Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 13 May 15 >

May 14[edit]

Rock music by country[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 to contain "Rock music". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the category names for the rock music in a country be standardized. Currently, some are named "___ rock" and others are named "___ rock music". A full list of the categories under discussion is below:

I am currently tagging all of the categories. I have tagged all of the categories. I have no strong preference for one structure or the other. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all (as necessary) to "Rock music" - I am strongly in favor of maximum clarity in category names. Anomalous+0 (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all (as necessary) to "Rock music" - per Anomalous+0. 'rock' is ambiguous (eg Blackpool rock). Oculi (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as rock music, per nom. Her Pegship (speak) 20:49, 15 May 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 Slavery in Cuba[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 17:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Quite simply, there is no need whatsoever for this category; the meager contents are perfectly well-served by the parent, Category:Slavery in Cuba. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, all slavery in Cuba articles deal with history, so adding History in a category name is useless. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 15 May 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:Sinéad O'Connor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 22#Category:Sinéad O'Connor

Category:Buildings and structures in Baucau[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 as WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. the category may be re-created if more articles appear. – Fayenatic London 11:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, two articles in the category and also only few articles in the parent Category:Baucau. Baucau is a city of 15.000 people in East Timor. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:31, 14 May 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:Buildings and structures in Bafatá[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 as WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. the category may be re-created if more articles appear. – Fayenatic London 11:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles in the category and also few in the parent category. Bafatá is a town of 34.000 people (2010) in Guinea-Bissau. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:31, 14 May 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.

St. Louis Commissioner of Police[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 23#St. Louis Commissioner of Police

Category:Aristocrats[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 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplication of Category:Nobility. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the category tag of "aristocrats" for the Elizabeth II article because it is a neutral name for a group, and because there was no "nobility" category used for the article. Also "nobility" is elegiac and praising; a term used by the aristocrat group itself, while "aristocrat" is the common name. The category names "royals" "nobility" and "aristocrats" need to be linked with each other as they interoperate, but they are in detail different. For example not all "aristocrats" are "royals." Also there needs to be a categorical separation of living and dead aristocrats/nobles/royals.-ApexUnderground (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is nothing "elegiac" about Nobility. It is a social class of people with "more acknowledged privileges and higher social status" than others, often holding Hereditary titles. But they typically rank below the royalty in the social hierarchy. On the other hand, aristocracy refers to a political system where political power rests in the hands of "a small, privileged ruling class". Dimadick (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Use of these terms varies by time and place. I cant see much point in trying to turn them into separate categories, though I dont object to renaming it. We dont have separate categories for living and dead because we are all dead in the end.Rathfelder (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because in effect it just duplicates Category:Nobility. I second Rathfelder's comment above about variations across time and place in precise use of the terms. The living and the dead are in any case distinguished by Category:Living people and the Year of death cats, so no need for anything more there. NB - however loose the definitions, there is a significant distinction between "Nobility" and "Royalty". Ingratis (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that "royalty" and "nobility" are different? That's not what others are saying, they are saying they are equivalent, and "aristocrats" as well. I see them being all meaningfully different even though they overlap, and categorizing articles according to all three categories would not be redundant. An aristocrat is someone in the larger group, but who may not be in the core royal family. The term "nobility" seems to be equivalent to "aristocrat," but the preference for "nobility" over "aristocrat" seems to need discussion separately. -ApexUnderground (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who is saying that "royalty" and "nobility" are equivalent? I can't see a single comment in this discussion that could possibly be read that way. In fact when you posted that message only two people had said anything about the word: you, who descried them as "different", and Ingratis, who said 'there is a significant distinction between "Nobility" and "Royalty"'. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so then if they are different, should they both be categories?-ApexUnderground (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category overuse: A problem with "Category:Nobility" is that it covers "nobility" the topic as well as "nobles" the persons. The one category "nobility" is overused, so there should be two categories, named either "nobles" or "aristocrats." I would prefer the latter because its descriptive, and not the preferred self-applied term of aristocrats themselves. -ApexUnderground (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The two terms are synonyms, and having both is unhelpful, as it is likely to lead to confusion, and also to articles being missed if they appear under one category and not the other. The reasons given by the only editor (so far) to argue for keeping are invalid. "Aristocrat" is not clearly "the common name". It is true that words such as "noble" and "nobility" in some contexts are words of praise or accolade, but it is perfectly clear in the contexts in which this category is used that it is the other meaning that is involved; besides, "aristocrat" is also sometimes used as a term of approval. The comments about "royal" are irrelevant, because nobody is proposing any change relating to that. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - sorry if I've introduced a red herring. I thought User:ApexUnderground was implying, in support of retaining Cat:Aristocrats, that it and Cat:Nobility were / should be subsets of Cat:Royalty (or possibly vice versa). Ingratis (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Royalty may be a subset of nobility, but certainly not vice versa. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coment - Seems that the consensus is that "aristocrat" and "noble" are equivalent, and that the proper category term is "noble", but there should be a redirct at category "aristocrat" and "aristocrats" to clear up any confusion. The term "royal" is said to be substantially different from "aristocrat" and "noble" so I don't see why that should not also be a category. The use of category "nobility" for individuals seems to be overloading the category, so a category "nobles" or "aristocrats" seems to be way to handle this. -ApexUnderground (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Dimadick that aristocracy is a form of government conceptualized in ancient Greece, but as far as I know the concept has not really been applied in practice. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any country with a king or queen who is the head of state and whom bequeaths their title by heredity and appoints political officers is an aristocracy.ApexUnderground (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that is called a monarchy. In theory you could argue that ancient Athens was actually an aristocracy because the power was in the hands of a limited group of people (neither women nor slaves participated in power), though usually ancient Athens is considered to be a democracy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 21 May 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.

