Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 22 June 24 >

June 23[edit]

Category:Limba[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: Upmerge. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Limba is a disambiguation page: this is about the Limba people and Limba language in Cameron, but there is also a Limba people and Limba language in Sierra Leone. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 23 June 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:North East Delhi Residential Colonies[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one article in the category which happens to be part of East Delhi district. If kept it should rather become Category:Neighbourhoods of East Delhi district. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 23 June 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:Delhi residential colonies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Category:Delhi residential colonies

Twitch[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, WP:C2D disambiguation per Twitch (service), opposed on Speedy page on the grounds that there are no other categories making use of the word. I've suggested similar exceptions myself in the past, but these have always been overruled by the weight of precedents. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy page discussion
  • Rename per nom and consensus at a multitude of cfds, that a category name should be the article name, or less ambiguous than the article name. Oculi (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator and per consensus at many CFDs over many years, that a category name should be the article name, or less ambiguous than the article name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - There is absolutely no competition for the category name "Twitch" (see Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Twitch), that adding a disambiguator is pedantic, less concise, and unnecessary as there is currently no ambiguity. C2D has gone overboard. --Netoholic @ 17:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The main article is Twitch (service). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:37, 24 June 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:Owned-and-operated television stations in the United States[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. bibliomaniac15 02:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed when there are categories for each group; want to avoid category bloat Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:30, 23 June 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:Karon[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the bare title Karon is a dab page. These Karon are literary criticism (and works of literary criticism) of Japanese waka (poetry). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- seems like a reasonable idea. Interestingly, the Karon meant here isn't mentioned at the dab page and doesn't appear to have an article. Reyk YO! 13:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 23 June 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:Joinery[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) (t · c) buidhe 12:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: joinery is a disambiguation page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Have you looked at the disam page? It is nonsense. All the entries would go to Joinery (woodworking) if we had such an article, which we unfortunately don't. So what ambiguity???? Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's no ambiguity. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposers have a fair point. This is more a matter of article space. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 26 June 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:Icterus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Category:Icterus

Category:Faculty by university or college in Germany[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 02:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There was a discussion in February: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_5#Category:University_of_Rostock_faculty which was said to be a test case. At present we dont have a consistent policy. The word Faculty is used differently in different countries. Fakultäten, in German, refers to what might be called in the UK university departments or schools. Rathfelder (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but you need to list all the subcats. (Or try them at speedy, but then one oppose leads back to cfd.) Oculi (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried and failed with speedy nomination. The point of this is to see if the test case still has support. If this is agreed then I am happy to nominate all the others. Ideally speedily. Rathfelder (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Absolutely. This usage of faculty is generally confined to North America. Faculties in most other countries (including the UK, incidentally) are departments or groups of departments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, Oculi is right that subcategories should be co-nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, both substantively and procedurally.
Procedurally: the intent of this nomination is clearly to rename all the subcats ... so the subcats should be listed in the nomination. This is about the third or fourth stage of a set of sneaky attempts to rename a set of categories without tagging and listing them, and Rathfelder should have gotten the message already: there's no short cut around consensus building, and nothing in the guidance on CFD or on consensus to support this notion that a "test case" nomination can create such a procedural short cut.
Even if all the subcats were listed, doing this only for Germany is a very bad idea. It sets a precedent for a debate about the usage in each country, and with over 200 countries in the world, that will be a nightmare that will clog up CFD for months until the editors with any relevant knowledge give up in despair and decisions get made by default by whichever passer-by takes time to comment.
Substantively, this approach is a breach of policy. The problem here is that this set of categories uses two terms ("faculty" and "academics"), each of which is ambiguous in all varieties of English: see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/academic and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faculty. Per MOS:COMMONALITY we shouldn't be arguing the toss over how to balance these nuances in each language and each variant of English; we should be seeking a common terminology which avoids ambiguity in all variants of English. Off the top of my head "Academic staff" seems like a possibly suitable term, but we need an RFC to examine all the possibilities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BrownHairedGirl that this issue is not confined to Germany, and that the notion of test cases in this sort of situation is very unsatisfactory. "Academic staff" does indeed seem possible. However I am not confident that that an RFC will not turn into a debate about the usage in each country. We have tried that strategy before, for example with Organisations and Organizations, without much success. Rathfelder (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rathfelder, this is different to the Organi[sz]ations debate. My takeaway from that was that a significant number of editors cling to their ENGVAR, so there's no point in trying to create exceptions to ENGVAR. That's why I now advocate sidestepping that issue, by following MOS:COMMONALITY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is in fact Rathfelder who speedily renamed Academics by university or college in Europe to use 'faculty', contrary to 2015_January_21#Category:Academics_by_university_in_Europe which chose academics. It's not particularly unusual to try test cases or indeed do things country by country - many editors lack the expertise not to mention the requisite time to file bulk noms (which can produce vituperation rather than resolution). Oculi (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm in favour of consistency. If pressed I prefer "Academics" to "Faculty", but that is because it's the usage in the UK. I'm not hopeful that we can overcome the problems of MOS:ENGVAR and the weird arguments people produce in respect of countries where English is not a native language. That doesnt mean we shouldnt try but as Oculi points out that can involve a lot of time and effort. I'd like some way of assessing the likelihood of success before I try. Rathfelder (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are these the same concept? I assume that faculty are researchers & teachers; academics can have no teaching duties and could include administrators, think-tank members, and the sort. Do I misunderstand? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Academics" also has the meaning of "academic topics". And even among the "people who work in academia" sense, it could easily encompass for instance postdoctoral researchers, who are generally not listed in "faculty" categories. Unfortunately "professors" also does not work, especially not for the UK rank system. "Faculty members" might be less ambiguous. If we're going to aim for a foolish consistency, we might consider that we have a Wikipedia article on this very topic, whose title is yet another phrase, Academic personnel. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a separate category Category:Academic administrators. In practice neither academics nor faculty are very tightly defined, but I think generally would be taken to include research or teaching, or, usually, both. Rathfelder (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This proposal is clearly not going anywhere, so I'm withdrawing it. I hope to be able to summon up enough enthusiasm to take up BrownHairedGirl's suggestion of an RFC. And perhaps also an RFC on the notion of test cases. Rathfelder (talk) 19:48, 1 July 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:A Clockwork Orange[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) (t · c) buidhe 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a tentative nomination from the list described and linked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Non-disambiguation categories with eponymous disambiguation page in article space. In other words, the current category name matches A Clockwork Orange which is a disambiguation page. This category lists articles that are associated with A Clockwork Orange (novel) in various ways, including Nadsat (fictional language featured in the book), Girl Loves Me (song partly using Nadsat), Herman Makkink (sculptor whose pre-existing works were prominently featured in the film of the novel). The suggested split would make the category more defined and more consistent with others, but the latter page at least would probably have to be removed. The existing association-based category is simple and may be useful for navigation as it is, so is it better to keep it? – Fayenatic London 11:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative oppose. I appreciate the thought that Fayenatic has applied to trying to resolve the clash between category and article titles. This pairing of Category:A Clockwork Orange with dab page A Clockwork Orange is quite a common type in the the list I created: the dab page is actually listing different aspects of the same topic, rather than separate topics. There are many other examples relating to creative works, and lots for the male/female split in US college sports (see e.g. Category:Appalachian State Mountaineers basketball / dab page Appalachian State Mountaineers basketball).
In this case, the split proposed by FL doesn't seem to me to work well. There are some articles which should be in both the novel cats and works-based-on cat, and some more articles which may excluded altogether. Maybe there is something I have missed, but at this stage I am inclined to agree with FL's closing thought that maybe the status quo is the best way to categorise.
However, that raises the question of whether the article-space pages are being handled correctly. For example, should some of them be Wikipedia:Set index articles?
Note, I'm still a long way from a settled view on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another example Category:Kurhaus/ dab page Kurhaus. Isn't Kurhaus really a set index? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create two subcats. I can see the argument for separate categories but fail to understand why they shouldn't remain as part of a single parent, which would no doubt ease navigation. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This cat covers all related topics well. It is misguided to firmly expect a 1:1 correlation between article and category. C2D sucks as written. --Netoholic @ 17:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strikes me as splitting hairs a bit. Actually I could live with all three options - keeping single cat, separate cats for book and film (though probably least preferred), or making single cat a holder for subcats. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These topics all belong together, at least within a common parent category, but with only 12 articles no split is warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 10 July 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:ICI[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 17:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category which contains only Category:Grand Muftis of India and a navbox template. The category is already adequately parented, so no need for a merge.
The category name is an abbreviated for on Islamic Community of India, a poor-quality article which was redirected to Islam in India ... and the title ICI is a dab page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 23 June 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:House of Holland[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: disambiguation: House of Holland is a dab page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 23 June 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:Native birds of Southern Mexico[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 17#Category:Native birds of Southern Mexico

