Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 15 May 17 >

May 16[edit]

Category:Stingray Digital radio stations[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:Stingray Group radio stations. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: reflect current company name ViperSnake151  Talk  22:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The article's been moved to the new name (Stingray Group); seems to make sense to update the category name, too. – Levivich 01:22, 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:Amusement rides introduced in 2020[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:Amusement rides planned to open in 2020 etc. I'll also rename Category:Amusement rides introduced in 2022 which has been created during this discussion. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Implementation note: the original categories were automatically generated from dates in infoboxes; these can be suppressed by adding " (planned)" after the relevant dates in the infobox. For more info or further discussion, see Template_talk:Infobox_attraction#Categories_for_future_years. – Fayenatic London 18:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: It can't have been introduced in 2020, we're not there yet! Ditto Category:Amusement rides introduced in 2021. Proposed to open in... might work. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I created both just to fill redlinks in Special:WantedCategories, but I entirely agree with Doug Weller. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL etc. If these things are actually opened in the relevant year, then add them to the appropriate category ... but we don't yet know whether the plans will be fulfilled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2020/Delete 2021 WP:CRYSTALBALL makes an exception for events that are in planning and likely to happen: the 2020 rides are all started and expected to open in early spring for the summer rush. The naming is certainly a little awkward for a future event but i don't think the maintenance of flipping that back is worth it. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer c– Fayenatic London 22:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)onsensus.[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • If a ride is scheduled to open in 2020 and it does open in 2020 according to planning it only needs to be recategorized once. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 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.

