Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 8 June 10 >

June 9[edit]

Category:GAA people by county[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale: The sports covered in these categories are Gaelic games and the organisation involved (or at least one of them) is the Gaelic Athletic Association.

The Camogie Association is represented in some categories, e.g. Category:Tipperary camogie players in Category:GAA people from County Tipperary. It has "close ties" with the GAA but is it really the GAA?

The name of the sport is used in similar category titles, e.g. Category:Sportspeople from County Galway has Category:Association footballers from County Galway and Category:Rugby union players from County Galway.

So "Category:Gaelic games people from" would make sense.

--Gaois (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It have reverted both those edits, because it seems to me be completely perverse to create a situation where Category:Gaelic Athletic Association people doesn't include the by-county and by-province categories which reflect the GAA's structure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 10 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:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fuel exhaustion[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, but make Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fuel exhaustion a subcategory of Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fuel starvation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: yes, they are different, but the results are basically the same and fuel exhaustion redirects to fuel starvation, so they seem to be handled the same way at Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 9 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:Oncology articles needing expert attention[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; the target one is a proper task force while this isn't. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:27, 9 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:Rap gods[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: category has already been deleted (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obvious vandalism. ｖａｐｏｒｇａｚｅ💬 (please ping on reply) 18:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not vandalism. It's a fact. Eminem rapped really fast on Rap God and Godzilla (Eminem song). Mac Lethal rapped really fast near the end of his alphabet rap, and had videos of him rapping 400 syllables in 1 minute and 1000 syllables in 2 minutes. I was just trying to make a list of people who ever had guinness world records for highest rate of syllables/time. Logo fixer (talk) 19:26, 9 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:Airstrikes by perpetrator[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The super-category Category:Categories by perpetrator is really for things that might typically be consider crimes that are perpetrated. Air strikes are a military operations conducted by an attacker. Greenshed (talk) 17:41, 9 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:Films set in Latveria[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge with Category:Films set in fictional populated places per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NONDEF. One page in this category, Small category with no potential to grow. And It isn't a defining characteristic that the films are set in this exact fictional location. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the place of setting is not defining at all in this case. Latveria is just a random name and not relevant for the story line. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 9 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:Film series endings by year[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#Category:Film series endings by year

Category:Czech companies established in 1989[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is an "orphan' category, and although the single article in the category Dominant CZ refers to a company in the Czech Republic, the Czech Republic (as distinct from Czechoslovakia) came into existence in perhaps 1991 or 1993. Hence the article should be upmerged into Category:Companies established in 1989, Category:1989 establishments in Czechoslovakia and perhaps Category:Companies of the Czech Republic.Hugo999 (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The Czech Republic started in 1993. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge I'm not at all swayed by the argument that we should distinguish companies founded in the Czech Republic with ones founded in Czechoslovakia, looking specifically at the "establishments in Russia" categories. However, there's only one company in the Czech Republic classified by year right now, so the upmerge - even though it's in a valid series - makes sense at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 10 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:Brownbuls[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) 17:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category text includes "This category lists birds traditionally referred to as "brownbuls", regardless of their actual relationships." - hence SHAREDNAME applies. Note: The lack of any interwiki links is a further indication that this is specific to English language names.  See e.g. Grackles CFD. DexDor (talk) 11:37, 9 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:First Secretaries of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU[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. bibliomaniac15 17:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, while reading the articles I did not get the impression that this is a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This category is for mayors of Moscow in Soviet times. Place Clichy (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to categorise politicians on the basis of who has real power is asking for trouble. Rathfelder (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Place Clichy and Rathfelder: trying to revive this discussion. Of the 13 first secretaries in this category there are only two articles which elaborate on what these people have done or achieved while they were first secretary, namely: Nikita Khrushchev and Boris Yeltsin. And as you know, these two people are known way better for their later career. In most cases the function of first secretary is mentioned without any further comments, and in some shorter articles it is not even mentioned at all, e.g. in Karl Bauman. I really think that this is not a defining function. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my limited understanding of the Soviet Union I would agree with you. The real bosses generally assembled a load of titles, just as English kings used to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 June 2020‎
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding sibling and parent category to nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 09:32, 9 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:Saar people in sports[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This would empty Category:Saar people by occupation, which seems to be designed for people from the shortlived Saar Protectorate. There seems to be some sense in the sport categories, as there were national teams from the protectorate, but it doesnt seem to be necessary to have wider categorisation, especially as it is completely ambiguous, Saarland now being one of the German states. Rathfelder (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Category:People in sports by nationality was purposely created to remove non-athletes (coaches, managers, etc.) from the Category:Sportspeople by nationality tree. (The lone subcategory, Category:Saar sports coaches, was previously under Category:Saar sportspeople, which has since been deleted.) I don't think a merger that would result in coaches being put back under a sportspeople category (even though this one's not part of the by-nationality tree) is a good idea. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category, as well as subcat Category:Saar sports coaches and its lone subcat Category:Saar football managers, which I have tagged. While it may be helpful to have categories for sportspeople who have represented the Saar Protectorate back when it existed, football managers are not such representatives, and neither of the subjects of the two articles under the category were managers during the time of the protectorate. I'd also say there's a case for re-creating Category:Saar sportspeople, which was manually emptied, with the clear scope of sportspeople who have internationally represented the protectorate, to clearly separate the nationality tree from the location tree. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We still have Category:Olympic competitors for Saar. Rathfelder (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Saar is not a nationality or ethnicity. Saarland was for a short period a separate polity (protectorate), but it will be much more satisfactory to treat it as having continuity with the German state. All Saar categories should be merged to equivalent Saarland ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I fail to understand how sports coaches are not sportspeople, especially given that most coaches are former competitors (as is the case with both those in the Saarland coaches category). Grutness...wha? 23:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, do not delete, people represented Saar in international sports for a short time, though I do think there needs to be some pruning. (Also, looking though the people in the cat, our notability standards for Olympians are way too low, but I digress.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:36, 10 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.

