Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 22

< November 21	November 23 >

November 22[edit]

Category:Rubik's Cube permutations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 1#Category:Rubik's Cube permutations

Category:Moons of Haumea[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 5#Category:Moons of Haumea

Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures 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: keep. There is no consensus to merge. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging ~~Category:Buildings and structures by heritage register~~ Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country to Category:Heritage registers by country

Nominator's rationale: Following the closure of WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_7#Category:Listed buildings and structures, it was suggested that I should make the necessary changes to implement my suggestion that this category should have one subcategory per country. I have accordingly edited subcategories, providing a new parent (where necessary) in cases where there were multiple national categories in this one, e.g. Grade 1 and 2 listed buildings in UK (and Hong Kong). Having done so, I found we also have a much more wide-ranging Category:Heritage registers by country. It looks to me as if what I have ended up with should effectively be a duplicate of that. I am therefore now suggesting merger to that, which is only feasible now after my alteration to the subject's sub-categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Support in principle, per nom, per WP:OVERLAPCAT. However I think that a plain delete is more appropriate than a merge, since a merge would move some subcats to the target that do not belong there. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: please allow a few extra days for this discussion, as the bot removed the banner linking to this discussion when it moved the page after the previous discussion, and I have only just reinstated it. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for correcting this. I initially made a hash of drafting the nom: that may be what triggered the bot's actions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally concur with Marcocapelle, but also trust that Peterkingiron can do whatever cleanup he has in mind. If anything like the current category name is kept, it should be "heritage-listed" per MOS:HYPHEN. Anyway, my main concern is that a building/structure is not a heritage register, so such entries should not be dumped directly into any "heritage register[s]" category. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I mentioned in the previous nom, "Ideally there'd be a distinction between the categories containing the buildings and structures and the categories containing the list articles for each register." As Peterkingiron points out, this isn't quite often followed. It could probably be done both ways, but some categories will need extra layers as a result. Take Category:ASA Architectural Conservation Award recipients for example. Under the two-tree scheme, the category would fall under the buildings and structures tree, while the list article ASA Architectural Conservation Award would separately fall under the heritage registers tree. Under a merged scheme, there'd need to be an eponymous Category:ASA Architectural Conservation Award to hold both the recipients subcat and the list article, so that it can be placed under the heritage registers tree. Technically this would be a WP:EPONYMOUS violation, since buildings aren't heritage registers, as SMcCandlish mentioned above. Keeping the two trees separate would be cleaner; it'll require moving the subcategories from the heritage registers tree to the buildings and structures tree, while directly placing the list articles under the heritage registers tree if they aren't already there. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not look like a convincing example. Category:ASA Architectural Conservation Award recipients already links to ASA Architectural Conservation Award as its main article, so we would not need Category:ASA Architectural Conservation Award. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Marcocapelle, my point was that Category:ASA Architectural Conservation Award recipients can't (or shouldn't) be placed directly under Category:Heritage registers by country, since it's a set category about the buildings, not the register itself. If we're opting for the merged single tree scheme, it will have to be squeezed in there somehow. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Paul012: that is not what the proposal is about. After implementing the proposal, Category:ASA Architectural Conservation Award recipients remains a subcategory of Category:Heritage buildings and structures in Thailand. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Marcocapelle: You mean we'd have both Category:Heritage registers in Thailand and Category:Heritage buildings and structures in Thailand under Category:Heritage registers by country? That doesn't seem right. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You are actually right. The content of the registers categories is also mostly buildings, so there is definitely room for some merging, but we need to check this on a more detailed level. I have struck my earlier support for the proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Oculi, who opposed such a merger in the previous discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom -- I made this nom after restructuring the tree in accordance with the previous discussion. This is about governmentally designated classifications, not about awards by professional bodies. I am merely suggesting that we now have a redundant category level. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 23 November 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:Statistical analysis[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 merge. MER-C 10:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Statistical analysis to Category:Statistical methods

Nominator's rationale: undefined scope fgnievinski (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Questions~~ Oppose, why shouldn't it also be merged to its other parent Category:Data analysis? And, doesn't Structured data analysis (statistics) define the scope? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski: RSVP. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination in light of Category:Data analysis. (Although Structured data analysis (statistics) has a narrower scope.) fgnievinski (talk) 20:25, 28 November 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:Video games with custom soundtrack support[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. MER-C 10:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Video games with custom soundtrack support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a non-"defining" trait. A spot check of articles in the category had none even mentioning a custom soundtrack feature, nevertheless as a defining trait of the release. czar 00:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think it's at least true that this category has been overapplied to games for which it's not defining, but I'm not comfortable with removing it en masse from all of these on the basis of a spot check. For example, Audiosurf and Musika (both also in the Category:Music generated games subcat) do mention the custom soundtrack feature. I would recommend manually removing the cat from articles where it doesn't belong. After that, depending on what's left, there may be a clear basis for deleting the cat or downmerging it with Category:Music generated games. Colin M (talk) 07:52, 23 November 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 on the Hanover-Würzburg high-speed rail line[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:Hanover–Würzburg high-speed railway. MER-C 10:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures on the Hanover-Würzburg high-speed rail line to Category:Hanover–Würzburg high-speed rail line

Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:DASH – Daybeers (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection against rename but this category can also be deleted per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:SMALLCAT. These buildings and structures are already or should be linked to in the main article. No other German HSL has its own category.Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have bolded "deleted" in my previous comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - main article + 4 more is about enough for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but to Category:Hanover–Würzburg high-speed railway ("railway" instead of "rail line"), which could have been speedy WP:C2D to match main article Hanover–Würzburg high-speed railway. In reply to some of the above arguments for deletion, this category now contains nine pages; and although no other German HSL has its own category, there is Category:Rhine Valley Railway. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If kept (I assume it will be kept), support this alt rename per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 29 November 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:Buddhist scholars by nationality[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 close is no bar to further nominations. – Fayenatic London 14:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buddhist scholars by nationality to Category:Buddhist studies scholars by nationality

Also affected, though not necessarily suggesting renaming: Category:Buddhist scholars

Nominator's rationale: This category tree, for the most part recently created by User:Invokingvajras, is apparently intended to contain as its members people who were religious scholars on Buddhism. However, this contradicts with its parent Category:Buddhist scholars, which states, "This category is about Buddhist people who are scholars. For scholars of Buddhist studies, see Category:Buddhist studies scholars." Either this new by-nationality tree should be renamed, or the parent re-scoped (regarding the parent, though, I wonder whether categorising non-religion scholars based on religion isn't a trivial cross-categorisation). Paul_012 (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how nationality contradicts the parent's description. I initially made the category to collect present like-categories. Upon seeing how, for example, Category:Islamic studies scholars breaks down Category:Muslim scholars of Islam and Category:Non-Muslim scholars of Islam, I'd like to see this for Category:Buddhist studies scholars as well (The presence and distinction between scholars and scholar-practitioners is a well-recognized feature within Buddhist studies as pointed out by Charles Prebish), and preferably all religious studies categories as things develop.

Regarding the triviality of cross-categorisation, see: Category:Scholars by religion, which is currently a bit messy, but it's a wip. -- Invokingvajras^(talk) 22:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Buddhist Studies scholars be contained within Category:Religious scholars by religion?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Buddhist Studies scholars would be reserved for Category:Religious studies scholars, while Category:Religious scholars by religion would encompass scholars who profess affiliation with a particular tradition. -- Invokingvajras^(talk) 07:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

confused. I know a few buddhist scholars personally, and I do not think their categorisation as nationality + buddhist + scholar seems right, it's not as simple as it looks. In some cases I would consider some buddhists as scholars, and some scholars as buddhists, but not sure the nationality helps... JarrahTree 09:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my confusion for the confusion, but would it not be more confusing without nationality? For example, Category:Japanese Buddhist scholars could refer to either Buddhist scholars of Japanese descent (which is meant here), or scholars of Japanese Buddhism. Category:Tibetan Buddhists from Tibet is a prime example of how these distinctions can become a bit sloppy linguistically, but that's the exception.

As for "Buddhists as scholars" and "scholars as Buddhists", well that depends if we're discussing Buddhists who are scholars of all possible fields or scholars of Buddhism who exist outside the scope of Buddhist Studies, which to my understanding is a strictly academic field that just so happens to include scholars who identify as Buddhist (I may be wrong. It's been a while). The latter approach still doesn't assume that all these scholars would be Buddhist. Another possibility, which I think is implied by branch categories Category:Christian theologians and Category:Muslim scholars of Islam, is that "Buddhist scholars" may indicate those who study Buddhism for an explicitly religious purpose. In this case, many of the articles present may well be better off in Category:Buddhist studies scholars. Nationality may still prove useful as we already have Category:American Buddhist studies scholars. -- Invokingvajras^(talk) 07:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split all into Buddhist studies academics on the one hand; and Buddhist scholars of Buddhism on the other hand. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buddhist studies scholars is extant, which I imagine would be synonymous with "Buddhist studies academics." (?) -- Invokingvajras^(talk) 07:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is right. Academics is a bit more precise, but we can leave it to scholars as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - For greater clarity & concision, we should consider renaming all such categories using the formulation "Scholars of Buddhism" instead of "Buddhist studies scholars". Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anomalous+0. I was going to suggest much the same. "Buddhist studies" is unnecessarily long. Generally the religion of a scholar of almost any other subject would not be worth categorising, unless (perhaps) being a Buddhist would result in a different approach to the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is quite likely, and is also the reason why we have Category:Christian theologians and Category:Muslim scholars of Islam. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2020 (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:Gaelic-language magazines[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 as nominated. MER-C 10:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gaelic-language magazines to Category:Scottish Gaelic magazines

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination to match e.g. Category:Scottish Gaelic literature, after inconclusive discussion on Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Speedy discussion

Category:Gaelic-language magazines to Category:Scottish Gaelic magazines – C2C: All three category members were in Scottish Gaelic language; matches existing supercategories such as Category:Scottish Gaelic literature. Zerach (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This would be inconsistent with the Foo-language magazines convention of Category:Magazines by language. Assuming "Scottish Gaelic" is appropriate, should this be Category:Scottish Gaelic-language magazines? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Falcon: I don't believe so. In most of those cases it's needed to resolve ambiguity—does "Portuguese magazines" mean magazines in the Portuguese language or Portuguese nationality of the writers, or based in Portugal? "Scottish Gaelic" refers exclusively to the language, so there's no ambiguity, and "Scottish Gaelic-language" is just redundant. Zerach (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the existence of Category:Esperanto magazines. So, "-language" appears to be for disambiguation only. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Scottish Gaelic as the approprate name of the language. I have no opinion on whether "-language" is needed in the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support that -- If there were a case where the inclusion of language were necessary to prevent ambiguity, it should of course be included, but unnecessary here. It would be necessary if this were about Welsh ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 23 November 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.