Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 20 March 22 >

March 21[edit]

Category:Countries involved in the Silk Road[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) 20:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining category, per WP:DEFCAT. I found this on Italy, in which the text and even the sub-article History of Italy make no explicit mention of the Silk Road. I can't imagine a full article about any country having any more than a paragraph on the Silk Road. I won't check each article, but out of spot checks, there's no mention of the Silk Road on Brunei or Kenya. I am not a historian, but Wikipedia's map of the Silk Road shows many other countries than those in the category, and they could be just for transit or major hubs for all the category is worth. I was astonished that Uzbekistan, a country even I know grew rich off its Central Asian position in the Silk Road, is not so categorised. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (If kept) heavily purge -- The Silk Road was a medieval trade route between China and Europe, though it probably had more than one strand. It might be appropriate to have categories for countries along it, though it ought to be for contemporary (rather than modern) polities. Those along the sea-born route that replaced it (involving European East India Companies) were not on the silk road and should not be in the cat. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NONDEF; polities differed when the Silk Road mattered. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 27 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.

Clearer names of barony categories[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) 20:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While most realize what the year means, I think the names can be clearer. There are more similar categories, but I'm trying these as a test balloon to minimize editing. They will be added later if these go through. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A clearer name may avoid miscategorizations. Dimadick (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Good examples of why category names need to be clearer sometimes; the year alone is perfectly good disambiguation for these barons, but I can envision "creation" simplifying things for the categories, as uninformed editors might think that the Xth Baron doesn't fit in the 1371 category because he didn't inherit the title until a couple of decades later. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- This is a good reason why we should not have categories on holders of specific titles. The means of accessing articles by title that I have always used is via list articles, which place the holders in chronological order with links to related lists and brief details of notable achievements. This is giving us a mass of categories most of which have very few articles in them. I might have voted to merge, but I do not think that is the answer as it will not help one work out which "Henry Lord Stafford" is which, whereas the list article does. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 26 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:Scottish women scientists by field[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 both. – Fayenatic London 09:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Scottish women geologists. Unnecessary intermediate category - I dont see any similar. Rathfelder (talk) 16:30, 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:People educated at The Priory School, Shrewsbury[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 17#Category:People educated at The Priory School, Shrewsbury

Category:Magazines by interest[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 21:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, as it is difficult to see how the scope of every pair of categories differs from each other. For Wiki-historians it may be interesting to know that these categories were created by Stefanomione. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - some of Stefanomione's eternal rocks in the ephemeral stream. The first pair are different: by interest indicates the audience (eg Women's magazines - magazines for women) and by content indicates the topic (eg Automobile magazines - magazines about cars). So I don't think a merge either way would work. I think Stefanomione probably grasped the subtleties involved in these but others don't and so the actual contents might well differ from what Stefanomione had in mind. I have no idea what the difference might be between 'by topic', 'by content' and 'by genre' (or 'genres'). Exit, mind spinning, parameters and paradigms just round the corner ... Oculi (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the intention, if the words are ambiguous they wont work. Rathfelder (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments This nomination is incomplete. Nomination does not provide any justification as to why the suggested names are the better choice of the two existing names. I suggest each change be handled/discussed separately. It also does not state what is to be done with the subcategories, such as Category:Magazines by interest and country (and all its subcats). Hmains (talk) 16:44, 12 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:Books by interest[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) 20:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the two subcategories are already in Category:Books by genre and that seems to suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes, straightforward. Oculi (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:24, 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:History of local government in London (early)[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:History of local government in London (pre-1855). – Fayenatic London 21:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is simply an unusual name format. "Early" is a simple adjective, so it's fine at the start of the phrase, even though other categories in the tree wouldn't be good that way, e.g. Category:History of local government in London (1889–1965) should not become "1889–1965 history of local government in London". Another option is Category:Pre-1855 history of local government in London. This category says "Early history (before circa 1855) of local government in the current area of Greater London, England", and 19th-century London says that the 1855 creation of the Metropolitan Board of Works was London's first metropolitan government body, so I'm guessing that's why the 1855 date was chosen. Nyttend (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a normal name format for pre-XXXX categories? If it is, no objection; it just sounds rather odd, and I don't remember encountering such a form in category or article names. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A date is much more helpful than "early". Rathfelder (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt 2 -- I had to look quite hard to accept that 1855 was a robust boundary, as many of the subsidiary authorities started at quite different dates: Poor Law Unions (established in 1830s) became rural districts, with some parishes becoming urban districts later. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 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:Indian Soldiers with Shrines[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 19:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if kept; there's definitely no reason to capitalise "Shrines". Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to capitalize "Soldiers" either. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clicking through the two articles, it didn't seem particularly defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 5 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.

