Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 14

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

October 14[edit]

Category:United States Rugby Players Association[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 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category that seems to have only one page that can be included in it. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 14 October 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:Mayors of places in Azerbaijan[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 Category:Mayors by city in Azerbaijan to Category:Mayors of places in Azerbaijan. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap. The places are all cities. Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is called a city varies a lot from country to country. I'd be quite happy to move them all to be places - but there are also categories by location or locality, (or even territory, see below) and I cant really see any useful distinction between the terms. But I'm not optimistic that we could get agreement on just using one term. Would it be more sensible to aim for uniformity within each country? Rathfelder (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't this a logical albeit underpopulated hierarchical category that's consistent with other geographies? I don't see a problem with the way it is now. If there's a logical argument for treating Azerbaijan uniquely please ping me otherwise I may miss it. SportingFlyer T·C 11:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had assumed these "Mayors of places" categories were for people who were mayors of places that weren't cities, but most of them seem to be used for places where there arent enough articles to populate "Mayors of Foo" catgories, so perhaps we should keep them. Azerbaijan is only unusual in that its quite a small country with not many cities, or mayors. Rathfelder (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are much smaller countries than Azerbaijan in the list: San Marino, Saint Lucia, Malta, Monaco, Estonia, Andorra etc. Place Clichy (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The difference I see between Category:Mayors by country, with categories named Category:Mayors of places in Foo, and Category:Mayors by city by country, which contains Category:Mayors in Foo by city for fewer countries, is that the second format are strictly container categories for cities which have a mayor category, whereas the first set is also for mayors of cities/places that do not need an eponymous mayor category. This distinction may be worth keeping. However I do not see an obvious reason for using the different terms of city vs. place. This may be fixed, but for all country categories and not just Azerbaijan. Place Clichy (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at Category:Mayors of places in the United Kingdom. There are quite a few non-cities (eg Paddington, various boroughs, Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough). Oculi (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are using in your examples the terms city and non-city in a way that is specific to the UK and that cannot really be the basis for a general rule. In my understanding Brits are quite peculiar about which place on their island is a city or not using a combination of cultural, historical and ecclesiastical criteria irrelevant of demographic figures, whether on pretty much any other landmass on Earth a city is pretty much defined by a population threshold, albeit extremely different (IIRC, 100,000 in China or Japan but 5,000 in France). Using places in the name of both categories may be the most practical solution in order to avoid this insoluble ambiguity (insoluble because no single definition of city can be usefully applied accross the board, and relying on so different local definitions would lead to never-ending conflicts). Place Clichy (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or reverse merge. Per the overall category tree for mayors by country, "Mayors of places in [Country]" is the one that has to exist for every country the moment it has even one categorizable mayor, while "Mayors by city in [Country]" is the one that's optional and dependent on circumstance. Place Clichy is correct about the distinction: the "Mayors by city" tree is exclusively a container for "Mayors of [Specific City]" subcategories, while "Mayors of places" is the one that has to directly hold anybody who was mayor of a place that doesn't have or can't support its own city-specific subcategory yet. I share the doubt about whether we actually need to maintain a places-vs-cities distinction at all anymore in this tree, as it is a bit opaque and started only because people were starting to directly and indiscriminately add Category:Mayors by city to every city-level subcategory on the planet, and I would not be averse to discussing a rename of the "places" categories either — but any merger has to be from "cities" to "places" rather than vice versa, as not all mayors are necessarily always mayors of cities, and not all cities have had enough mayors with articles to justify their own subcategories. So the base category has to be "places" (or another more general synonym such as "settlements", "communities" or "populated places"), so that it doesn't exclude people who were mayors of towns, rather than "cities". Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge -- Due to the differing definitions of what is a city/town/village, we moved them all to "populated places". In this case "populated" is redundant. I believe that in France villages have mayors. I do not know about the Azeris, but better not to create a potnetial semantic division. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment contents include people like Bayram Safarov who is not a Mayor and even if he was a Mayor, it would not be in Azerbaijan but the Republic of Artsakh. Should the name include a reference to those mayoral areas under de facto Azeri control? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is very difficult to know what to do about geography in Eastern Europe, where people who lived in the same city all their lives might have been in four different countries. Guidance welcome! Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is the "head of executive power", presumably that is a literal translation of what we usually refer to as "mayor". In any case this should not have an impact on the outcome of this merge discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content relative to places claimed by several competing polities (if notable enough) are usually categorized under both claims in the name of neutrality. E.g. a mayor of Sevastopol post-2014 should be categorized as both mayor of a place in Ukraine and mayor of a place in Russia. Safarov (probably through Category:Mayors of Shusha) would therefore deserve to be categorized in both Azerbaijani and Artsakh mayor categories, but as there is currently mayor category for Artsakh this category is only in the Azerbaijan category. Parent Category:Shusha is both in Category:Cities and towns in the Republic of Artsakh and Category:Cities and towns in Azerbaijan though. Place Clichy (talk) 15:28, 2 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:Destroyed landmarks in Japan[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 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate, non-definitive category. All of the structures in this category are already in the category structure Category:Former buildings and structures in Japan (if not in that category, they're properly classified in a sub-category), none of these buildings are classified as a "landmark" within the article text, and a "landmark" is generally a subjective definition (excepting certain places which objectively define the term.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in an earlier discussion about landmarks I learned there are places which have an official list of landmarks (a list of famous buildings, or more generally a list of tourist attractions) but other than that the term "landmark" is too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Marcocapelle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:25, 16 October 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:Wario (series)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 13#Category:Wario (series)

