Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 29 December 1 >

November 30[edit]

Artist portraits[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) 00:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Right now Category:Portraits by artist is split between two formats, this should standardize them. I would think this way is preferable since it follows the practice at Category:Paintings by artist (C2C Wikipedia:Category names#Visual arts) and would remove any possible confusion that something like "Francis Bacon portraits" may mean portraits of Francis Bacon. Also I have no idea if I set this nom up correctly, the instructions and process is unbelievable tedious and non-user friendly Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it also makes more sense because it avoids the ambiguity of whether it is portraits by the artist, or portraits of the artist. Sionk (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reduces ambiguity (t · c) buidhe 02:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, which appears to be admirably set up and eloquently defended. Oculi (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have added similar categories that were previously missing from Category:Portraits by artist (see Category talk:Portraits by artist). – Fayenatic London 22:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the process, well done Aza24, you got it right first time. Some editors use WP:TWINKLE to assist with the CFD process, but I think multiple nominations still need to be built by hand. It comes with practice. Let me know on my talk page or at WT:CFD if you have the energy to discuss any suggestions for improvement. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. It can help distinguish between general portraits and self-portraits. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 20:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provided that someone checks that all are portraits by artist, not of artist. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:54, 7 December 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:Fictional victims[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 8#Category:Fictional victims

Category:Category:Symphony X songs[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Effectively empty and therefore redundant – the only entry is a redirect. Richard3120 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 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.

Gateway Conference (1962–1975)[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) 00:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This conference continued to operate into 1975 for winter and spring sports. See this article detailing the 1974–75 basketball season. This article from early 1976 confirms confirms that the conference had been disbanded before the 1975–76 basketball season. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 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:Redirects from citation identifiers[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) William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having separate categories does not make a ton of sense here. I would suggest we merge Category:Redirects from citation identifiers to its main parent and redirect {{R from citation identifier}} to {{R from identifier}}. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To explain a bit further, the redirects in question are all XYZ (identifier) formatted redirects. Very few redirects are likely to be added to this rcat as it only will go up as identifiers are added to the CS1 templates, authority control, and the like. As this group is pretty small for a rcat, it would be better to merge them for now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The two categories we have right now are already well populated, so I don't see a need to merge them for being underpopulated. We will have many more identifier redirects in the future so it makes sense to group them into suitable subcategories where possible. At present, there is only one such subcategory (for identifiers used in citations), but we will likely have separate bibliographic- and person-related subcategories (and more) in the future. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not very well populated by rcat standards. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But they are by category standards. And, as I wrote, there will be many more in the future.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:16, 17 December 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.

Oklahoma Collegiate Conference[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) 00:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The common name for this conference was "Oklahoma Collegiate Conference". Newspapers.com shows over 10,000 hits for "Oklahoma Collegiate Conference" between 1929 and 1973 to only 230 for "Oklahoma Collegiate Athletic Conference". See also citations at Oklahoma Collegiate Conference. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) Support as creator of at least one all of the categories. The source I used at the time of creation is now defunct and I have seen some sources outlining Jweiss' contention.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom; --Just N. (talk) 13:03, 7 December 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:Imperial Russian electrical 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: merge. For the record, there are 4 and 2 members respectively in the nominated categories at this time, which do not include Baird. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not realistic to subdivide occupational categories in so much detail. We already have Category:19th-century Russian engineers