NAIA Men's Basketball Tournaments[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:NAIA Men's Basketball Championship. MER-C 11:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:NAIA Division I Men's Basketball Tournaments
  • Category:NAIA Division II Men's Basketball Tournaments
  • Upmerge both into Category:NAIA Men's Basketball Championship. It doesn't serve the readers any benefit to break out the 28-year time period where the NAIA had divisional classifications for their men's basketball tournaments. By upmerging the articles into the parent category, all tournaments' articles will be in a centralized location, then delete the two child categories. I will also be moving the 1937 through 1991 tournament articles to remove the "Division I" since there weren't divisional classifications during those years. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I left a notice at WikiProject Basketball, perhaps this will attract more editors to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I was the creator of one of those two categories, following suit from an editor who was later deemed controversial with his category creations, so I am hoping these can be speedy-upmerged. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 17:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. It'll be easier to have all the pages in one category. – Levivich 03:53, 22 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:Bosnian dynasties[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.
Nominator's rationale: merge, overlapping scope, this dynasties category contains noble families just like the noble families category does. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with whatever decisions you reach here. Like all other English wikipedia instances of this small country history, Cat's too are often messy and disorganized, so following points could influence how you are going to think about the issue: category "Bosnian noble families" refer to dynasties of medieval Bosnia, which exclusively covers articles on subjects associated to particular era and particular culture. It doesn't include any other period in country's history - Bosnian nobility of the Ottoman period, period of Austria-Hungary, 20th century period families without noble pedigree, etc. Cat above this one, "Bosnian nobility", is still too specific and it includes only "noble" pedigree families. There are few separate categories at "Bosnian noble families" level, such as "Ottoman nobility" and "Medieval Bosnian nobility", both from different era and culture, and these are subcat's of "Bosnian nobility" and "Bosnia and Herzegovina nobility". It's a mess, so the idea was to sort things out and turn "Bosnian dynasties" into very top Cat in the hierarchy of Bosnian families regardless of era and/or culture - this should cover different periods, culture, and different political systems context; pedigree based on inherited "noble" status, or economic and political position, or acquired by mean of wealth; prominent family lines stretching into present times, with or without "noble" pedigree, and so on.---౪ Santa ౪[[User talk:Santasa99|<span style="color:navy; text-shadow:#6– Fayenatic London 22:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)66362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">99°]] 18:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the top level we have Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina families and with the current content of that category I cannot envisage how Category:Bosnian dynasties would fit in between. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should refer you to article Dynasty - Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina families is the top Cat for family in general, but in context of multi-generational exert of power and influence dynasty is the best description and could stand as top category for that context. I checked families included into category "Bosnia and Herzegovina families" and at least three of four families are dynastic and still around (not extinct). I understand that entire string is a bit messy and disorganized, like almost all other dealing with country's history articles (I know now that you nominated "medieval state institution" as well), but it seemed to me as a good idea to differentiate medieval, contemporary, multi-generational, noble, genteel, surviving, extinct, and so on, from one another.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 17:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused about the use of the terms Dynasty, Family and House in this context. I think I'm not the only one, because it's hard to discern any clear pattern in the articles in those categories. I was thinking of trying to standardise them, but before I do I'd like some discussion and perhaps some guidance. The Dynasty article says "Alternative terms for "dynasty" may include "house", "family" and "clan"", which isnt very helpful. Maybe standardisation isnt possible. Rathfelder (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terms are overlapping indeed. We'd better follow the articles on a case by case basis, e.g. in ancient Egypt it is obviously "dynasties" but in most cases "families" (royal families, noble families) is used. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 20 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:Portals with titles not starting with a proper noun[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 09:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A useless category. Applied to mainspace this would be a huge collection. The inverse of this category "subjects starting with a proper noun" would help us indetify inappropriately narrow topics. I can't see any tracking benefit to this category though. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 17:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No-one has replied to this CFD to explain how this category might be used (and I don't find TTH's explanation in a CFD last year convincing). I can't find any processes that refer to this category. DexDor (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless. Whatever relevance it may have had last year while TTH was spamming out automated pseudo-portals just for the heck of it, it has no relevance now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Serves no useful function. – Levivich 03:57, 22 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:Men's history[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 09:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointy trolling. Gamaliel (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Gamaliel[reply]