Category:Thuringian Empire[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 17:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Thuringian Empire redirects to the Thuringii people and books suggest it's not a widely accepted thing, at least when compared to the likes of Roman, Byzantine or Roman empires. Neither did I hear about that empire before. Brandmeistertalk 17:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have purged the latter two categories. They do not need to be nominated for deletion, but the amount of content left over is quite small. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not even a main article for the name. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' -- If we had this at all it should be Thuringian kingdom, with Thuringii as main article, but by the time we have purged out Franks and Ostrogoths who do not belong here, there is very little left. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 18 October 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:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places by territory[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 18:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The standalone by territory category does not fit in any current category structure. There have been several recent CfD discussions (1, 2) where a category name using by state or territory was favorably received for diffusion of U.S. topics in a way that includes states and other first-level subdivisions such as Washington D.C., insular areas and, sometimes, historic territories. I am therefore suggesting a merger of these two categories into a single one.
@UnitedStatesian, 1234qwer1234qwer4, Rathfelder, BrownHairedGirl, Marcocapelle, Oculi, Peterkingiron, Hmains, Bibliomaniac15, GoldRingChip, DexDor, Number 57, Eureka Lott, Grutness, Googol30, *Treker, Timrollpickering, Bearcat, and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to the discussions cited. Place Clichy (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. @Place Clichy, I have been considering doing a group nomination for all similar US by state-and-or-territory categories, to standardise them as "by state or territory". The distinction serves no navigational benefit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl: Indeed the same principle of these past CfDs could be applied to a large number of categories. You may be more proficient than me in handling a large grouped nomination, but from recent outcomes it should receive a large support. Here I took the simple approach of just fixing an obvious (in my eyes) erroneous category. Place Clichy (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. (I'm sorry if "strong" is not allowed!). The purpose of these categories is to create subnational-level groupings, not to provoke arguments about territorial statuses. Therefore, the most inclusive name would be preferred without something as awfully awkward as "subnational." —GoldRingChip 14:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoldRingChip: the more inclusive name would be first-level administrative country subdivisions, per Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions, to differentiate from lower levels such as counties, cities, towns etc. However for countries with a comparable structure we mostly use by state or territory or the local equivalent: see Category:Categories by state or territory of Australia, Category:Categories by province or territory of Canada, or Category:Categories by state or union territory of India. Place Clichy (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BHG - as usual, and indeed with GoldRingChip. I cant see why anyone would find a separate by territory subcategory useful. Rathfelder (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per consensus and arguments in previous linked discussions. Oculi (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the above and indeed with Place Clichy. I have taken the liberty of changing the order of the nomination, to assist the closer with processing the older category firat. Note that parents will need adjusting on the insular areas sub-cat. – Fayenatic London 15:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sounds good to me - go for it! Grutness...wha? 15:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hugo999 (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "territory" is ambiguous. I suspect the objective is related to "US territory". Important though it is locally in US, the distinction between US states and territories is insignificant on a worldwide level. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 18 October 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.

