Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 20 July 22 >

July 21[edit]

Category:Tarnalelesz[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) 06:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Unlikely to be more. Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 21 July 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:Tarnaméra[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) 06:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One, eponymous article, about a small village in Hungary. Unlikely to grow. Rathfelder (talk) 22:40, 21 July 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:Disney+ international programming[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) 06:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There aren't enough articles about Disney+ programs to justify a subcategory; also, it's unclear where "international" refers to, since the service will be available in multiple countries. Trivialist (talk) 17:40, 21 July 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:Participants in the Savoy Conference[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 09:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. for John Wallis or William Sancroft).  Example of a (slightly) similar previous CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_5#Category:TED_Conference_Attendees.  Note: there are lists of people in the Savoy Conference article. DexDor (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm surprised by the implication that a list has the same functionality as a category: it doesn't and the m:PetScan tool alone is an argument for keeping any category that someone might want to be combined with another. Sancroft may be a good catch, given that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says he "took no part" in the Conference. I really don't see, though, what a committee called together by royal warrant[1] has in common with the TED attendees. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The note about the existence of a list is just a note (not the reason for deletion); it's common to add such a note at a CFD because editors may consider converting the category to a list. The (main) test of whether categorization is appropriate is WP:NONDEFINING (not whether it's conceivable that someone could use the category). If an article doesn't even mention a characteristic (Anthony Tuckney is another example) then it falls a long way short of being a defining characteristic. The TED CFD is an example CFD of categorizing people for having been at a conference; I agree that it's a different sort of conference, but it's similar categorization. DexDor (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree at all: you are applying recent criteria to a 17th century occasion that happens to use the same word. In fact I would say for the non-conformists invited, the invitation defined them as recognised religious leaders. I note that WP:CATDEF says "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article", not "the central concept": it seems that WP:OVERCAT does make it the leading concept. "Do not create categories for every single verifiable fact in articles" is the actual nutshell there, which I would agree with; but the piece starts with something on why it is "conceivable that someone could use the category". I'm happy to work on verification of the categorisation of the articles, because that would be helpful. But consider this: Category:Translators of the King James Version is the kind of category that makes Wikipedia popular and useful. The function of the Savoy Conference was to redraft the Anglican Prayer Book after the upheavals of a civil war. The category we are talking about is directly analogous. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're doing a good reductio ad absurdum job here. A claim of "overcategorisation" really needs more support than a guideline: there is no evidence here that anyone is "overcategorised". (Now, why not try Winston Churchill if the issue bothers you.) Participation in a historically significant event should be respected for what it is. I believe strongly that no Wikimedia process is ever exempt from looking further than guidelines. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless a category is false or defamatory (ie People who hate Britney Spears) it should be kept. This category helps serious users looking for other conference participantsBashereyre (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other reasons not to keep categories, see WP:OCAT. In addition, allowing too many categories will lead to too much category clutter at the bottom of articles, which basically nullifies the benefit of categories. Many biographies already contain too much category clutter. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This was one of the most important events in English Church history, setting the way in which the Church of England developed over the succeeding centuries. This was itself part of the Restoration settlement in England and Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the CofE this was probably one of its defining events. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:23, 26 July 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:History of the papacy[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: do not rename. MER-C 09:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While Talk:History of the papacy failed such a rename, arguably at least such a rename would be motivated per scope reasons in the main category, if taking all the diversity of entries into account? PPEMES (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess fundamentally the concern is that we only have Holy See and Pope to refer to. We don't have Papacy. That's why. PPEMES (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have History of the papacy. Oculi (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't you agree that Holy See is a slightly broader scope than Papacy, though? PPEMES (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few examples that arguably may be taxonomically more associated with the Holy see rather than directly with the Pope personally: Category:Sedevacantism, Category:Western Schism, Category:History of the Roman Curia? PPEMES (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider History of the papacy to be synonymous with History of the Holy See, not synonymous with History of the popes (personally). For the latter we simply have Category:Popes. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what's your comments on the differences between Pope and Holy See, as reflected in Template:Papacy and Template:Holy See? PPEMES (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see the difference in the templates but it's not easy to define the difference. It is even more difficult to see how we might apply it to history categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the most important difference that "Papacy" tends to pertain to things specifically, personally and at least nominally related to the current or previous popes, whereas "Holy See" pertains to both this but also to stuff related to the pope's episcopal see and sovereign entity in a larger, slightly more personally independent sense? Hence including offices (that the pope has never visited personally), staff (that the pope has never met), activities and events (where the pope has not and never intends to participate) of which some may be specifically, personally or nominally related but not all? Take for instance a nuntiate office in country X in the 19th century. While its very Papal diplomacy arguably forms part of the scope of history of the papacy, all activities and premises of the nuntio along with staff may not be. However, as part of the history of foreign relations of the Holy See, it should at least be part of the history of the Holy See, shouldn't it? PPEMES (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- "Holy See" lacks NPOV. Traditional Presbyterians regard the see as related to the Anti-Christ and thus the very reverse of holy. That is not my view and reflects theological positions derived from the Reformation period. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is not a question really of changing the name for the same thing, but a rename to a different scope. C.f. Template:Papacy and Template:Holy See. If you want to change the name of the article Holy See, I suggest you start at its talk page. PPEMES (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is a paper-thin difference between the two; nevertheless it is present. The wider scope, while of little practical use, is ontologically sounder. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:30, 26 July 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:Victoria A. Fromkin Lifetime Service Award recipients[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 09:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, in a number of articles the award is not even mentioned. In addition there is not an article about the award itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an article on the award would seem a minimal requirement. Oculi (talk) 12:03, 21 July 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:Kenneth L. Hale Award recipients[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 09:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF. Many articles do not even mention the prize. In addition there is not even an article about the award itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an article on the award would seem a minimal requirement. Oculi (talk) 12:03, 21 July 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:Grand Cross of the Royal Confraternity of San Teotonio[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 09:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF. In addition there is not even an article about this award. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an article on the award would seem a minimal requirement. Oculi (talk) 12:03, 21 July 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.

