Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 24 April 26 >

April 25[edit]

Category:Mythological and religious paintings and Category:Mythological and religious painters[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 to combine. Some of the affected categories were not tagged with Template:Cfm. Category:Religious painters was emptied prior to the nomination. I have tried to restore the contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious art clearly overlaps with Category:Mythology in art and all the Category:Mythological painters, I moved from Category:Religious painters, but they should be merged and all the Category:Religious paintings should go in Category:Mythological paintings with something like "Mythological and religious paintings". I don't have time to redirect every single one, but it should be considered since it overlaps. Also Religious art can be moved or redirected in a provisional "cap", something like Mythological and religious art. Elan Morin Tedronai (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, we have distinct articles Religion and Mythology, and distinct category trees starting with Category:Religion and Category:Mythology, so it would be entirely inconsistent to merge Religion and Mythology for paintings. Moreover revert the move of articles from one category to the other. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Of course, but religion in art clearly encompasses mythology as mythology is considered component or aspect of religion per definition. Yeah: don't merge the categories of Religion and Mythology, but Mythological painters and Religious painters and their paintings can easily be put "under a hat", that converse with the consistency of the respective categories. There is also a special article Religion and mythology that also relates to that. So, I don't see why the categories of mythological paintings and painters, and the religious painters and paintings cannot be combined. The Mad Hatter (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, let's not categorize all the religion as myth tale like it's stated in this article, but can't we find a middle way? Really. At least a redirection possible? Brothers Pierre and Nicolas Mignard are clearly both religious and mythological painters. No, it's not that simple as Apple and Bannana. You know what I mean. They overlap for sure. Really, Mythological in art with paintings and painters and religion in art with the same articles or close ones, just overlap and is just not good. You know what I mean. Other people to take a stand as well would be good? Regards:The Mad Hatter (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC) EDIT: Mythology is stated as aspect of Religion. These categories of Mythology lead for sure apart from Folklore studies to the Anthropology of religion, while the main article is part of it's own narratives article. So, there should be a redirect much that the mythological painters and paintings are art of religion as well. Something like merge somewhere and gentle redirects for sure. Because, what you pointed about Apples and bananas is just fantastically sarcastic and not to the point. There should be rework for sure. Regards again: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)[reply]
  • Let's take a random subsample:
José de Alcíbar, religious, not mythological
Lawrence Alma-Tadema, neither religious nor mythological (rather historical)
Andrés Amaya, religious, not mythological
Jacopo Amigoni, mainly mythological
Étienne Azambre, religious, not mythological
It seems to me that the middle way is to categorize painters in two categories if mythology and religion are both clearly applicable, but the combination does not happen so often as you suggested. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue anymore. There are administrators, they have to decide. I've just put it in motion. I still think that Amaya and Alcíbar for sure have mythological paintings, so that it can't be said that mythology isn't part of religion, and that mythology painters aren't religious painters in their essence themselves, with their output the same. It is and it'll always be. Yeah: maybe some middle way, but that's all I can do. I can put it in motion and example for the moderators and administrators to think. Kind regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)
  • Keep split -- Some painters may appear in both, but that is no reason to merge. In western art, religious means Christian; mythological refers to legends of Greece and Rome. Some may also have dealt with secular history too. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 2 May 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:Albums produced by The Alchemist (musician)[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) 01:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of these categories should be in compliance with MOS:THEMUSIC and MOS:NICKNAMETHE, specifying a lower case "the" in running prose even if it is the name of a band, a musical duo, or an individual musical artist. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. I thought a bunch of these were all moved recently in a bundled nomination. Sean Stephens (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your memory serves you well. A couple of months ago there was a similar bundle of name changes I requested among "Song recordings produced by" categories. I will probably do this again when I find another group of categories with the same problem. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I greatly appreciate your efforts! I am grateful for your attempts to ensure categories conform to this guideline. Sean Stephens (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 08:12, 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:Knights of St Patrick[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) 03:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nondefining award. I checked several bios and none of them do more than mention its award. The award is notable and already has its own article, but it doesn't seem to be significant to recipients. (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There is already a stand-alone list of recipients, List of Knights of St Patrick. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one is closer than some because all of the category contents are very prominent politicians and nobility in pre-partition Ireland. But this award seems to just reflect and confirm that status which is already categorized under Category:Political office-holders in pre-partition Ireland and/or Category:Peers of Ireland. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is getting utterly ridiculous. All British state honours are defining. They are all always used as postnominals by all recipients. If this isn't defining then what is? Also part of a very well-defined category tree covering all honours of the United Kingdom, so makes no sense to start deleting them. Ludicrous nomination and suggests that some editors are determined to delete all categories for awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in WP:OCAWARD to suggest that "All British state honours are defining" automatically. It's important that we're even handed and give categories from different countries fair consideration. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A big difference is that British honours carry postnominals that are invariably used and honours like this one carry a title, which is also invariably used. That clearly makes them defining. Far more defining, in fact, than many other categories. I don't agree with the deletion of categories for any state honours, but deleting these is ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Necrothesp. This should be being done as part of a group consideration, not picking off categories one by one. Furius (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 'several bios and none of them do more than mention its award' seems too small a sample. The conclusion 'doesn't seem to be significant to recipients' should be 'doesn't seem to be significant to recipients biographers' which is not a good reason. Anthony Staunton (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's not significant to recipient's biographies, indeed, it fails WP:DEFINING and is unsuitable categorization per WP:OCAWARD. (t · c) buidhe 06:03, 2 May 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 terminology[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per Category:Terminology: Articles belonging to this category and its subcategories are devoted in whole or in large part to a discussion of terminology, usually terminology related to a specific topic. It should not be used as a category for articles about those topics in general; when suitable specific categories don't exist to hold them they should be placed into the root category for that topic until a better categorization presents itself.
Almost without any exception the articles in the nominated categories are about topics, rather than about terminology.
Many "terminology" categories have earlier been merged / deleted for the same reason. See e.g. User:DexDor/Terminology categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:37, 25 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:Use Scottish English[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 3#Category:Use Scottish English

