Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 29 May 1 >

April 30[edit]

Category:Sierra Nevada (U.S.)[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The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn bibliomaniac15 21:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing as nominator. CJK09 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nominator's rationale: Strong and clear primary topic; furthermore, provides consistency with the main article Sierra Nevada, which was recently moved from Sierra Nevada (U.S.), with strong consensus, for the same reason.

Pageview and link stats for the respective article pages can be found at that page's move discussion. CJK09 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the cases of both Birmingham and Georgia, there is a 2:1 ratio in the pageviews of the primary and secondary topic. For the Sierra Nevada, it's a 5:1 ratio between the US range and the Spanish range. CJK09 (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Especially when - like in this case - the secondary topic has its own category, page views are irrelevant, there is too much risk that articles are being misclassified. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 1 May 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:Black Women Photographers[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. – Fayenatic London 05:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proper terminology in a category of this type is "African-American" rather than "Black" -- and neither "women" nor "photographers" should be capitalized either. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is actually a fair point. It is (afaics) an unrelated intersection with gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming Category:African-American women photographers African American is not a proper name for this category as it isolates women photographers of African descent that are not American. Category:Black Women Photographers is the appropriate name for said category to be inclusive of all artists that identify as Black Women. thesocialphotog (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be categorizing people by race, perceived or not, something we cannot do. Place Clichy (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't categorize people by race across nationality: there are not supposed to be any categories on Wikipedia that categorize on blackness per se, thus placing African Americans alongside people of African descent who are not American. We categorize African-Americans as African-American because they live in the specific cultural context of being Americans, with everything that implies about the historical and political and social and cultural context of the African-American community — but we do not use the category system to transnationally group African-Americans with Kenyan and Nigerian and Congolese and Rwandan citizens on the matter of their skin colour itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a triple intersection of race (!), gender and occupation, ineligible per WP:OCEGRS. If it is defining for some people to be associated with Black Female Photographers as an organization, I suggest creating a category for photographers by studio, or members of an association, instead. Place Clichy (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Bearcat, Inter&anthro, and Marcocapelle: in order to avoid non-consensus which could result in keeping the category as is, I'd like to raise to editors in favour of African-American women photographers that 1°) the category lists people that are not American such as Nadine Ijewere and that 2°) what takes place of a main article, Black Female Photographers (which actually looks like a promotional article for a non-notable online organization to me), explicitly mentions "all around the world". I therefore find the rationale for renaming weak, and the key issue remains to determine if this intersection is notable in itself. Do you have any arguments for or against it? Whichever way this goes I'm willing to search for consensus because keeping the category as is would be the worst of all outcomes. Place Clichy (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formally changing my vote to delete after discussion above, per WP:OCEGRS. (Rename if kept.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 8 May 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:British portrait artists[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: withdrawn as a new path to keepability revealed itself.