Imperators totius Hispaniae[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, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, this concerns a self-assigned title by some monarchs of León, Castile and Navarra, but the title is not normally used by historians to refer to these monarchs. No listification needed, the main article Imperator totius Hispaniae‎ already contains all of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alfonso VII is very commonly called emperor, although he is probably the only one. Srnec (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The so-called self-declared title corresponds to suzerainty "over the other kings of the peninsula, both Christian and Muslim". Dimadick (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your asssessment does not match neither the article content, nor its sources. Dimadick (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article explicitly mentions "claimed" suzerainty and largely ignores the question if this claimed suzerainty is recognized by their fellow monarchs. And for example "emperor" count García Fernández of Castile continued to recognize the nominal suzerainty of the king of Leon (so the other way around). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete -- This was a subsidiary title for various Spanish kings, who claimed suzerainty over the rest. It is not defining. There is a useful main article, which might usefully be enhanced by a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThe category is based on the list of the main article, not vice versa. Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not leave as is. I do not care enough one way or the other about categories, but at the least these ought to be re-titled. "Imperators totius Hispaniae" just looks weird: proper Latin would be "Imperatores totius Hispaniae" (see here). But not all Spanish kings to use an imperial title even used the title "Imperator totius Hispaniae". All they have in common is that they used imperator in some way or other. The title of the main article is a compromise of sorts since some people did not like the original title (Medieval Spanish empire). I would go with "Category:Medieval Spanish emperors" and no need to break it down by century. —Srnec (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all it's a title in pretense, at best an honorific that's of doubtful reality and even if it was a real thing it probably wouldn't be defining. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:14, 22 July 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:Military vehicles by decade of introduction[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 but the 1940s stay sub-divided between Category:Military vehicles introduced in 1940–1944 and Category:Military vehicles introduced in 1945–1949. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Parallels the recent changes to "aircraft by decade" categories, and matches better the parent categories Category:Vehicles introduced in the 2010s etc. Note that this upmerges Category:Military vehicles 1940–1944 and Category:Military vehicles 1945–1949 which creates a problem as they are subcategories of Category:World War II vehicles and Category:Military vehicles of the Cold War period respectively; possibly solved by retaining them as subcategories? Hugo999 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx for the notification! In broad terms I'm in agreement with the terms "1900s", "1910s", and so on – instead of "1900-1909" et cetera. But it's the "introduced in" part, that I don't quite agree with.. I always understood the current wording of these categories to mean both "introduced in" and "active, in production and/or in service" during ! -- --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment But "in use" would I think be too broad, stick to "introduced". The T-34 tank of 1940 was used over several decades (and may still be in use in obscure corners of Africa or Asia!) The standard Lee Enfield rifle used by the British Army from 1895 to 1957 is probably still in use somewhere. Hugo999 (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to 19xxs (per nom). Oppose merging of -44 and 45- categories (at least without further discussion) - the 40's were split to assist meshing with by-period categories and because of the large number of military vehicles introduced in that period; these categories could be retained under a new 1940s category. Support addition of "introduced" (but retaining "or cancelled" in the category text); attempting to (in effect) categorize vehicles by when they went out of service would be messy (it's common for the number of vehicles of a type in service to decline over many years with some being adapted for other purposes, used only for training, held in reserve etc). Note: the corresponding aircraft categories (e.g. Category:1920s aircraft) don't have "introduced" in the category name. Note: I created some/all of these categories. DexDor (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Standard category names. Concerning the 1945-1949 category, I am not certain why the last year of World War II is categorized with the beginning of the post-war period. Dimadick (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support generally, but 1914-8 and 1939-45 should be kept as distinct categories, because they were WWI and WWII which were inevitably periods of military innovation. The latter might start slightly earlier, due to pre-war rearmament by both Britain and Germany. The counterpart to these should be "before WWI" and 1945-9. Peterkingiron (talk)
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:Urdu languages[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 09:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no such thing as "Urdu languages" or "Fiji Urdu". – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- These are category redirects, whose function is to ensure that the categories are not re-created. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know, there are many categories that we definitely don't want to have (re)created, but is that an argument for creating them as redirects? Also noting it's unclear what they should redirect to: the mainspace redirect Urdu languages was deleted at RfD as ambiguous; Fiji Urdu was kept as presumably a Westerner could mistake "Urdu" for "Hindi", but it's difficult to see why this logic should be extended to the categories. Furthermore, it turns out the creators of both redirects were socks, so if I hadn't started this discussion, WP:G5 would have applied. – Uanfala (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first per Peterkingiron, but the second redirect does not make sense and can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both because they were created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. The first doesn't even make sense. As Uanfala notes above, the logic that might apply for articles doesn't apply to categories. The pertinent question is: What would a person categorizing an article as "Urdu languages" have in mind? The answer is that there's no way to guess where an article on an arbitrary topic should be categorized based on someone's misconception that it falls into a category that doesn't exist in the real world. Largoplazo (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Urdu is one language, so the first category is pointless, and there is no such thing as Fijian Urdu. Also, as pointed out, they are creations of a sock of a blocked user. If you want to make sure a category isn't re-created then salt rather than creating it as a redirect which anyone could edit back to a full category! Grutness...wha? 22:11, 26 July 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:9th-century Kings of Germany[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. MER-C 13:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual title of these kings, they were all kings of East Francia. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 21 July 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.

