Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 21 September 23 >

September 22[edit]

Category:CIS Men's Basketball Championship[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 4#Category:CIS Men's Basketball Championship

Category:1861 in Montgomery, Alabama[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 4#Category:1861 in Montgomery, Alabama

Category:Soviet irredentism[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is based on a conflation of irredentism and expansionism, at best, or subjective original "research". Overall, irredentism is an odd concept to apply to the Soviet Union, given its founding and the Communist ideology was based a rejection of/break from the Imperial Russian past. None of the articles contain even a single mention of irredentism; instead, they are all appropriately categorized within the Military history of the Soviet Union tree. (Pinging the category's creator, User:R2D2015) -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Irredentism is a concept linked to nationalism, and Soviet is not a national concept. By definition, there can be no Soviet national communities abroad which can be a target for irredentism. This makes no assumption of the imperialist and expansionnist character of the Soviet Union at one point in its history. Place Clichy (talk) 16:46, 23 September 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:Greater Croatian ideology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 4#Category:Greater Croatian ideology

Category:Online auction websites[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: nomination withdrawn. MER-C 12:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two names for the same thing. Rathfelder (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think that this is correct, online marketplaces may also offer products and services at fixed prices (take it or leave it) rather than based on auction. By the way the diffusion of Category:Online marketplaces by country looks pretty premature. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesnt seem to be a distinction. Companies described as auction sites also offer stuff at fixed prices. Marketplaces covers both. Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK I withdraw this proposal. Rathfelder (talk) 15:24, 27 September 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:Fanny (band)[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given; didn’t see Koavf chipping in to take the main article to GA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I could just about see an argument for merging the two subcategories on band members and albums into this category. I don't understand the rationale here at all, eight articles is clearly sufficient for a category (and I'm not sure what the nominator means by "eponymous"; were you expecting the category to be named after something than the topic it covers?). ‑ Iridescent 20:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iridescent. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep the nominator has not actually made a valid argument for deletion and as a result nobody is agreeing with them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 22 September 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:Carpooling services[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 4#Category:Carpooling services

Wikipedians contributing under a Creative Commons license[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 5#Wikipedians contributing under a Creative Commons license

Category:Internet companies of England[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles, both about companies said to be British Rathfelder (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- It is often not useful to split British categories by the 4 home countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any such company would probably run business at least Britain-wide. Place Clichy (talk) 16:46, 23 September 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.

South African awards[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, each of the categories only contains one (semi-eponymous) article. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 22 September 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:King Faisal International Prize 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 all. The contents appear to already be listed in an article, but just in case I will post a list for each category to the talk page of this discussion (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, this is not an exceptionally famous prize that really defines the recipients like e.g. the Nobel prize does. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 22 September 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:Tencent Music[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 5#Category:Tencent Music

Category:Kessen series[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:Koei games. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "series" is unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small category of 3 eponymous articles and one template, with the latest in the series released 15 years ago. Category won’t really grow. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not kept, shouldn't the category be merged rather than deleted? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 30 September 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:Small appliance manufacturers[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 09:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles are largely about home appliance manufacturers. The Home appliance category is subdivided by country, is well populated, and most of the companies produce appliances of different sizes. There is an article Small appliance, but as noted, this seems to be American usage, and the term is not widely used, even in the American articles. The article isnt well referenced. This doesn't appear to be a useful subdivision. Rathfelder (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appliances can be, but most of the manufacturers can't, usefully, because most of them produce lots of different things. And I think this way of talking about them is not world wide. It's not much used in the articles. And I dont think there is much agreement about what constitutes consumer electronics, because electronics is spreading into places it didnt use to go. We do have Category:Lists of consumer electronics manufacturers, but not Category:Consumer electronics manufacturers, which is just as well because that takes us off into computer manufacturers. There is also a problem in that its not obvious what sort of small appliances are meant - I've taken out some companies which make small appliances like printers. Rathfelder (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:20, 22 September 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:Dwarf-like creatures[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:Dwarves (mythology). MER-C 18:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Far more comprehensive and conforms to the title of the main article. Invokingvajras (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Dwaves are generally thought of as people of small starture, maybe 3 or 4 feet, actually more tha 4 feet or a little more for adult males. "Little people" gets into humanoids who are often measured in inches not feet. These are very different things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:19, 22 September 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.

