The net has been cast too wide. I would support a nomination to merge "by year" to "by decade" and a nomination to upmerge all establishments / disestablishments by year to just "Establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem" / "Disestablishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:07, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_10&oldid=871688549"