Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 22

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

February 22[edit]

Category:Subsystem[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 10#Category:Subsystem

Greek Orthodox Churches by US state[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 all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, it is too early to diffuse Greek Orthodox churches by US state, even the parent Eastern Orthodox churches by US state categories are not very well populated yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:52, 22 February 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:Itzy songs[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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 17#Category:Itzy UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - part of the established scheme Category:Songs by artist, expressly allowed under WP:SMALLCAT ("unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist"). Oculi (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SMALLCAT. @UnitedStatesian: There is no requirement to have a eponymous cat to be part of songs by artist. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:19, 23 February 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:African birds of prey[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 per nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency (e.g. with Category:Birds of Africa and Category:Birds of prey of Sub-Saharan Africa) which imo is more important than avoiding slightly clunky title. DexDor (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 16:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per consistency. Oculi (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or reverse merge). We do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 24 February 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:Power microprocessors[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. It seems that more discussion is needed about various similarly-named concepts and topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is for microprocessors that implement an ISA called the Power ISA, and describes itself as such, but it's title is missing "ISA", which could lead to it being confused with the earlier POWER ISA. 99Electrons (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - please clarify more. Aren't processors branded as "POWER processors", POWER processors, regardless of the ISA tweaks that might be present (perhaps because of evolving generations)? I don't see the distinction you are making, nor why it is useful to make that distinction, so as it stands, my vote would be to oppose. A really paranoid android (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The category is incorrectly titled. As stated in the category's introductory text, the category is for processors that implement the Power ISA, but the category's title does not reflect this. I don't understand why IBM's POWER processors are relevant to this discussion. 99Electrons (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Power Architecture is not a instruction set architecture, but an obsolete marketing term promoted by IBM during the mid- and late-2000s. That there is a Power Architecture article to which Power ISA redirects to is disappointing. Renaming the category as such will only serve to confuse and render Wikipedia more inaccurate. 99Electrons (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 10:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a discussion about the use of "Power Architecture" on Wikipedia that's relevant to this discussion. 99Electrons (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...please keep in mind that there is also a Template:Power Architecture that may need revision" - and that is one of the topics being discussed in the very discussion 99Electrons linked to. Guy Harris (talk) 08:47, 2 March 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:Birds of the Congo Basin[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Afaics no other flora/fauna is categorized for the Congo Basin region.  We have other categories that do a better job of providing comprehensive non-overlapping categorization (and the other categories are generally defined by countries so can be more easily matched to article text). Example previous similar CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_23#Category:Birds_of_Equatorial_Africa. Note: Few, if any, of the articles in the category (e.g. Western citril) mention the Congo Basin. Note: The creator of this category has been blocked. DexDor (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can be convinced to change my vote, but as it stands, this seems like a valid and useful category. The Congo Basin is a major geographical feature around which a certain set of unique flora and fauna would be expected to thrive. Central Africa seems like a larger, more general categorization. A really paranoid android (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Few, if any, articles in this category mention the Congo Basin; they mostly list the countries in which in the bird is found (e.g. see Blue-headed sunbird). So how should we decide whether or not an article belongs in the category rather than just being in the Central Africa parent (i.e. what would the inclusion criteria for this category be)?  In other words, even if this category might be useful to readers we don't have sufficient information (in articles) to support the category (unless we define Congo Basin by national boundaries - which wouldn't fit geographic reality).
For info: I'm trying to simplify and explain the organisms-of-place categorization scheme (see User:DexDor/BioGeoCat) with the aim to produce some guidelines; categories such as this (which don't mesh with the rest of the categorization) add to the complexity of the scheme.
For info, I've removed Kandt's waxbill from the category. DexDor (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Pinging User:Marvin The Paranoid. DexDor (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 10:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There is no other attempt to collect together biota within Category:Congo drainage basin and layers of categorisation added by its creator Couiros22 can usually be removed without loss. Oculi (talk) 19:30, 22 February 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:Political positions by person[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 this category but not its sub-categories. – Fayenatic London 09:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous title. Political positions is not what this is about. Rathfelder (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, most articles have "view" in the title. The subcategories should also be renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I dunno why @Marcocapelle says most articles have "view" in the title.
