Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 19 April 21 >

April 20[edit]

Category:21th-century sculptures[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, note that the category had already been emptied (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Title of category has incorrect spelling and there already exists a category with the correct spelling. DemonStalker (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2021 (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:Tetrarchy[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete topic category with only the main article and two other articles about the topic. These articles are already directly interlinked. There are also numerous biographies in the category which might be put in Category:People of the Tetrarchy except we seldom categorize people by short periods like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why would the protagonists of these period be excluded from it? This is nor a small category. Dimadick (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is tons of chance for expansion on this topic.★Trekker (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- At worst rename to Category:People of the Tetrarchy, making the other articles main articles to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above statements. --Just N. (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename for sentimental reasons. I've a soft spot for the Tetrarchy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term 'tetrarchy' is a modern invention, and having a category for a period with 4 emperors seems just arbitrary and unnecessary. For much of the period in question there weren't even 4 emperors at any single point in time (Gallus, Tetricus, and Palladius are included here for some reason even though they never were members of any 'tetrarchy'). The unelaborated statement above that There is tons of chance for expansion on this topic is surely incorrect. COPSEP probably applies here too, as stated by Marcocapelle, the nominator. Avilich (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The tetrarchy is a conventional period of Roman history and it is useful to have a category covering it. Furius (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2021 (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:Art Gallery of Ontario[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) 00:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for an art gallery without the volume of spinoff content needed to actually warrant an eponymous category. Other than the eponym itself, seven of the other eight articles filed here are past or present employees of the gallery, violating WP:PERFCAT, but if they were removed there would only be one other article left besides the eponym itself. I'm unconvinced that the existence of Category:Collections of the Art Gallery of Ontario automatically mandates the creation of an eponymous category for the institution in and of itself -- but even if the consensus position is that the subcategory is grounds for keeping this, it would still need to be purged of the employees regardless. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While employees should not always be purged it is appropriate to do so here as it is an insufficiently defining characteristic in these biographies. After purging there is too little content left in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2021 (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:Stanley Park artists[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) 07:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just two artists, on the basis of having sculptures on display in a public park. This is the artistic equivalent of a performer by performance category -- we wouldn't even ordinarily categorize artists for every individual gallery or museum where they ever had work on display, let alone every park. And for comparison's sake, Henry Moore is not categorized for the physical locations of either Two Large Forms at the Art Gallery of Ontario, or Three Way Piece No. 2 (The Archer) at Toronto City Hall. If this were a defined school or movement of artists, things might be different -- but it's actually just "artists who have work on display in this park", which is not a defining characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2021 (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:Footballers from Foz[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: dual merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Foz is a town of under 10,000 people. There isn't even a category for "people" from here, never mind "sportspeople", and we're not even down the tree to "footballers" yet. Recommend upmerging to people from its comarca, akin to a county. Please note this user has made dozens of categories for Footballers from X, some of which are mildly sensible such as Footballers from Zaragoza, a city of half a million people, and some like this are grossly overcategorising. I recommend an admin or someone takes a look at them because no way am I going to nominate every single one. Librarian from Liberia (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2021 (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.

Buddhist enumerations[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) 00:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as wholly trivial, categories contain concepts that appear in pairs of 2, 3, 4, etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2021 (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:Résumé frauds and controversies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#Category:Résumé frauds and controversies

Category:Suspended wikipedia User[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. Tagged for deletion as the work of a blocked sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no policy for suspending Wikipedia users, and the category is empty. I would've WP:T2ed it, but alas. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol opinion vote this Catergory not to be deleted i made it.@Eostrix Earth and the moon (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this is closed Earth and the moon (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense category. CSD T2 would be ideal here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under T2 G2 as nonsensical and unconstructive. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    kept empty catgory Earth and the moon (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 04:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons. I'm tagging it with csd because this seems like a case where it would be a good idea to IAR. – Frood (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2021 (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:Pederastic literature[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 content of the category changed mid-discussion, so a renomination for a merge to Category:Pederasty (which was proposed late in the discussion) may be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More POV-pushing junk from the once-highly-active WP:SPA Haiduc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was banned by ArbCom in 2010 for reasons that are obvious from the ANI on him, linked on the ban notice. He wrote reams of propaganda exaggerating the prevalence and social standing of practices that, in today's world, are called child sexual abuse by non-WP:Fringe sources. A major part of this effort involved purposely conflating relationships between grown males that really are part of gay history together with abusive relationships between a grown man and a young boy, and calling it all "pederasty". A lot of his crap was deleted shortly after his ban in 2010; the rest (that I know of) has been cleaned up more recently, and this includes the network of pederasty categories created by him, and which were mostly CfD'ed recently (as can be seen by the notices on his talk page history). This one should go too. We have lots of categories for LGBT topics as well as ones about child sexual abusers; this category, conflating the two, should go. Crossroads -talk- 03:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about to say: at least purge modern books. But the remaining articles about Ancient Greek and Roman literature are not clearly enough about pederasty, so delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've removed the people in this category as it should be for literature only. The remaining contents explicitly relate to the subject of pederasty so this is a valid category. The nomination seems overly concerned with judgement of the term "pederasty" rather than whether this is a categorically useful thing to group articles. The term carries no inherent judgement, positive or negative. Furthermore, there is plenty of study on pederastic literature (e.g.) and it's an important subject for understanding both historic and present day perspectives on human sexuality. One doesn't have to condone it to acknowledge that it exists. SFB 23:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That paper is from 1973; hardly much study. Crossroads -talk- 05:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is now just a smallcat that's not really needed.★Trekker (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (With some regret) Oppose -- The content covers one ancient story; one Renaissance work; and a modern work examining the subject. Possibly rename to Category:Literature on pederasty. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This and Category:Pederasty are quite small; perhaps these 3 things can just go there. Note that two of them are already in LGBT categories, so this seems redundant in those cases at least; one of those is in Category:Pederasty in ancient Greece. Crossroads -talk- 05:02, 23 April 2021 (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:Kid Icarus video games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 28#Category:Kid Icarus video games

