Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 10

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

August 10[edit]

Biota of East Timor[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 Category:Flora of East Timor, rename the others. Further nominations for renames/merges may follow. Note: Category:Flora of Timor was emptied as explained below, and deleted during this discussion. – Fayenatic London 08:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
Added 15 August:
Nominator's rationale: these categories tend to include species whose range of presence is more distinctive to the whole of the island of Timor, rather than to artificial political frontiers of "East Timor". Couiros22 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but at present the categories are not tagged and this section heading is unusual. Oculi (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interim support -- Even the whole of Timor may be too small. The area between Asia and Australia has two biological zones divided by the Wallace line. The map in that article has some other lines. I am not a specialist in this, but would expect that the fauna of Sulawesi and Lambok to be similar to that of Timor. Perhaps the ultimate target should be Category:Fauna of Wallacea. I assume there there is nothing indigenous solely to Timor. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: cf. the birds category... for each species, cf. the taxonbar Birdlife link at bottom of page --Couiros22 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC) --Couiros22 (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note: I have changed the heading and tagged the category pages today, so this discussion should not be closed before 22 August. I have also added the rest of the sub-categories. – Fayenatic London 13:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose removing Category:Flora of East Timor. This would be completely wrong; we have a category for all the units used in the WGSRPD system used in the distribution of plants. East Timor is a defined region in the WGSRPD. Timor is not. No plants actually belonged in Category:Flora of Timor when I looked at the articles and checked sources, particularly Plants of the World Online. All the plants in the category were either said in the source to be native to the Lesser Sunda Islands (the upper category) or to East Timor only (the lower category). What should really happen is that Category:Flora of Timor should be deleted. It's unnecessary. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging Category:Flora of East Timor into Category:Flora of Timor. As Peter Coxhead says, the former category is part of the WGSRPD system, a more detailed listing here. The latter category is not a part of this system. Declangi (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BIRDS category should be changed though: all species included have a relevant range of presence. --Couiros22 (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, at least with regard to the animal categories. Yes, there are several species endemic to the island, and it makes more sense to categorise them biogeographically. Maias (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the structure is "Flora of <country>", not so much "Flora of <geographic region>". Similarity of Flora can be applied to category:Flora of Andorra and Category:Flora of Spain and category:Flora of Portugal on the same flawed grounds as this proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 07:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As per Peter coxhead --Nessie (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we should be defining flora and fauna by defined geographic area, not by changing artificial national boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • East Timor is in the WGSRPD system but species are not unique to this part of the island. Usually, they are not endemic to the entire island either so I think that categories for the Lesser Sunda Islands may work better. This, however, was not the proposal and I'm joining the discussion a bit late in the game. Hence I'll support this CfD as a real improvement over the current situation with the comment that more recategorization is needed. gidonb (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The scheme is per state, not larger bio-region. If the scheme needs to change, then propose that but just renaming this one instance is not a good start. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 22 September 2019 (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:Wikipedia categories named after Gibraltarian musical groups[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 other categories below should be dealt with in new nomination(s). MER-C 09:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorization of eponymous categories doesn’t require an elaborate scheme and diffusion. Just a smallcat scenario here. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:11, 10 August 2019 (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 set in 3008[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. MER-C 09:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Three articles, all from the same film series and which are already included elsewhere in the category tree. WP:SMALLCAT probably applies since there are only 15 pages in Category:Films set in the 31st century. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:22, 10 August 2019 (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:BBISS Professors and Fellows[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) 11:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Promotional categorization, one article, WP:NONDEF. MER-C 11:24, 10 August 2019 (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:Musicians from Bavaria[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. MER-C 09:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There exist no other Musicians-by-German state categories (with the exception of city-states like Category:Musicians from Berlin) nor should such a designation be started. I think this grouping is better left at the city level, as in Category:Musicians from Leipzig (not in Bavaria, but this is still a new-ish designation and will grow to include other large cities.) StonyBrook (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete as per nominator.--Smerus (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:27, 10 August 2019 (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:James Cardinal Gibbons Medal winners[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. MER-C 09:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, many articles in this category do not even mentioned the award. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't see how that would make Wikipedia richer or better. PPEMES (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richer is not always better. Too many category links under an article, the so-called "category clutter", will merely result in categories no longer being used in practice. See also this very short discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this one is not encyclopedically relevant also as a category. PPEMES (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do not categorize by anything that is encyclopedically relevant (i.e. anything that can be mentioned in articles). We categorize by defining characteristics only. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The usual outcome is listify and delete, but there is already a list. The award is given by Catholic University of America to someone they wish to honour, usually once each year since about 1950. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It's nondefining and doesn't meet OCAWARD. Zerach (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2019 (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:Republika Srpska international footballers[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. MER-C 09:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category supposedly covers football/soccer "internationals" of an administrative entity within FIFA/UEFA affiliated nation/state - in essence, it's like saying and creating category "Swabian" or "Bavarian international footballer" instead of "German international footballer" - and three articles included in this category are on players all three already categorized as internationals of actual nation Bosnia-Herzegovina. Apart from being on local administrative entity, category practically overlaps with Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina international footballers - only, one is part of a country of Bosnia, and another is country of Bosnia, which has "internationals" and affiliated UEFA and FIFA member. Which leads us to the fact that any kind of separate categorization of Bosnia and Herzegovina footballers, or any other sportsmen/women for that matter, based on country's administrative entities is undue per WP:NOTA, WP:NFOOTY, WP:SPORTBASIC and especially WP:FOOTYN. Finally, it misses to follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Category completely.౪ Santa ౪99° 22:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, both of these articles, which seemingly senior experienced User:Grutness, and admin at that, was able to dig out, are created by same editor, User:Calapez, and both of the articles stand there without single references, and both in a way describing and following obvious separatists political pattern in contested areas, both in real world and on Wikipedia, and both have nothing in common, not even remotely, with case of Republika Srpska regional association, which is vital part of Bosnian association and not separate and/or separatist (for now at least) - oh, wait, there is one source in both of these and in article on Republika Srpska, self-published, by mysterious "Non-FIFA News agency" at non-fifa-news-agency.netau.net, archived at Wayback machine for 2009 than moved to blogger.com for 2012, and defunct ever since. Just because some editor(s) wish to see same or similar development in Bosnian political and social context, sport included, and showing willingness to use Wikipedia for advancement of such views and to create article(s) which fail on all its guidelines, that shouldn't be considered as serious argument for inclusion and keeping.--౪ Santa ౪99° 08:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could name a dozen more such articles, by several different editors, many of them well sourced. I'd suggest looking at the articles for the national football teams of Tibet, the Isle of Wight, Zanzibar, Sapmi, Occitania, Kurdistan, Northern Cyprus, Trnasnistria,Zanzibar, Somaliland, Kárpátalja, Tamil Eelam, Panjab, Székely Land, Cascadia, and Matabeleland, to name just a few. And it's a tenet of Wikipedian editing not to bring either an editor's experience or lack of it into consideration when discussing an editor's opinions or !votes. In any case, if you look closely, I'm agreeing with you as far as deletion is concerned, so there is no need for such back-handed personal attacks - if there ever is. And given your history of arguments involving articles related to Srpska, I would suggest that throwing stones from a glass house is not a good idea in any case. As for Calapez, that editor has created many football-related articles, and did not create all the articles I mentioned. I further note the pointy prods you added to the articles, all of which were quickly removed by other editors. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a regional exhibition team at best, does not need this category. GiantSnowman 08:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – we don´t know anything about future, and Republika Srpska has been announcing latelly games at senior level. It is focused mostly on youth levels where participates regularelly over years. I propose wait. The nominator has strong feelings against R. Srpska and has been trying to discredit and erase everything related to it. We Serbian editors are a but tired of that attitude against our articles, templates, categories, etc. FkpCascais (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Sources, sources, sources, neutral, reliable sources, verifiability, notability. Innuendos, mind reading, and ownership - njet.--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is it really necessary to relist discussion which ended in 3:1 for deletion (Grutness, GiantSnowman, and me) ?--౪ Santa ౪99° 01:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The outcome of this discussion should follow the outcome of the discussion (also still ongoing) about the parent category elsewhere on CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Have you relisted it, or is it done by User:MER-C ? What parent category ? Since when is deletion of one category conditioned with an outcome of vote on another ? Both editors: Are you aware that parent category of which you are talking about is at the same stage, with a same 3:1 outcome ? Are you going to relist all of them ?--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not me who relisted. Neither was my comment related to the relisting. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grutness and GiantSnowman. Republika Srpska currently doesn't have a FIFA-granted member status, thus this category is not relevant.--Darwinek (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2019 (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.