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. Rathfelder (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Having 1 article occupation categories for occupations is totally acceptable. We should not be merging nationality categories. Just because we use the same name for different contries should not mean we merge articles on their residents into one undifferentiated category. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not "so much detail" it is to a specific huge empire that lasted over 100 years. Nothing very fine about this. I might see upmerging into the Imperial Russian engineers, but absolutely not to the Russian engineers category. This is a category connected with a specific country, and lots of people were nationals of the Russian Empire who would never be approriately called Russia. I do not think we should have the 19th-century Russian engineers category at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved your unsigned comment into chronological order (above), and attached your name to it. At least you properly remembered to strike your duplicate !vote, but it would be even more helpful not to be in bold font. Fixed.
      William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, merging to Russian is not a problem for any of the four articles currently in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think all the Imperial Russian occupational categories are subcategories of the appropriate Russian ones and I see the point John Pack Lambert is making, but I am not convinced this way of doing it really works. Similar problems arise, sometimes much worse, in other places where the names of the countries, and often their boundaries, have changed with time. In many cases it appears that we treat all the people as coming from the country which exists now, apart from ancient civilisations. There clearly isnt a perfect way of doing this. I'd like to know what people think. My own view is that size matters. So I think Category:Imperial Russian engineers works, because there are about 40 articles, but smaller and more specialised categories dont seem very useful. And I agree that it isnt sensible to keep 19th-century Russian categories alongside Imperial Russian ones. Rathfelder (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. The Imperial Russian notion is retained, and Russian Foo is a very acceptable (and defining) parent for pre-1917 (or pre-1991) Russian people. Place Clichy (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should not use Russian for anyone who did not live under the current Russian polity that has existed only since 1991. It is just plain confusing to try and figure out how to appropriately use it for early times. The name should be limited to people in some way connected to that existing polity, and for occulpational subcats should be limited to people who engaged in that occupation while nationals or residents of the post-1991 polity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – we already have Category:19th-century Russian engineers, we don't need to split these tiny categories of civil and electrical engineers, and we certainly don't care that the rulers were Imperial, or Russian Empire. Besides, not all of them are Russian ethnicity. Baird was (obviously) Scottish. Mikhaylovsky was of Polish origin, working in Ukraine. Ziese was German, but he moved to Poland. There's no evidence that any of them became a citizen of the Russian Empire. Let's stick to those who can be verified as citizens. Many of us engineers work across international boundaries.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:43, 12 December 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:Higher-level bird taxa restricted to the Malagasy region[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have any other categories (or even an article) about the Malagasy region (Malagasy is a dab page).  Note: All the articles currently in this category are in other geographic categories (e.g. Category:Endemic birds of Madagascar, Category:Fauna of the Mascarene Islands) apart from the Vanga article (which probably should be moved to Vangidae and removed from the category).  Note: Perhaps the whole Category:Higher-level bird taxa restricted to single zoogeographic regions tree should be phased out as we don't afaik categorize any other animals/plants in this way (these are the only "higher-level taxa" categories) and it sort of duplicates the endemic categories. DexDor (talk) 13:11, 30 November 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:Ancient religions[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Once again as with Category:Pre-Islamic Pakistan, Olden Creed has created a woolly WP:OVERLAPCAT with no consideration of the existing hierarchy at Category:History of religion by period - the fact that they never put categories on their new categories suggests they're not looking at the existing hierarchy at all. Le Deluge (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. There is also Category:Religion in ancient history which I have added as a parent. While we often distinguish set categories versus topic categories, I am not convinced that this distinction is very meaningful in this particular case. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In support of. It's important for viewers to understand that there were ancient periods or religious phenomena (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism) and modern ones (Unitarianism, Sikhism, Baha'i). All religious just can't be clumped together as if their origins are the same. - Olden Creed 19:26, 1 December 2020
    • For the the record, Olden Creed's comment is in support of the category rather than the nomination, i.e. means keep. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mushing a large time period into one category; for example, Christianity originated in the 1st century, while Jainism is of uncertain origin but can be traced back to at least the 8th century BC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The categories were added, not replacing others, so no merging is needed. However, another category change was made to Zoroastrianism [1] which I think should be reverted. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Misleading title. It covers modern religions with origins in antiquity, rather than actual religions of antiquity. Dimadick (talk) 00:25, 7 December 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:QuestBridge partner colleges[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: QuestBridge is a non-profit that tries to ensure that outstanding students from poor backgrounds get an opportunity to go to top universities. Whilst all very laudable, it is hardly WP:DEFINING for the likes of MIT, Stanford and Yale to be involved in such a project. Le Deluge (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous CFDs (example). DexDor (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination doesn't adequately capture what QuestBridge is. It's not just a "hey, here's a college you might be interested in who's asked to be put on our list and here are some application tips", but an entirely separate application process that replaces the college's normal admissions pathway. The presence of QuestBridge on a campus has a substantial impact on its character, especially at smaller schools where QuestBridge students in some cases make up more than 10% of the student body, to the extent that typically non-QuestBridge students still know about it. QuestBridge chapters for enrolled students further this. Media coverage has been substantial; see NYT, WSJ, etc. Here's Yale discussing it in their annual new class press release, something that's pretty typical. The category also has clear potential usefulness to readers (and categories are supposed to be reader-facing, even though we often forget that). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: WT:WikiProject Higher education. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF but the content of the category may well be added as a list in the main article. Notability of a topic does not necessarily imply that it is defining for other topics. That is also the issue here. QuestBridge is notable, but partner colleges are not defined by it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. The colleges may be defining for QuestBridge, but participation in QuestBridge is not defining for the colleges. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A worthy program to be sure, but not defining like an accreditation body. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (listify if necessary). WE have frequently deleted categories for members of associations of universities. This has the same sort of feel to it. This is a variety of category clutter, like PERFCAT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Most university associations don't have a substantial influence on the character of the member institutions. QuestBridge, as I argued above, does. Perhaps our standards for "defining" have become insanely strict at some point, but this category does not seem out of place, and I'm concerned that many of the !votes here reflect an inadequate understanding of the program and what it means to be associated with it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to 10% is not impressive from the perspective of the colleges. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 8 December 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:Tiny Ghost Records albums[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redlink record label ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:27, 30 November 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:Pages with misplaced templates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 4#Category:Pages with misplaced templates

Category:Seized domain names[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains redirects. We are not an indiscriminate dumping ground for information, and this way of categorizing redirects is unhelpful to readers. Aasim (talk) 00:46, 30 November 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:Knights Grand Band of the Order of the Star of Africa[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders or celebrities visit Liberia, or vice versa, the Order of the Star of Africa is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Tzvi Tzur, Juliana of the Netherlands and Gustaf Adolf Boltenstern Jr. are not remotely defined by this award. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 30 November 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:Recipients of the Medal of the Centenary of Regained Independence[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:V and WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
We don't have main articles for Medal of the Centenary of Regained Independence, Medal of the National Education Commission, or Pro Bono Poloniae Medal. The biographies within these categories are about split evenly between those that make a passing reference to these Polish medals within a list of honours and those that don't mention them at all, so the categories don't seem generally defining. I normally favor listifying awards and definitely favor more Polish content so I copied the current contents of all three right here so no work is lost if anyone wants to start list articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 30 November 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_November_30&oldid=998969935"