Terrorism in Asia by city[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 10:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, these are intermediate container categories with very few subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the reasons given. The contents are also in other hierarchies, so no further merging is needed. – Fayenatic London 07:10, 1 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:Recipients of the Golden Rose[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 3#Category:Recipients of the Golden Rose

Category:Korean cats[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 09:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary to break up Korean and South Korean cats when everything falls into the South Korean category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 06:31, 21 July 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:Survivors of assassination attempts[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: speedy delete (G4). MER-C 10:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per CFD in 2018, non-defining (e.g. for Bill Clinton and Winston Churchill) and subjective - how close does the assassin have to get for it to be counted as an assassination attempt? What about an attempted attack on a building/city containing multiple politicians etc?  As another editor has asked on the talk page "Do we include kings etc who were severely injured with lethal intent in battles but survived?".  See also recent recent discussion. DexDor (talk) 05:57, 21 July 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:Honorary citizens of Seoul[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 09:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. for Michael J. Sandel).  See previous CFDs e.g. for Hamburg. Note: there is a list. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 21 July 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:Summer kigo[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 09:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining categories of different objects and phenomena, that may be mentioned in Japanese poetry. There is already a List of kigo. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete. encompasses such a range of topics that it is of little use for finding anything. Murray Langton (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Swimming pool?! Seriously?! Many of these (like the one mentioned) are not even related to Japanese poetry! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I came from Matriculation and have no idea why this category would exist. Stick with the list. |→ Spaully ~talk~  08:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • listify These are justified as lists of kigo, but kigo isn't of sufficiently strong relation to all of them to justify the categories. Also this should be all of them, not merely the handful where that category would be justified (some are strongly related to Japanese culture), as an inconsistency there would be worse.
Also Dongfeng is a disambig page. Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Came here from sumo. These categories seem to have no real use and the topics no real connection to each other. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain My rationale was to create English counterparts to the Japanese categories, but I understand the confusion as the Japanese and English terminology doesn't quite have the same poetic flavor in all cases. They're simply meant to evoke a sense of the respective season ("pool" is recognized as kigo in contemporary Japanese poetry, as also implied by its ja counterpart). Perhaps this should only be kept if someone who is more confidently knowledgeable about Japanese poetry could suggest a way to make it fit (ex. only categorizing Japanese terms). Invokingvajras (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them, not defining and of no real use. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF, for example the article Mangzhong does not even mention "kigo" at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adding to List of kigo is reasonable, but this category is of no value. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. List is sufficient. RedWolf (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The list is fine. A group of seemingly unrelated things linked only by their use as allusions in poetry is the inanimate object equivalent of WP:PERFCAT. Grutness...wha? 13:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This kind of information is very useful and interesting, and I'm probably one of the en.wiki editors who is most interested in and aware of its content, but that just means I understand that 90% of the articles on topics we have whose names (at least in Japanese) are seasonal words would not make appropriate entries in this category since they are primarily about botany and/or zoology, and very little sourced content about the "kigo" aspect could be said except the fact that in Japanese poetry the word fits into one or more such categories, which is content that is more becoming of a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Additionally, it is a blatant OR magnet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 27 July 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_July_21&oldid=909126271"