Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 6 January 8 >

January 7[edit]

Category:Hairston family (baseball)[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Hairston family category had been deleted in 2007 and then was recreated with the unnecessary disambiguator in 2015. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 7 January 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:Now Is the Time (Brenda Fassie album)[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misuse of category namespace —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 18:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An obvious misunderstanding by the creator of the category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:46, 8 January 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:Amadlozi Brenda Fassie Album[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect use of category space —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 18:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Have to assume the person who created this is just an inexperienced editor. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:46, 8 January 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:LGBT Marxists[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Possible WP:OCEGRS. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 18:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming as is overcategorization. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. As always, we do not create categories for every possible combination of "people who happen to be both X and Y" — in order to justify this category, it would have to be possible to write an article about LGBT Marxism which contextualized it as a thing that reliable sources discuss and analyze. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 10 January 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:State-owned enterprises of China[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: out-of-process move reverted. New discussion listed below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fix the undiscussed move by Störm. The parent cat is located at Category:Government-owned companies by country. The old name was Category:Government-owned companies of China. I can't find any discussion to move to Category:State-owned enterprises of China. Matthew hk (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nothing to do with parent cat. We can have different names depending on the convention used by that particular country. You may read WP:BOLD because it was obvious move. There is plenty of coverage supporting State-owned enterprises (SOEs) of China. Even their official state media uses it. Who are you to object to it? Störm (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia use secondary source. Also, bold move should place in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, not move it yourself. Given my watch list is full of your edit. Matthew hk (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, most of those companies were in fact owned and regulated by SASAC of the State Council (central government) and SASAC of the provincial government, plus companies owned by Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Education of the State Council. Thus the original wording "Government-owned companies of foo" is correct for China's SOE. Matthew hk (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Störm: please read WP:BOLD, especially WP:BOLD#Non-article_namespaces. Bold moves of categories are unwise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there other reason for reverting the move other than that it was not discussed? Citing the parent categorisation scheme doesn't carry much weight to me, seeing as the corresponding article is at List of state-owned enterprises of China, so we have conflicting CFDS criteria here. -Paul_012 (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well the list is also an undiscussed move in January 2018 from List of government-owned companies of China. As stated above, the SOEs are literally owned by a department of the government, not a special entity representing the state as seen in other countries (e.g. Agence des participations de l'État) Matthew hk (talk) 04:48, 8 January 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:Government-owned companies of China[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, see here. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing. I have reverted the undiscussed move by @Störm, to restore the status quo ante. This discussion can consider whatever rationale Störm chooses to advance for their proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose they are literally owned by government and most of them are former government ministry and department. Matthew hk (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for obvious reason. We should use the title which is common and is standard practice, per WP:COMMONTITLE. The suggested title is correct and common because it is used by US Govt. [1], South China Morning Post (SCMP), a top newspaper covering China [2] and by The Diplomat [3], a Japanese magazine, and many other not mentioned. It is a term used by newspapers around the word to refer to Chinese SOEs. Thanks. Störm (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the articles also stated the influence of the State Council/central government, plus nomenklatura, the dual system of the party is the government, thus the firms are leaded by party via government. Matthew hk (talk) 17:09, 11 January 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.

Churches by city (other continents, dual merge)[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. This differs from recent nominations of churches because a few categories here currently do have several articles in them. This likely either needs to be split out further to achieve a clear result or individual attention needs to be paid to each category. ~ Rob13Talk 02:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories only contain 1 article and/or 1 subcategory. See also this earlier nomination which is still open for discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:SMALLCAT is for small categories with no potential for growth, but many of these categories have plenty of potential for growth. Bangkok, Taipei, Tianjin, and Xi'an, etc. are giant cities with plenty of notable churches. Just because articles do not exist now does not mean they won't be created in the future. -Zanhe (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is quite likely that there are more churches in these cities than currently have an article in Wikipedia. But more notable churches, where is the evidence of that? Note that the far majority of churches is not notable. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This will re-categorise quite a few Roman Catholic churches in Foo categories directly under the merge targets. Is this desirable? WP:SMALLCAT does say not to delete if "such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Wouldn't this apply to these Churches in Foo categories, which serve as a middle layer in the categorisation scheme? --Paul_012 (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case of populated places this smallcat exception would lead to the result that even the smallest villages would have a hugely complicated category tree for maybe just one article. That would be highly undesirable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:SMALLCAT only applies to categories that will never have more than a few members. That is not the case for the nominated categories.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle is also reminded that it is good practice to notify the category's creator when nominating it for deletion.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most/Oppose Bangkok & Wellington Conceptually I support this effort since it removing an navigational impediment of having to click through an empty parent category in order to get to the actual articles in the subcategory. Bangkok and Wellington have multiple articles and don't belong in this nomination though. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The vast majority of church buildings are non-notable. So there is little evidence for more, and no good reason to have these categories at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 6 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.

Churches by city (miscellaneous countries, 1 merge target)[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. ~ Rob13Talk 04:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the categories only contain 1 article and/or 1 subcategory. In the above cases only one merge target has been specified, because the content is already sufficiently categorized in a denominational churches category of a broader region. For example, the only article of Category:Churches in Ankara is already part of Category:Roman Catholic churches in Turkey so it does not require merging to Category:Churches in Turkey. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with misgivings about Bethleham. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most/Neutral on Bethlehem, Lima & San Juan, PR City categories with one article or no articles and a subcategory do not aid navigation. (Unsure if having both 1 article and 1 subcat aids navigation so neutral on those 3.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge too small to aid navigation. Wikipedia is plagued by small unneeded categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 6 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:Articles by WikiProject[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard for administrative categories versus the actual content of the encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose as the nomination is incorrect; there are many "Category:WikiProject Foo articles" categories (i.e. that don't have the word "Wikipedia"). Two of the current parent category tags should be removed. I might support deletion instead (as the category appears to be rather pointless). DexDor (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Koavf: No opposition to the change as the category creator, but think a more important change is to rename the child categories that don't state they are Wikiproject categories, e.g. Category:El Salvador articles. SFB 01:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 04:05, 7 January 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:Tropical house singers[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, while there is no majority in this discussion the closure is based on weight of argument. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent isn't in need of diffusing and there is no Category:House singers or Category:Deep house singers, just Category:House musicians and Category:Deep house musicians. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, for example, Category:Synthpop musicians to Category:Synthpop singers and Category:Hip hop musicians to Category:Hip hop singers. It need to start new.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 04:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those are highly populated categories (both parent "musicians" and child "singers") with necessary diffusion. In this case, a sub-subgenre no less, there are not that many articles in the target and no similar scheme for parent genres. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:01, 7 January 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:Live at The Fillmore albums[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 (Talk) 22:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See (e.g.) all subcats of Category:Live albums by venue in the United States ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I thought maybe there was an actual series of "Live at the Fillmore" albums, in which a subset of the albums within would be appropriately categorized, but that doesn't appear to be the case. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:16, 8 January 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_January_7&oldid=1127484639"