Islam 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 all to Category:Islam by city. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, as a category layer with very few subcategories it merely hinders easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – These categories have huge potential as there are mosques by city cats for many additional cities. Parent cats (Islam by city) are missing in many of these cases. Category structure should be completed not changed. gidonb (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not need container categories that only contain one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such categories allow navigation from the level above to the level below. Very important! Besides, the islam by city cats are not container cats. These are prime locations for articles that can be otherwise difficult to categorize, especially by location for reasons of smallcat. gidonb (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is is fine when they actually contain a fair amount of articles rather than just serving as a container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, for the time being said categories do not exist and it is very uncertain whether they can be created with a fair amount of articles next to a mosques subcat. Even Washington DC has only 3 articles next to the subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge per nom. The intermediate continental level does not seem to bring any value here. Place Clichy (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently split between merging and keeping - any further input would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:44, 22 September 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.

Early medieval French people[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 10:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, France did not exist before end of the 10th century and these categories mainly contain some rulers in Gascogne/Aquitaine who are neither part of a Gallo-Roman category (e.g. Category:7th-century Gallo-Roman people) nor part of a Frankish category (e.g. Category:7th-century Frankish people). The Gallo-Roman subcats may be moved to a corresponding European people by nationality category; the articles may be moved to a corresponding rulers in Europe category; and finally the 'see also Frankish people' headnote may be moved to the corresponding Gallo-Roman category pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep marking the 6th century as container only. The precise ethnicity of the two people in the 7th century article (who were rulers of Gascony and Toulouse) is not clear, except that they appear to have Latin names. It is best to leave this as it is. The Frankish categories might be promoted from "see also" to subcats. Peterkingiron (talk)
  • The latter would be odd. The kingdom of Francia originated in current Belgium and they expanded in Germany just as well as they did in France. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "except that they appear to have Latin names" I am not certain what this would indicate, as the Franks did adopt the Latin language. One of the two names indicated is Felix (Latin for "happy" or "lucky") and the other is Lupus (Latin for "wolf"). Dimadick (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of them used Latin names, and besides the use of Latin names does not make them French, if only because French people are entirely anachronistic in this period of history. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does this relate at all to my comment? Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, wrong indent, I was reacting to Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All.I don't think that the save for the 6th century should happen. The idea that Gascony and Toulouse were French was a slowly evolving thing over many centuries and was certainly not true in the 7th century. Even when conquered by the Franks, it's doubtful that the majority of the population would not have self-identified as "French". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification -- My purpose was partly to prevent re-creation. My proposal was intended to be for something like a cat-redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • re-creation of the categories that this will remove, perhaps by disruptive editors. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you then intend withdrawing your earlier keep vote? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The use of the terms France, Francia, Franks or French for Merovingian era is pretty moot. The evolution of what eventually became known as France occured slowly. However, carving this era out of French history is a bit ridiculous. Actually, the territorial extent of early Merovingian Francia is a lot more similar to that of modern-day France than either Charlemagne's empire or West Francia after the 843 split, two other dates somtimes put forward as a "start date" for France. Place Clichy (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a matter of carving out, it is a matter of starting French when France emerged, which is in the 10th century. Merovingian Francia also covered large parts of Germany, while rule over southern France was in effect quite limited, so Merovingian is no way equivalent to French. Moreover this discussion is really about where the articles about people from Gascogne and Toulouse belong, because Merovingian/Francia has its own category tree anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: "France emerged in the 10th century" is very debatable, and debated. "Large parts of Germany" (which is also anachronistic) were in fact limited in early Merovingian times to Rhineland (a part of Gaul) and Franconia, and later to Alemania (modern-day Baden-Württemberg). Most of "Germany" was only added to the realm by the Carolingians in the Saxon Wars, that is much later.