Category:Goodwood[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:Goodwood estate. bibliomaniac15 02:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Goodwood is a disambiguation page, so the page title needs disambiguation. Goodwood, West Sussex redirects to Goodwood House, but the scope of this category is greater than the house and its grounds, so see it seems to me to better to use the broader title. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if I understand correctly there is no village in West Sussex called Goodwood, thus all category content should be about the estate of Goodwood House. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles mostly refer to the "Goodwood estate" and the racecourse is within that area. So far I have not found a reference to simply "Goodwood". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Formal vote: alt rename to Category:Goodwood estate, West Sussex. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds OK in principle. But, @Marcocapelle, do we really need the "West Sussex"? Are there other Goodwood estates? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 26 June 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:Glyphis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Category:Glyphis

Category:Glaucidium[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:Glaucidium (owl). bibliomaniac15 23:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: The bare title Glaucidium is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is Pygmy owl, and the scientific name Glaucidium (bird) redirects there. I am not sure which to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to avoid ambiguity. Option A is consistent with the general usage of scientific names in biology categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glaucidium (owl) (all members of Glaucidium are owls), the scientific name is key is taxonomic classification and Wikipedia's categories following taxonomic Class/Order/Family/Genus and are organized the same way as the scientific names.--Eostrix  (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 11:46, 24 June 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:Basselin Fellows[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 17:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:OVERLAPCAT)
The Basselin Fellowship is a named scholarship for students attending Catholic University of America's Theological College, which mentions the award in passing. The 6 articles for recipients also mention the award in passing so it doesn't seem defining and all of them are already under Category:Catholic University of America alumni. The one person the award does seem defining for is the namesake benefactor, Theodore B. Basselin, that article lists the winners right here for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 23 June 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:Fellows of the American Society for Cell Biology[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 17:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V and, presumably, WP:OCAWARD
We don't have a main article on a Fellow of the American Society for Cell Biology, in a list of many awards they issue the American Society for Cell Biology article lists ASCB Fellows (but that's a redlink as well), and there's only one biography article in the category (Mary Dasso) which in passing mentions she was elected to the ASCB (is that a "fellow"?) That's all pretty thin for a category and there's isn't really anything to listify. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 23 June 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:Fortunella[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: upmerge. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: The bare title Fortunella is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is Kumquat, and the scientific name Fortunella (plant) redirects there. I am not sure which to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 23 June 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_June_23&oldid=969888954"