Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 13 March 15 >

March 14[edit]

Category:Football players from Be'er Tuvia[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories with just one or two entries. Don't propose merging to people as most Israeli footballers are seriously overcategorized with player articles in People and sometimes Sportspeople from Foo in addition to Football players from. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:35, 21 March 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:Akiba Hebrew Academy (Merion, Pennsylvania) alumni[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. bibliomaniac15 21:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The school was renamed to Barrack Hebrew Academy.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I would ask Oculi to read my ALT more closely and he/she will discover that I advanced two reasons. Let me restate them: 1. There is a standard for alumni naming in use in the UK & Ireland. (Implicit: I believe that that standard is superior to the usage in this case and in the USA in general.) 2. Plainer English (Implicit: The English word order in the ALT is superior to the word order in the proposal and in the USA in general.). Secondly, can I ask Oculi be expand on his/her claim that UK and Irish standard is entirely irrelevant. The purpose of these CFD discussions is to eliminate abberations and to agree on wiki-wide standards. Since the UK & Irish standard is, for the reasons stated above, superior to the usage in the USA and indeed India, then it is most relevant. The clear implication of the successful adoption of the alt proposal is that the remaining USA and Indian cats would have to be the subject of mass nominations to conform. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: standard naming formats within countries can generally be changed either by RfC or by a comprehensive nomination, but not piecemeal – otherwise a speedy nomination is likely to revert to the local norm. – Fayenatic London 11:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but I have neither the time nor the skills for such mass nominations. But that doesn't mean that it is not the right thing to do. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: category was not tagged until today, so please do not close this for another 7 days. – Fayenatic London 10:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. The UK and Irish standard isn't relevant to a US school. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:17, 18 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:6 Hours of Circuit of the Americas[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To reflect the current name of the event and to reflect the current title of the main article
SSSB (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 14 March 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:Dungeons & Dragons creatures from folklore and mythology[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. There is nothing particularly special about a monster being based on mythology - almost every RPG has at least one of those. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Special" is not a required trait of a monster or a category. A creature's origin seems like a reasonable defining trait and this is a reasonable category. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose The character's real-world source is a defining trait. Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 17 March 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:Vancouver articles[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 may be helpful to explain why I am not giving weight to the the prima facie case for merger. The project covers the Metro Vancouver area which includes multiple cities, one of which is Vancouver, and the project's top category Category:WikiProject Vancouver has sub-categories for some of those cities, one of which is Category:Vancouver articles, alongside a non-city category Miscellaneous Vancouver articles. Confusion might arise because the assessment categories for all of those articles are concisely named e.g. Vancouver articles by quality rather than "WikiProject Vancouver articles by quality‎". I will submit a fresh CFD proposing to (i) rename that one & Vancouver articles by importance; (ii) add an intermediate "Category:WikiProject Vancouver articles by location" to add clarity; and (iii) disambiguate the nominated category to "Vancouver (city) articles". – Fayenatic London 09:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Internal WikiProject category, which is not named in the standard format for such categories and is simply duplicating the properly named category which already exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I'd like some comment from a member of the WP as to why there are separate categories. Perhaps there's a logical reason? Grutness...wha? 00:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until a WikiProject member explains this further. The category Category:WikiProject Vancouver articles is due to the use of {{WikiProject Vancouver}} and appears on all pages bearing that WikiProject banner. The category Category:Vancouver articles is due to the use of either |city=Van or |city=Vancouver in that same banner. It is not always present: for example, the use of |city=burn in that banner will instead put the page in Category:Burnaby articles. So I guess that the WikiProject needs to subdivide the WikiProject and probably finds the additional category produced by |city= useful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: the main project page WP:WikiProject Vancouver shows that it encompasses "Vancouver, Metro Vancouver, and Vancouver-related articles" and "articles relating to Metro Vancouver"; the WikiProject banner documentation shows that the |city= parameter is for "a designation for which GVRD city the article is related to" (GVRD is an acronym for the Greater Vancouver Regional District, being the former name of the Metro Vancouver Regional District (MVRD). The city of Vancouver is one of fourteen cities within the MVRD, so naturally one will be a subset of the other, and a merge is illogical. The distinction is akin to that between Greater London and the City of London. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But none of Category:Greater London articles, Category:City of London articles, Category:London articles (all redlinks) exist so that doesn't explain why such a category would be needed for Vancouver. DexDor (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have just added a Wikiproject banner to the talk page, perhaps that will lead to more reactions in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless someone provides a reasonable explanation of what the distinction is (which would probably result in a rename). DexDor (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DexDor: I gave an explanation a week ago... I have now amplified that in case it wasn't clear. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment: Has anyone contacted WPVan for comment or explanation? If not, it should be done ASAP. It doesn't seem to be listed in their alerts or mentioned on their talk page. Grutness...wha? 03:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Vancouver articles and deprecate Category:WikiProject Vancouver articles. The project can use the former and does not require the latter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 20 March 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:Railroad engineers[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 unambiguous Category:Train drivers per RM at Talk:Train driver/Archives/2020#Requested move 14 March 2020. – Fayenatic London 06:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The present name - which certainly is American usage - is misleading, even to Americans. Most of the articles are about people who are what English people would call engineers, ie Category:Railway civil engineers. I dont think there will be many articles left when its purged, but I dont think we should merge it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the purging already taken place? So far I only see train drivers. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, though "Railway driver", and various other possibilities come to mind. The odd old Americanism "engineer" ('one who operates the engine') is confusingly ambiguous in a world in which we're surrounded by engineers in the more technical sense, and the old train sense really doesn't make any sense with regard to modern trains but only antique locomotives. Rail vehicle operators push buttons and such these days; they are not opening an engine furnace to shovel coal into it, then carefully twiddling various steam-valve settings so it doesn't explode.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the articles about Americans call them locomotive engineers, so I'm planning to make a subcategory for the USA. In England I think Engine driver is probably the commonest term, but that too has its ambiguities. Rathfelder (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the article is Railroad engineer to which Train driver redirects. The general rule is to follow the article. Oculi (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as railroad engineer seems to be an American term, I suppose the American subcategory needs to be renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already purged it. About half the articles were not about drivers - and many of those were about Americans. I took the name of the American category from the articles, most of which said the subject was a locomotive engineer. Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to reflect outcome of RM, which looks as if it will be to rename as nom. This use of engineer is ambiguous as the usual meaning of engineer refers to a mass of other things. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice that the British subcat is "train drivers" is that a British usage? While it seems logically unambiguous where railroad engineers could mean those who design railroads (civil engineering), I wonder if there is a British English vs. US English issue here. Hope colleagues in the UK can assist my understanding here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer To blindly match the outcome of the RM proposal on the main article, whether I agree with that outcome or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. And if that RM fails, Category:American locomotive engineers should be speedy renamed to match the current main article name per WP:C2D since there's no ENGVAR issue there. And, regardless of the RM outcome of the main article, Category:British train drivers should not be renamed due to ENGVAR. From my view, either this nomination is a RM in the wrong place or is advocating that the main article and parent category be mismatched, neither of which I'd favor. If I'm still missing the point of the nomination (rather than just respectfully disagreeing), ping me and I'm happy to reconsider. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:14, 29 March 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:Tartans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 22#Category:Tartans