Medical outbreaks by country[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: Not merged Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
more countries and overseas territories
Nominator's rationale: merge, after renaming all Corona "outbreak" articles to Corona "pandemic", this outbreak tree has become redundant. Only the American and British categories have been excluded from the nomination, since they do contain a number of outbreak articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A medical outbreak doesn't have to be a disaster and a disaster doesn't have to be a medical outbreak. UK and US demonstrate this. These country categories are usually treated as systematic group, if the US and the UK have categories then why shouldn't other countries have them, too? The categories are not empty either. --mfb (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The categories should be emptied after all Corona "outbreak" articles have been renamed to Corona "pandemic", and the Corona pandemic articles do belong in the health disaster parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outbreak is the more general term, in a pandemic the whole world (more or less) has outbreaks. How is it not a health disaster? This is a WP:SNOW candidate, but just to be clear: I oppose the proposal, too. --mfb (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Coronavirus is not the only outbreak to have affected the world, and these categories have potential for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! So we have one article of an outbreak of 12 years ago. So the next article may come perhaps in another 12 years. Yes this great potential for expansion... Marcocapelle (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A pandemic is, by definition, an outbreak. Just a really big one. Don't see an issue in including a sub-pandemic within a country as part of a list of disease outbreaks in that country. Juxlos (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Juxlos. The fact that several coronavirus outbreaks turned into one big epidemic does not stop the individual outbreaks being outbreaks. Also some outbreaks are not disasters. This proposal is more a solution looking for a problem, rather than to other way around. Agathoclea (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per the above. An epidemic or pandemic is an outbreak. This is the opposite of WP:Shared name - something can be an outbreak without its Wikipedia title including the word. And medical should be changed to 'disease' throughout per the parent Category:Disease outbreaks per Agathoclea above. Oculi (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Category:Disease outbreaks in Foo, per parent cat and previous above-linked discussion. The things that erupt in outbreaks are diseases, not medical stuff. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Pandemic still is an outbreak. Also there are many articles that surely wasn't included in the category like Black Death and so on... outbreaks aren't always disasters and don't you think that those categories actually has a purpose? Editoneer (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - an outbreak may not be a health disaster. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 17:55, 28 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:Ships built in Houghton, Washington[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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCLOCATION
All 48 ship articles in these categories were built in the same shipyard in the same location. That location went from being an unincorporated area of King County, to Houghton being incorporated as a city (1948), to merging with the city of Kirkland (1968). (All 48 articles are from that early unincorporated period though.) Similarly the single shipyard was the "Anderson Shipyard" from the 1880s to 1923 (9 articles) and was renamed as the Lake Washington Shipyard from 1923 until closure (39 articles). We don't have any other ship or shipyard articles for either Houghton or Kirkland. I'm proposing the target category because Lake Washington Shipyard is the only main article here but, alternatively, if the consensus is for the Houghton or some new name, all three categories are tagged to give flexibility to the outcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them all to the same place. You've made a solid argument for considering the categories as complete overlaps. I just don't care what we call the end result, especially because I have no idea whether we prefer the latest name or the name that was used longest. Nyttend (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have no preference for the target name. In the spirit of WP:C2D, naming it after the main article (Lake Washington Shipyard) is probably the default. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:04, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_21&oldid=951467618"