    If we go by geographical extent, present-day France is a lot more coterminous with the extent of Merovingian Francia than either that of 800s Charlemagne's Empire (which extended well beyond into Germany, Italy and Spain), or West Francia at the 843 Treaty of Verdun (another frequent and also imperfect "start" date often used for both France and Germany) or 10th-century Capetian France; the last two lack important regions east of the Rhône-Saône-Meuse rivers (Provence, most of Rhône-Alpes, France-Comté, Lorraine, Alsace and part of Burgundy), so that you cannot use territorial extent as the argument according to which you would consider them "France" in straight line and not the Merovingian Kingdom.
    If we look for a disruptive or founding event, the conquest of most of Gaul by Clovis and his religious conversion is quite often used by historiographers (at least in France itself), and is at least just as good as the 843 Treaty of Verdun, which is only one among the many divisions of the larger Carolingian Empire (the 870 division produced a different map, and the Empire was then reunited until 888 under Charles the Fat) or "10th century" as you suggest, which I assume is a reference to the accession of Hugues Capet in 987, actually a change of dynasty without much change in the nature of the state. In terms of title, King of the Franks (rex Francorum) was used until King of France (Rex Franciæ) was first used by Philip Augustus in the late 12th century. The Holy Roman Empire did emerge in the 10th century with the crowning of Otto the Great as a clear founding moment, but there is no such 10th-century foundation for France.
    Regarding actual control of Southern France (rather than mere suzerainty), which seems to be your point here, Toulouse and Aquitaine could be said to have enjoyed various levels of autonomy until the 13th-century crusades for Toulouse and the end of the Hundred Years War in 1453 for Aquitaine. Article Duchy of Aquitaine mentions a quasi-independent realm within the Frankish empire established during the second half of the 7th century, certainly by 700 and until 768, with allegiance to the overall Frankish kingdom recognized several times in-between. These regions were at times a sub-kingdom within the Frankish kingdom, but still a part of it. Place Clichy (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Francia in 511
    Francia in 511
  • Francia in 548
    Francia in 548
  • Francia in 768
    Francia in 768
  • Treaty of Verdun (843) and Treaty of Meerssen (870)
    Treaty of Verdun (843) and Treaty of Meerssen (870)
  • France at the end of the 10th century
    France at the end of the 10th century
  • France today
    France today
  • Possibly French historians have a very different view on this than non-French historians. For this category discussion it does not even matter. Either 7th-century people from Gascogne and Toulouse should be considered as Franks (in which case they should be moved to the Frankish category) or not (in which case they certainly aren't French because France in the 7th century only exists by virtue of equalizing Francia and France). In either case the French category is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 28 September 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:Congressional delegations from Georgia (state) navigational boxes[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:Congressional delegations from Georgia (U.S. state) navigational boxes (option 2). – Fayenatic London 10:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The U.S. state of Georgia (for which this category is intended) can either be categorized as just "Georgia" (option 1) or "Georgia (U.S. state)" (option 2).
  • I recommend option 1: Category:Congressional delegations from Georgia navigational boxes because there is no confusing it with the Georgia (country). There already exist categories under this state thusly fashioned. —GoldRingChip 14:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't recommend (but welcome discussion of) option 2: Category:Congressional delegations from Georgia (U.S. state) navigational boxes because there is no confusing it with the Georgia (country) so it would be excessive. —GoldRingChip 14:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • Comment, it is very unusual to drop "(U.S. state)" from Georgian category names. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but it does happen, and I don't think it's necessary here. Is there a discussion somewhere that's decided this so we don't have to reinvent it? Either way, it should be (U.S. state) or nothing, not (state). —GoldRingChip 19:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The latter ("Either way ...") is obvious indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2 - the risk of consusion with the country, while not very likely, is not totally absent. The country of Georgia has a Parliament, so it is not so far fetched that they have something which could be translated into English with the terms congressional delegation. Place Clichy (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many situations where the chance is "not totally absent" but we don't use option 2 for every little thing where there is merely the tiniest possibility. —GoldRingChip 15:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not making an assumption on the likelihood. I don't live near either Georgia, and if I see the phrase Congressional delegations from Georgia, I have no easy way to tell if it is the country or the U.S. State. Place Clichy (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2. The likelihood of confusion with Georgia is fairly high in any case and so we use the U.S. state form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:40, 22 September 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_September_22&oldid=929292500"