Christians of medieval Islam[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; the comments in support of merger were apparently written when these categories contained very few articles, but they are now better populated with 10, 4 and 19 member pages respectively. There is scope for a fresh nomination of Category:Christians of Al-Andalus for merger to Category:Mozarabic people as these appear to have the same scope (along with its parent, see the discussion below). I considered merging the Rashidun category as a WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. with permission to re-create it if more members can be found, but instead I am leaving it for now as some pages were only added yesterday by Mugsalot (talk · contribs); if it remains at only 4 pages then I suggest a re-nomination later for merger to multiple parents, which should include Category:Christianity in the Rashidun Caliphate. – Fayenatic London 10:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the three categories contain only 4 articles together and although I presume that some expansion is possible I don't expect they will ever grow to big categories. For Al-Andalus a second merge target is not needed because the one article is already in Category:People of the Emirate of Córdoba. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, I'll submit a rename proposal for the target one of the following days. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scope of the category extends far beyond just clerics. See Category:Mozarabs. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Al-Andalusi: nice catch, thanks. I have changed the merge target accordingly, assuming that Christians of Al-Andalus are equivalent to Mozarab people. That is correct, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 9 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.

Christianity in the medieval Islamic world[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, although there is scope for a re-nomination of Category:Christianity in Al-Andalus for merger to Category:Mozarabs as they seem to have the same scope. – Fayenatic London 10:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the five categories contain only 9 articles together. The subcategories with Christians should not be included in the merger, they are already in Category:Christians of medieval Islam Category:Christians in the medieval Islamic world and, for example, Category:People of the Abbasid Caliphate. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dating "by century" or "by period" is best. Dating by ruling dynasty is not usually a good idea. That includes "Elizabethan era" dating. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Fatimid cat as it has 5 articles. Merge rest per nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: See my response under the discussion for "Christians of medieval Islam". Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:SMALLCAT has been cited above as evidence to delete. However, if anyone actually takes the time to read SMALLCAT they will see that "this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth ... may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time". Therefore keep as per SMALLCAT. Greenshed (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so what will be the cause of the realistic growth here? (Apart from the fact that Wikipedia grows slowly every year.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a guess, I would anticipate that the category growth rate would be modest but SMALLCAT only says "realistic potential for growth", not "realistic potential for speedy growth". Greenshed (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that sense every category has potential for growth so this way of reading would make the clause redundant altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok change that to nearly every category. Still reading it like this makes the clause redundant altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are potentially an infinite number of very small categories with no prospect for growth that might be created or proposed. For example, there was only one Royal New Zealand Air Force air marshal of World War II and so by any measure Category:Royal New Zealand Air Force air marshals of World War II would be a bad idea. SMALLCAT is meaningful and practical as it stands; it just does not suit the purposes of the nominator. Greenshed (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it does not match with the way I read it. 'Realistic growth potential' should mean, imho, that there is a 'specific reason for growth of this particular category'. I maintain that otherwise it is a pretty meaningless phrase. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Greenshed and Marcocapelle: Rather than disagreeing with each other, I think our joint target should be the lousy WP:SMALLCAT editing guideline. How many articles do you need before it's not small, what does a realistic potential for growth mean in practice, and why do we encourage the rapid fire creation of dozens of useless categories that automatically become untouchable because they are now "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"? These arguments have been going on for years in CFD and WP:SMALLCAT's poor wording seems to create conflict rather than consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I didn't think the disagreement above was really a bad thing. More importantly, I take it, @RevelationDirect:, that it you want to get rid / merge of all the categories nominated, including Category:Christianity in the Fatimid Caliphate even though it contains 5 articles directly and a further 15 in its sub-cat? I'd say that was quite a hard line on what constitutes a non-viably small category. How many article does a category need before, in your view it's useful? Personally, I'm ok with five as it supports the reader's navigation around related content. Greenshed (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't take it as anything other than a sincere discussion by two editors trying to make the encyclopedia better. But was WP:SMALLCAT helpful in reaching a consensus? (I agree on the 5 article cutoff and updated my vote above, having only clicked on 2 originally.) RevelationDirect (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tend to the view that 5+ articles and were viable while under 5 and it depends (growth potential, part of a category scheme etc) but would note that it's been hard to get consensus on these numbers in the part which is why SMALLCAT is not specific. Incidentally, I was just taking a look at Christians and Others in the Umayyad State for an indication of growth potential. Greenshed (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are Islamic states, and the history of these states is usually written from the dominant Muslim perspective. Christianity is therefore a very distinct topic in these early Muslim states/societies, which each of these states treated differently (most notably the Fatimids, who even had Christian viziers, but the Andalusi experience is also entirely different from that of the eastern caliphates). Each of these states was home to different Christian communities, from the Copts to the Nestorians and the Melkites, each of which has its own history and traditions under these regimes. This in turn leads to highly specialized modern studies in this area, which cannot be done justice by upmerging to over-generic categories. WP:SMALLCAT is furthermore entirely inapplicable here. Yes, the categories are underpopulated, but they definitely are a long way from being exhausted. Constantine ✍ 21:01, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_9&oldid=1079915319"