I just used AWB to check Category:Political positions by person and all its subcats, and I found 60 articles whose title includes "political positions", but only 11 "political views". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked at the nominated category, here most articles have "view" in the title. Oddly, all articles in the subcategories have "position" in the title. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "views" is more appropriate. Anatoliatheo (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I go to the articles about Corbyn and Cameron each starts "This article concerns the policies, views and voting record of ...". But the American and Philippine articles talk about positions. Maybe this in an MOS:ENGVAR, which is why I didn't get what the category was about on first inspection? Rathfelder (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Can this be re-listed to re-start the discussion? It's been open for nearly a month, but seems to have halted. I have a very cogent comment that might move things forward. @Rathfelder: Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There isn't complete consistency with the naming of the articles in this cat but the proposed name is the most common. No objection to relisting. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this could do with more discussion. I don't think "Policies", "Views", and "Positions" mean exactly the same thing. I'm not convinced that its a useful category at all. All these articles have in common is that they have a seperate article about their views. I guess thousands of biographical articles have extensive coverage of the subjects views. Do we add them to this category? Rathfelder (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 10:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support while this is probably an EngVar issue, my preference is for 'views'. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if this is really an Engvar issue it would be recommendable to start an RM for both British articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're probably right. This proposal should be administratively closed pending resoltion at RM. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - [It escaped my notice that this had finally been relisted a month after my request.] Basically, this comes down to the fundamental distinction between politicians on the one hand, and everybody else, on the other. Lots of notable individuals have "views" on all sorts of topics, including political issues. Often their views are complex or nuanced, and fall short of being actual "positions". This stands in contrast to politicians, who may hold nuanced views in private, but are expected to take outright "positions". It's part of the job description.
Therefore, it makes sense to Rename the head category more broadly (Category:Political views by person would be acceptable), at the same time as leaving the politician categories as they are currently named. @Rathfelder, Marcocapelle, and BrownHairedGirl:
Anomalous+0 (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be OK so long as there is no subsequent attempt to C2C the politician categories to match.
Personally, I think it's simpler to keep the two aligned. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 26 March 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:East Tennessee State Lady Buccaneers basketball[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 all per nom, as expanded on 2 March, i.e. 8 days ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: ETSU brand standards state, "All teams (mens and womens) should be referred to as Buccaneers, but Bucs is also acceptable." We happen to have Buccaneers and Lady Buccaneers categories. The category to be merged has two dependent subcategories that are not redundant and should be renamed at the same time: East Tennessee State Lady Buccaneers basketball coaches and East Tennessee State Lady Buccaneers basketball players. Raymie (t • c) 08:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Billcasey905 (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Yes, I was on my phone at 1am tapping that out the first time. I've gone ahead and filled in the nominations and CFR templates for the subcats. Raymie (t • c) 08:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Glad to see ETSU joining the 21st century and moving away from these sexist naming conventions. Rikster2 (talk) 13:49, 2 March 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:Spanish-language Mexican telenovelas[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 Category:Mexican telenovelas. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category – all Mexican telenovelas are in Spanish. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:43, 22 February 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:People from the canton of Vaud[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 the two categories. Determining the target of the merge was trickier, given the dearth of discussion, but noting that the head article is currently Canton of Vaud, and has been there for a year, combined with Grutness' point that either way there would not be a consistent naming structure for the categories, leads me to conclude that the target should be Category:People from the canton of Vaud. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:People from Vaud Robby (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Note we also have a couple of other similar categories, e.g., Category:Canton of Vaud politicians. It looks like the name alone is used unless the canton shares its name with a large city (such as Bern). It doesn't seem to be the case with Vaud. Grutness...wha? 21:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that whichever way a merge should occur,t here will be other categories which also need changing to match. Grutness...wha? 02:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. The head article has been stable at canton of Vaud since an undiscussed move[1] in Feb 2018. The category name should align with the head article.
If someone wants to open a WP:RM discussion to move it back again, then we'll see what the outcome is ... but for now, the title should be Category:People from the canton of Vaud. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since Category:People from the canton of Vaud has been emptied, this conversation might be moot. Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not if there is a reverse merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or Reverse Merge): Clearly only one category; no opinion on which name should prevail. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge. It looks like "canton of" would mainly be added in the context of a title, but not so much as part of a broader expression like in "people from". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 25 February 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_February_22&oldid=898239504"