Establishments in Dubai[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/delete as nominated. MER-C 10:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added 20 July:
Nominator's rationale: merge to federation level per WP:SMALLCAT and per Abu Dhabi precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, with Abu Dhabi we (also) abandoned the establishments tree altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency. I would have preferred to retain establishment categories by emirate, but there is now a precedent to delete them. (Note: I have added the parent category hierarchy, as some would not be empty following the original nomination.) – Fayenatic London 21:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete two cats and keep all others. Categories to be deleted are Category:Years of the 20th century in Dubai and Category:1999 establishments in Dubai. Dubai is a real state so these by year establishment cats should theoretically be encouraged. That said, the numbers are too small in the previous millenium so the per year cats should be merged for years before 2000 to the country level. Even so, as a state, per decade cats for Dubai make sense. Since the beginning of this millenium, the number of items (or, at the very least, the potential for items) is sufficient to have annual establishment cats for Dubai. Dubai has a thriving economy. A lot is happening there. For Category:1999 establishments in Dubai double upmerge into the 1990s in Dubai and 1999 in UAE, and populate in a similar manner any and all before 2000. Reading through the stats in the Abu Dhabi discussion, I suggest going for the same solution for Abu Dhabi. These states are booming with new establishments in our millenium. Beforehand, not so much. gidonb (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support most but subcats of Category:2000s establishments in Dubai contain a total of 16 articles, so that it should be kept and its subcats merged as nom but also to it (i.e. double upmerge). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion/merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion and merger. While there is the fact that Dubai is an emirate and not just a city, the category name and headings do not make this clear. It is also not at all evidence that the UAE cats are large enough to justify splitting. To be fair establishment by year categories are in general to small (I know I have spent tens if not hundreds of hours trying to make them bigger), but we should not start splitting the ones we have too small until we have the structure to justify it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger as proposed, oppose double merge to Category:2000s establishments in Dubai per consistency with Abu Dhabi tree. --Trialpears (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2019 (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.

Islam by city[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 22#Islam by city

Category:Funeral homes[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:Death care companies of the United States. MER-C 09:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All articles are about USA. Funeral homes seems to be American usage - at least I've never come across it in UK. Rathfelder (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Better say which new name you favour, as it is getting rather confused above. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2019 (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:Garudas[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. MER-C 09:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Spurious category linking unrelated pages simply because they have the word "Garuda" or similar in the name, or in some cases seem entirely unrelated. The category includes a theme park, a few airlines and various military units. Davidelit (Talk) 04:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I included these pages because they are related to social and cultural uses of the garuda as a motif. Garuda Wisnu Kencana Cultural Park is explicitly related as it is devoted to the deity. There are also pages that remain explicitly related to the category in question, which would prove useful in categorizing religious and mythological topics. Invokingvajras(Talk) 05:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. If there were many images (as on Commons) this would make sense but there are too few possible articles on Wikipedia for this to make sense. The other items do not share attributes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Garuda refers to a mythical bird from Hindu mythology, also adopted in religions derived from it. This is a classic case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2019 (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:Album series introduced in 2007[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. MER-C 09:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Album series by year of introduction, nor will there ever be. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why? Specifically, why should there be no such scheme? Otherwise, keep as there is no valid reson to delete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. A scheme can be developed when these categories have enough shared content to warrant diffusion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for now, one category with one article is not helpful. Possibly we would have had a different discussion when someone would have created and populated a full tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2019 (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/2019_August_10&oldid=919875839"