Category:The Kid Laroi 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: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect categorisation – the only entry in the category is a mixtape, not an album (stated as such in the lead); suggested rename is per standard naming conventions. A category redirect isn't necessary as the artist in question may release a debut album in future. Sean Stephens (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no scheme for Category:Mixtape albums by artist. If consensus supports a rename, the current category would still be needed to serve as a parent anyway. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. --Just N. (talk) 08:26, 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:Pakistan submarine accidents[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) 01:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per C2C and English grammar. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 25 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:Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2011[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 and @Love of Corey, LaundryPizza03, and Justus Nussbaum: please go ahead splitting the article (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is only populated by one article, so I'd say it's pretty useless right now. Love of Corey (talk) 08:11, 25 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.

Zen centers by US state[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, except Category:Zen centers in California and Category:Zen centers in New York (state). If there is still a desire to merge these, they can be re-nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the tree consist of mainly very small categories, most states have one article or no articles at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all except the California and New York categories, which are big enough. No prejudice against re-creating if and when individual states have enough articles for their own categories. Grutness...wha? 03:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per now. --Just N. (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The accepted minimum for a category is about 5 articles, which few of these achieve. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 2 May 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 Saint Alexander (Bulgaria)[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) 01:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nondefining award. The articles I checked don't give any indication why the order was awarded or how it's significant, usually listing it with other awards: Dumitru C. Moruzi, Michael von Faulhaber, Vladimir Sukhomlinov, Alexander of Battenberg, Nikola Zhekov, etc. (t · c) buidhe 02:14, 25 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:Redirects to historic 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It was previously decided here that the Category:Redirects from historic names should be merged into Category:Redirects from former names, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_6#Category:Redirects_from_historic_names. The same merger should be applied here. First, having only one set merged creates confusing inconsistency in the category tree. Second, the same problem applies as in the other case; the distinction between "former" and "historic" is so subjective as to be arbitrary. It is possible this could be speedily done under WP:C2C, but since this is my first CfD, I decided to do a full nomination and let others decide if the speedy process was appropriate. Tamwin (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom. (I conceptually agreed but missed that there were 2 cats.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:22, 25 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_25&oldid=1025527514"