  • Keep - although its currently underpopulated, there is clearly a sub-structure being built-up. If Category:Women's history is any indication, surely there are plenty more topics and subcategories that should be placed within it. Nom's rationale of "Pointy trolling" would seem to have no basis in evidence. --Netoholic @ 17:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is only one article that really belongs here, Great men theory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, duplicative of Category:History. Also, WP:SMALLCAT–it has potential growth, but then it really will just become duplicative of Category:History. WP:Systemic bias explains why it makes sense to have a Women's history but not a Men's history category. In short: women are underrepresented in history, whereas men are not. Leviv ich 04:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If its "duplicative", are you suggesting we add Category:History to Category:Men in history and Category:Men's studies as this category currently is? That seems more sexist than to just have this minor category for some topics and subcategories which deal specifically with men's history. Keeping this category does absolutely nothing to increase - and deleting it does nothing to decrease - systemic bias. -- Netoholic @ 17:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Women's history exists because there is a substantial body of scholarly work that is explicitly dedicated to studying that topic. There is a ton of historical work that is implicitly about men, but adherents of concepts like "The Great Man Theory of History" don't actually acknowledge "maleness" as a defining feature per WP:CATDEF. The only people who expressly study masculinity in history are scholars like Karen Harvey, whose work is ultimately an outgrowth of *drumroll*...women's studies. Nblund talk 20:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nblund: Here is a link to the main Women History subject heading on WorldCat, and here is the main Men history subject heading. Both have very large scholarship. Additionally, specific headings like Gay men history (Category:Gay history, for example History of gay men in the United States) would fall under this category. -- Netoholic @ 15:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and those results kind of bear out the point: the very first item on that list is a book about feminist men by Michael Kimmel, a distinguished professor of Sociology and Gender Studies at SUNY. The second nonfiction book is by Mark E. Kann, a specialist in early American political thought and gender studies. The third (skipping over a book about Mad Men) is a work by Mary P. Ryan, which she describes as an analysis of "the way women’s and gender analysis has changed the big picture of U.S. history". Point being: these works are all part of gender-studies/feminist historical analysis cats that already exist. They do not represent a mirror image of "women's history", they're a part of it. You might be able to stretch a bit and justify adding these all together under a "History of Masculinity" cat, but the stuff you're adding here, and here, are just works with the word "men" in the title, which is a ludicrous category. Nblund talk 16:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it matters if its a feminist writing about men's history - it's still men's history. One could say even that neither "men's history" nor "women's history" exist in a vacuum separate from the context of the other sex, so really history is just history, and a gendered history split of categories really makes no sense. Perhaps it all should just go under Category:History. You didn't address my Category:Gay history point, and yes, in trying to locate appropriate topics and subcategories to populate this category, the low-hanging fruit is finding things like those pages with "men" in the title, but those do not represent the full extent this category serves and you'll see I've added several other topics which don't. -- Netoholic @ 16:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me separate out two issues:
  1. A category composed to include a bunch of what you call "low-hanging fruits" would be trivial to the point of being useless. Despite their titles, reliable sources don't classify things like The Men Who Built America as works that study men qua men, so they fail WP:CATDEF. The use of "man" in the title is often a product of thoughtlessness on the part of the writer rather than an actual indicator of their focus. As Kimmel himself has pointed out, pretty much any history that doesn't have the word "women" in the title is a history is likely to be "about men" in this trivial sense.
  2. A category composed of works that are consciously and explicitly about the construction of manhood through history, such as Kimmel's History of Men might be defensible as a subcat in Men's studies/Gender studies. However, it would probably be more appropriate to give it a name like "history of masculinity" in order to avoid the mistake in #1. Nblund talk 18:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"History of masculinity" would even less sense than this category, as masculinity is a diverse set of attributes and behaviors of men that exist externally to any trackable "history". "Men's history" is also much easier to remember and has obvious applicability (again, still no comment on Category:Gay history?). Had this request been presented as a desire to combine Category:Men in history and Category:Men's history as well as Category:Women in history and Category:Women's history (reducing the levels of the subcategories by one on both sides), I'd not as strongly object because the distinctions are lacking and they are both sets largely redundant. As it is, the Men's categories there are lacking a number of topics, and the Women's categories seem over-stuffed (for example, I don't see how Category:Women in film is right for placement in a "historical" category... unless one assumes that every film was made in the past and so is part of "history"?). -- Netoholic @ 18:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Masculinity is exogenous to all historical forces" is definitely not what most sociologists would say. Kimmel himself makes it clear that his book is really "about masculinities, not men". I don't really know what your point is about gay history, but you're shooting yourself in the foot trying to draw comparisons between fields that cropped up to address an understudied minority with a category which includes virtually every history written prior to the 20th century. Even if you don't see it, it's fairly clear that everyone else here understands why these aren't comparable. Nblund talk 19:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno why you're stuck on Kimmel - there are 44,700+ other works in that Men History subject heading. Latching onto the first listed returned result is... weird... and isn't making the point you think it does. Perusing the first few pages, I see works on black men's history, history of facial hair, history of men's fashions, frontiersman history, men's histories in several countries, etc - topics which by-and-large leave out discussion of women, and so are not appropriate for general Category:History. I guess if this deletion happens, there's no choice but to put them into general History categories then (but I can imagine you'll be there objecting to that also). -- Netoholic @ 20:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kimmel is far and apart the most notable name in the study of masculinity, and you would need to dig pretty deep in AMSA directory to find a scholar that who could maintain a straight face after being told that masculinity is a historical constant. "Histories of masculinity" is a similar category that I could get behind. This isn't. Nblund talk 21:21, 20 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:Jewish Danish businesspeople[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 27#Category:Jewish Danish businesspeople

Category:20th century in Santa Barbara, California[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 16#Category:20th century in Santa Barbara, California

Category:Stefanos Tsitsipas[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for what amounts to one article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:55, 16 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_16&oldid=907558066"