Category:Forgotten Realms deities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 22#Category:Forgotten Realms deities

Category:Germanophone Italian lugers[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 18:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've looked at a sample of articles in this category and not one mentioned the persons language(s) - it's clearly non-defining and the editor doing this miscategorization is being disruptive. It's also not an appropriate way to categorize sportspeople. DexDor (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons discussed here. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it seems to be 'Italian lugers with German surnames'; I too am yet to find any articles where language is mentioned. Oculi (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have doubts about the utility of Germanophone at all. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Ultimately I think the entire tree of Category:People by first language can go. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I agree that this category should go, I believe categorization by first language is sometimes justified. Language is frequently political. Germanophone South Tyrol has sometimes been a source of tension between Austria and Italy. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, Lugnuts, and my comments on similar categories above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 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:Germanophone Italian sportspeople[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've looked at a sample of articles in this category and not one mentioned the persons language(s) - it's clearly non-defining and the editor doing this miscategorization is being disruptive. It's also not an appropriate way to categorize sportspeople. DexDor (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Oops. I pressed Tw on the wrong page. DexDor (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally proposed the wrong category for merging. I've added a new discussion above and struck this nomination. If Oculi, Marcocapelle and User:Lugnuts don't mind I suggest this can be closed as withdrawn. DexDor (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:09, 14 March 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 trap musicians[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. – Fayenatic London 16:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Can be upmerged to parents. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Thanks for starting a discussion on this. The reason I created a separate British trap musicians category is because "UK trap" is a known term; it has its own section in the British hip hop article. UK trap has its own different sound to American trap music, and it would be easier for people to search for artists of both American trap and British trap if in separate categories rather them being mixed in Category:Trap musicians. Hiddenstranger (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If UK trap is a specific term-of-art for a particular sub-genre, as seems to be the case, then we could have a category for that when it is notable enough for its own article. Even then, this would not be synonymous at all with British trap musicians, which indicates any trap musicians (more broadly defined) who are British – and who might have nothing to do with the style split-off that's called UK trap. Some of them will have pre-dated that sub-genre's emergence, and eventually some will post-date it, assuming it does not last indefinitely as a distinct variant. Odds are that trap in general will outlive UK trap in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable/non-defining, as well as a reader-unhelpful terminological confusion; see reply above to Hiddenstranger for details. Even if the sub-style becomes notable/defining at some point, this category name would be wrong and impermissibly ambiguous.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would not call a category with 6 members "small". Trap is a growing musical genre so saying this category has no potencial for groth is missleading. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe even the "trap musicians" category is small enough where diffusion is unnecessary at this time. Even if it were to triple tomorrow, it's still would have less than 100 entries. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:20, 14 March 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_March_14&oldid=1149594903"