Japanese mayors by prefecture[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, unless the category has less than 3 articles in it. Users who discussed this standard weren't always clear on whether the articles in subcategories counted in the tallying, so I have assumed that they do. This leaves only Category:Mayors of places in Yamaguchi Prefecture and Category:Mayors of places in Nagano Prefecture to merge. Presumably, the two categories could be re-created if they can be adequately populated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, very few articles in most of these prefecture categories. While there are two categories with 8 articles, I do not think that makes it worth to keep this tree as a whole. Note that, with this proposal, the subcategories of bigger cities are still kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have quite good coverage of Japanese local politicians, so the other categories have some prospect of expansion. Those with 3 or more articles have a decent prospect of reaching the common min of 5 articles, so should be kept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have mis-counted - quite tired - but only Yamaguchi prefecture has less than three articles and no sub-categories, so I think we should up-merge only that category. I'm fine with keeping the tree generally as it offers much better resolution than just dumping all mayors into one massive category. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this concerns mayors of smaller places (mayors of bigger cities keep their own subcategory) and the prefecture is completely unrelated to their mayor-ship. This is not a case in which we need to subcat by an unrelated characteristic because the total amount of articles in the top category (Japanese mayors in this case) is too enormous. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only those with less than three articles, per BGG. In a country the size of Japan, there is value in subdividing mayoral categories into logical subgroupings instead of keeping them all in one category at the national level — American states and Canadian provinces aren't directly correlated with mayoralty in those countries either, but it's still much more useful and user-friendly to subdivide Category:Mayors of places in the United States and Category:Mayors of places in Canada by state or province than it would be to just have one massively unbrowsable and undivided megacategory for all mayors in the entire country, and as the first-level subdivisions the states, provinces or prefectures are a natural breakpoint for a subcategorization scheme. Yes, some of these are small at present, and I have no objection to merging those (obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if they can be made more populated) — but this isn't an unreasonable subdivision scheme in principle, and not all of the categories are small enough to be a problem. Granted there aren't as many Japanese mayors with Wikipedia articles as there are US or Canadian ones, but since even my search through Category:Mayors of places in Japan to see if there were any subcategorizable stragglers found only two mayors of the obviously very important city of Kyoto, I suspect that the relative lack of articles about Japanese mayors has at least as much to do with the language difference as the basic notability question (especially since the equivalent ja:Category:市町村長 is also much more heavily subcategorized and populated.) Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am inclined to say Keep for consistency, rather than eliminate samll cats where there are larger siblings. In theory those without 5 articles ought to be merged. Category:Mayors of places in Japan ought to be a container (or largely so). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:16, 18 October 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:Poliak Vladislav[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: speedy delete (G7). MER-C 19:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category, not expected to grow much beyond this single individual. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Page creator has blanked the category page and it was also empty so it has been speedy deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 14 October 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:Mind and Brain[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 17:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is much more specific than anything else in its parent category, Category:Main topic classifications. There's not really any reason to be putting these two categories in their own category either, as there is already a hatnote on both category pages contrasting the other. Zombiewizard45 (talk) 02:50, 14 October 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_October_14&oldid=989625613"