Nominator's rationale: Across the board, all the people actually in either the British or Scottish categories are painters, so there's no useful reason to maintain an artist vs. painter distinction here when the painters categories already existed. And since these are the only "[Nationality] portrait artists" categories that exist at all -- as opposed to the much more highly developed Category:Portrait painters by nationality tree, which again already existed -- the "by nationality" container isn't necessary either. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've decided to withdraw this, as other cleanup spelunking around the overall Category:Portrait artists tree has revealed that there likely is a path to salvageability here, in that portrait photographers could also stand to get more subcatted by nationality — and once a Category:British portrait photographers category exists, there's a new basis for these to be retained. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 30 April 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:Ivan Aivazovsky[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 15:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous small category for a painter without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one. Apart from his biographical article itself, which hasn't even actually been filed here, the only content is an art gallery that was named for him, which also makes this a WP:SHAREDNAME violation. As always, every artist does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one related article to file in it -- he needs to have a lot of spinoff content, not just one thing, before an eponymous category serves any useful navigational purpose. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 30 April 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:Russian watercolorists[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: reverse merge in deference to the older category. bibliomaniac15 21:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not an expert in whether "color" or "colour" would be considered more normative in a Russian context, so this can be merged the other way if that would be more idiomatic -- but either way, we certainly don't need both spellings to coexist alongside each other as separate categories grouping different selections of Russian watercolo(u)rists. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The decision should be based on which spelling would be more standard in Russian English, not on which category existed first. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as Russian English. Oculi (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Countries where the primary language is not English, but where English is fairly widely understood as a second language, most certainly do have specific rules around which English conventions they follow when they're using it as a second language — so even if English is not the country's own primary language, it's still entirely possible to label it as a "British spelling" or an "American spelling" country. That's what I'm talking about. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge, the two categories obviously have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak reverse merge. There is no hard and fast rule, though we tend to use UK spelling for Europe (including Russia) and Africa, and US spelling for the Americas and Asia when English is not a primary language (mainly, I think, because many European and African countries have French as a second language, which also uses the U in such words). As such, I'd prefer to see it with the U, but primacy is with the spelling from the colonies so if that's the consensus I've no objection. Grutness...wha? 04:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a mainland European person, at school I have learned to write "colour" when writing to British people and "color" when writing to American people. In other words, it seems quite plausible to me that Oculi is right in that Russians do not learn either British or American English specifically. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that coping with the mysteries of English spelling variants is even more of a nightmare for people learning it as a second language than it is for native speakers. I dont see any rational basis for decision. Each is as good or bad as the other. So I suggest we go with the older version and the head category. Rathfelder (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somehow, preferably reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom i.e. to watercolourists. In an international context not linked to any specific variant, British English should usually be the standard, at least that's the way I've been taught, growing up in a non-English-speaking European country. Place Clichy (talk) 07:03, 8 May 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:Coaxial connectors[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 15:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: as per main article RF connector; also to avoid hierarchy problems with Coaxial power connectors. fgnievinski (talk) 19:24, 30 April 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:Kurdish communities in Syria[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. It appears there may need to be a more comprehensive listing to satisfactorily rename the category. There seems to be a rough consensus to rename, but the proposed target is not clear. It may be advisable to initiate a new discussion with broader scope and a new target name type. bibliomaniac15 21:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since 'Kurdish communities in Syria' works as a subgroup for Category:Kurdish settlements, we should go for a harmonization Semsûrî (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably we need to nominate all these communities categories for renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there is no consensus about the naming of these categories, since we also have Category:Assyrian settlements contra Category:Assyrian communities in Syria and Category:Assyrian communities in Iraq. I'm becoming more uneasy with the two words 'settlements' and 'communities' since the former can make users believe it's a town/village/city founded by that ethnicity while the word 'communities' can give the opposite impression (minimizing). I was thinking of a third option like Category:Kurdish-populated areas with Category:Kurdish-populated areas in Syria as a sub-category and the same method for all other ethnicity-geography categories. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can support that. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:43, 1 May 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:Scream spinoffs[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no use for this category. Scream doesn't have many "spin-offs". ★Trekker (talk) 12:55, 30 April 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:Songs produced by Nis Bysted[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has been redirected to Song recordings produced by Nus Bysted inline with the general naming conventions for these types of categories. Apologies if the correct procedure wasn't followed to move the category → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 10:33, 30 April 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:Songs produced by Mark Ralph[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has been redirected to Song recordings produced by Mark Ralph (record producer) inline with the general naming conventions for these types of categories. Apologies if the correct procedure wasn't followed to move the category → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 10:32, 30 April 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:Deportivo Tepic F.C. players[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. It appears from the article Luis Adalberto García that the name Deportivo Tepic was only used in 2017-18, the former name being Coras F.C., so there is no need to retain the sub-cat this time; I will redirect the old name instead. – Fayenatic London 06:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Team no longer known by this name. JTtheOG (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Even if the team is no longer known by this name, shouldn't the players be categorized by whatever the team was called back when they were playing? Or are the subjects of this cat simply all carry over to play under the new name? bibliomaniac15 02:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category page was not tagged until today
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 09:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make the subject a subcat of the target (which I have done). Otherwise one has to go through all Category:Deportivo Tepic F.C. players and explain why a Coras category has been added (not mentioned in the article). Oculi (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename per nom and to match parent article name per WP:C2D. FYI @Bibliomaniac15 and Oculi: it is standard to move the category name if the team changes name and categorise players by the current name; if we create sub-categories etc. then players who have played for the same team under two (and sometimes more) names are over categorised. GiantSnowman 12:29, 1 May 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:Deceased basketball players[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING. Throughout history humans have been mortal, and unless transhumanist get their way soon most people living nowadays will be mortal too. Therefore most if not all basketball players (and people in general, including us Wikipedians) alive today will end up deceased sooner or later. I did take into consideration WP:BITE as SomeBodyAnyBody05 seems fairly new to Wikipedia and has invested a lot of effort into this category, but after thinking it over for a couple of days I can't see any rational for keeping this category. We don't have Category:Deceased politicians or Category:Deceased actors. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably for the sake of maintaining WP:BLP. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is odd, but it exists for technical reasons entirely outside of reader use; as noted by Marcocapelle, it has to do with WP:BLP, and the ability to generate technical reports on BLP-related activity. (For example, one report automatically lists people who are categorized as "living" on the English Wikipedia but as dead on other language Wikipedias, so that we can properly investigate whether that discrepancy exists because the English Wikipedia missed the report of their death or because the foreign language Wikipedia was vandalized. Without a "living people" category, however, there would be no other way for us to stay on top of that.) Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I agree this is not defining. Rikster2 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this itself hasn't been tried before for the purposes of being speediable as a recreation of deleted content, then similar categories for deceased practitioners of other occupations certainly have. But as noted, every basketball player who has a Wikipedia article at all is either already deceased or will become deceased someday, so we have a longstanding consensus against intersecting individual occupations with the question of living or dead status. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Category:Basketball players. We have long discouraged current/former and living/dead distinctions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 3 May 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:Protests over responses to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic[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. However, process-wise, the first category has been emptied, and the second category has been listed for a speedy rename just today, so it will go through the standard 48 hour wait. bibliomaniac15 18:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has two articles including the titular article. It's either WP:TOOSOON or WP:SMALLCAT. Guy (help!) 11:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:34, 30 April 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:Restaurants of the year in Finland[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 15:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Finnish Gastronomical Society gives an annual Finnish Restaurant of the Year. I can't say for sure whether this award is defining but there's nothing in English Wikipedia that demonstrates that it is. I listed the current category contents here so no work is lost if anyone wants to create a main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
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.

Categories for nominees that did NOT win an award[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:OCASSOC)
Winning these awards may or may not be defining, but we'll argue about that in future nominations. This category is about categorizing people who did NOT win an award, sometimes by themselves and sometimes comingled with actual winners. Nominees are fine for lists or mention within the actual award articles, but doesn't belong in the category space. It might be an honor just to be nominated but it's not even remotely defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We deleted a very similar category for a very different award here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify, maybe, but we certainly don't need categories. Grutness...wha? 03:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply being nominted for an award is not defining. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, its not defining.
    SSSB (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, if we included every nominee for every award we'd be fill with useless categories. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some (not all) of these are awards for which we do have categories for the winners, but categorizing the non-winning nominees is not useful. Most people get nominations for a variety of awards over the course of their careers, so this would lead to extreme category bloat if it were allowed to proliferate — and, for that matter, even people who have won awards have often also had other nominations for the same award which did not translate into wins, so a person could technically have to be categorized as both a winner and a nominee of the same award. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly delete as OCAWARD; possibly listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, per WP:NONDEFINING and per WP:TRIVIALCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 4 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_30&oldid=1073192400"