Category:Dominican independence activists[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:Dominican Republic independence activists. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Because "Dominican" is ambiguous, the usual practice is to use "Dominican Republic" for people of the Dominican Republic. However, this is a slightly different situation in that these people were activists before the Dominican Republic existed as such, so adopting a name that includes "Dominican Republic" may be anachronistic. What should we do here? We do have other similar categories, like Category:Central African Republic independence activists, that use the name of the place for activity that took place before the place existed under that name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The independence was a process: the Spanish colony of Santo Domingo became Spanish Haiti, which was annexed by Haiti, became independent again as the Dominican Republic, voluntarily rejoined Spain and then regained independence a third time. If we were to create separate categories for Santo Domingo and Spanish Haiti, there would be a lot of overlap so "Dominican Republic" seems the most likely name to aid reader navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "Dominican Republic" is probably the best compromise. Rathfelder (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support using "Dominican Republic" to separate this from activists from Dominica and independentist monks. Grutness...wha? 16:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to avoid ambiguity. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2021 (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:WikiProject Africa (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: delete, also considering the parallel MfD discussion (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WikiProject Africa (country) has been nominated for deletion and I believe that this category will no longer be necessary. And if it is not obvious, Africa is not a country. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete iff WikiProject is deleted. Grutness...wha? 02:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Await decision on Wikiproject, per Grutness. The project appears to be about a (mysterious) sub-area of Africa (continent). Oculi (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer to the other discussion, whether I agree with the outcome or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At least according to the creator's attempt to start an article about a "country" called Africa, somebody allegedly self-declared Bir Tawil as an independent micronation of "Africa" last year — but they "sourced" that claim solely to a self-published "government" website that looks suspiciously like a copy of another country's website, and which 404s whenever you attempt to click on any of its subpages, and showed no evidence whatsoever of any reliable source coverage about said micronation to establish either that it exists or that anybody cares. This is not a thing we need a WikiProject about. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The whole thing feels like a HOAX. I note that Africa (country) is a redlink. The content of the project page lists articles about Somaliland (of which there are a lot). That is a fragment of Somalia that is one of a number of internationally-unrecognised fragments of that country that manage to be more stable than Somalia itself. We cannot have a project that does not even have a main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Grutness hint. --Just N. (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2021 (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 Order of Timor-Leste[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of Timor-Leste is a general purpose award from East Timor. The recipients are very diverse and include
Across the board, the articles tend to mention the award in passing and it doesn't seem defining. All the category contents are now listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike some others, this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining. The fact it was given to some others is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The standard in WP:OCAWARD is "a category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". State honours are subject to that editing guideline just like private awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it seems obvious that a state honour would be defining for most of the citizens of that state who were awarded it! It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what is defining to an individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be defining, maybe not. For now, it is not useful to speculate about a hypothetical situation. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's hypothetical about it? It has been awarded to East Timorese people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is hypothetical that the category is largely going to consist of East Timorese people for whom the award is defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Timor-Leste's highest honour. Furius (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2021 (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 Hungarian Heritage Award[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) 00:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Hungarian Heritage Award is issued by the Hungarian Heritage and European Association for a broad range of reasons. The only 2 biographies in this category are novelist and alleged war criminal Albert Wass and poultry disease expert József Marek. (I doubt many readers would want a direct navigational path between those 2 articles?) WP:SMALLCAT is not an issue here since there are some other recipients (1, 2, 3), none of whose articles mention this award so it doesn't seem defining. All the category contents are now listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other recipients of the award. Many of them are presented in the Hungarian language Wikipedia. What should be done is to complete the information of the English language Wikipedia from the Hungarian Wikipedia, not to delete the category. In many cases, information on personalities from smaller countries are not included in English Wikipedia. I am very disturbed about this situation and consider a greater emphasis should be put on the information regarding these countries, not in eliminating this information. Afil (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We may not ever agree on the category you created but I want my intent to be clear: before I nominated this category, I updated the main article so it now includes all the category contents and I would favor expanding the article space still further based on Hungarian Wikipedia to update that article and hopefully create some new biography articles. (My concern here is limited to the category space since this general purpose award from a private foundation seems nondefining to the articles, regardless of how many there are.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2021 (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/2021_April_20&oldid=1022892261"