Fiction by year of setting[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. MER-C 17:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Big Bang to 15th century
16th and 17th centuries
18th century
19th century
20th century
21st century
22nd century to heat death
Nominator's rationale:
  1. To attain consistency with the medium-specific subcategories, e.g. Category:Films set in 2019.
  2. To clarify the scope of these categories, i.e. they are mostly about in-universe setting and not anything like Category:2010s short stories.
I'm not sure how the existing Category:Works by period of setting tree should be handled. Also, I am open to an alternate name for the last category. Finally, this nomination took several hours to build and I need to go to bed, so feel free to tag all these categories for me, except the first, which is already tagged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC) 07:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It makes sense to assert the context as "year in fiction" could be misunderstood and taken to mean works published in that year. For example, Category:1906 in fiction is for fiction set in 1906 while its counterpart, Category:1906 in literature, is for works published in 1906. These names are similar and it would be better to rename the former as Category:Fiction set in 1906. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london and LaundryPizza03: all tagged! Also, I assume you meant "Propose renaming Category:1599 in fiction to Category:Fiction set in 1599", rather than "Propose renaming Category:1598 in fiction to Category:Fiction set in 1599". --DannyS712 (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks DannyS712! I have fixed that in the nomination. – Fayenatic London 20:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: No problem. I'm glad that DannyS712 bot II could be of service --DannyS712 (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Culture would be the best place to discuss. As for now, I can't really imagine any fiction outside works right now, so Fiction within Works sounds like a good idea. And if setting is involved, it can only be in fictional works, can't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 21 May 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:Confederate Memorial Day[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) 19:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
No conceptual bojection to this category but the only thing in it is the main article, Confederate Memorial Day. I can't think of a potenial 2nd article (let alone a 5th) so growth potential seems limited but no objection to recreating the category later if I'm wrong and we ever get up to 5 or so articles. The one article is already well categorized so no upmerge is needed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:53, 14 May 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_May_14&oldid=1138412230"