Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 21 January 23 >

January 22[edit]

Category:Peterpan (band) 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Typically don't have different categories for bands that change names. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:50, 22 January 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.

Establishments in the Kingdom of Hungary[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#Establishments in the Kingdom of Hungary

Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe crossover films[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) 05:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear categorisation rationale. What makes these crossover films? All the Avengers films crossovers? If so why are they in here separately and under Avengers (film series)? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a cinematic universe. It has a broad range of characters all existing together. That was the purpose from the beginning. Even in the case of the Spiderman films which in their creation have some unique funding stream issues, the characters are basically those of the other films, and so there is no reason to treat them as special or outliers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Copied point I made on this from Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe crossover films: I don't see why this is useful when we already have to already define such crossovers, as there's really nothing notable warranting a separate category for the MCU films that have crossovers in them, which much of the franchise has. Expanding from that and what other editors there said, the main crossover films of the franchise are the Avengers films, which are already covered by Category:Avengers (film series), and the notable MCU films with crossover elements in them are already under Category:Superhero crossover films. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's no clear criteria for what inclusion should be. The MCU as a whole is pretty much an entire crossover, but the Avengers films are the "main" crossover films, which are served by Category:Avengers (film series). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 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:City regions of England[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 to Category:Combined authorities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A recent AfD established that the article City region (United Kingdom) should be redirected to Combined authority on the basis that the term was ambiguous but that this was the most plausible thing a reader would be thinking of; I added a hatnote covering the other use case, a Local enterprise partnership.
This category has the same problem as the article: it contains a jumble of things (an economic board, a local enterprise partnership and a combined authority) that share the words "city region" in their name but little else in common, so this fails WP:CATDEF: the title "city region" is not a defining characteristic of any of the above. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The term city region is a term of human geography, which has been the subject of academic study, and pre-dated the use of the term "combined authority". The term combined authority is a UK term, introduced in 2009, for a group of local government authorities to which central government has agreed to delegate certain functions. Combined authorities are political creations and a mish-mash - some current and proposed combined authorities are not city regions (e.g. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Dorset). City regions are a geographical concept. Leeds City Region is well defined: it is not a combined authority, although includes a part (West Yorkshire) which has a combined authority (West Yorkshire Combined Authority).
I agree that it's a mess, but I don't think confusing the two concepts makes it less of a mess.--Mhockey (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I’m not confusing the concepts, and I know "city region" has a meaning in yet another sense. But this category isn’t aiming to cover city regions in the sense you describe: it appears to be a attempt to form the topic category for the former article at City region (United Kingdom), which really was trying to define "city region" as "combined authority with an elected mayor" but also include all the other things like LEPs—something not supported by sources, which was why the article was deleted. Of course, one option would be to repurpose this category for the human geography concept, but then it would presumably need to include things like London metropolitan area, rather than being limited to things where someone happens to have set up some sort of body calling itself a "city region". YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised you created the category. My apologies: I’ve struck my conjecture about the category creator, since obviously you knew what you were intending to do with it! I maintain, though, that either the category should follow the human geography concept and include things that are city regions but don't have "city region" in the name, or the category is not defining. Sorry again. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with redirect to Category:Combined authorities, in accord with a month-long AfD result of redirect to Combined authority, having a dozen participants, and copious research. Fix any aberrant article.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In an effort to arrive at a consensus, I support this compromise option (as the original nom). YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support last suggestion -- A Combined authority is the result of the government's devolution deals. "City region" may be the name adopted for it formally in some cases; informally in others. Some are based on the scope of LEPs (Local Enterprise Partnerships), but not necessarily. Greater Brighton should be purged, as it is not a Combined Authority. I am not clear if the body described is a LEP or merely a less formal partnership between various bodies. Many local authorities have partnerships with other local bodies, but these seem to be fairly informal, providing a mechanism for district councils to talk to local colleges, Chambers of Commerce, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 24 January 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:TAM Airlines Flight 3054[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) 05:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry, the topic itself, and one subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:48, 22 January 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:American people of Korean-Chinese descent[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. There was consensus that the nominated category should not exist but no consensus on whether to merge or delete outright. So defaulting to merge to retain some of the categorization information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article, and WP:NARROWCAT. This is for people whose most recent ancestors lived in China and whose earlier ancestors were Koreans. There is no need for dual merge in this case, because the article is already in Category:Chinese emigrants to the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. There is only one entry, and he is an immigrant, so categorization in Category:Chinese emigrants to the United States is worth doing for now. There are 2.3 million Koreans in China, they are one of the 56 recognized ethnic groups, and many can trace their ancestry there back over 100 years, and there are basically all Chinese communities in north-east China. As rice cultivation was exploding there in the 1920s, 80% of the workers on rice patties in the region were ethnically Korean.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another useless "descent" category with all the usual pitfalls. User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:24, 29 January 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:American women of Korean descent[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) 05:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection between gender and ancestors. We do not have similar categories for other types of ancestry. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — with thanks, good catch!
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge These should be container categories, but there is really nothing worth containing. Current rules and past discussions have established that we should not have biographical articles directly in such categories, and there are not enough non-biographical articles to make retaining the categories worth while.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all more "descent" categories with the usual problems. User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:26, 29 January 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:Politicians of the Holy Roman 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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer as it contains only one subcategory and one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The one person was an "imperial councillor". Surely this was not a unique appointment: there must be more. populate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is quite uncertain. There is also Austrian_Netherlands#Imperial_Councillors_of_State, but it seems that imperial councillor is more linked to the role of ruler of Austria than to the role of emperor. (The ruler of Austria happened to be the same person as the emperor but he had two different roles.) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 25 January 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:Seppuku[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:Suicides by seppuku. – Fayenatic London 10:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2C, e.g. Category:Suicides by sharp instrument. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I guess I used the wrong procedure. Oh well, it's here now. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, also because it is mainly a set category, not so much a topic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current title does not suggest that it is a category for biographical articles. Dimadick (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in general, but are we sure that it is spelled with a 'u' instead of 'e'?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:47, 23 January 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 Education and Pedagogy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 10:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of Education and Pedagogy is an Iranian award for educators. All 4 of the articles in this category are high ranking national education officials but most don't even mention this award so it doesn't seem defining. The recipients are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 22 January 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 Hanoverian Waterloo Medal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 10:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The German Kingdom of Hanover issued the Hanoverian Waterloo Medal to all Hanoverian military personnel who participated in the Battle of Waterloo, although the category only has 1 article so far. We typically don't categorize by campaign medals because career officers serve in a variety of locations and conflicts and, accordingly, that one article mentions the award only in passing with other honours. I don't know if I can say I "listified" the recipients of the award since there is only 1 but that article is now linked right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep@User:RevelationDirect I think you are looking at this the wrong way around. A list of medal holders is not notable. What is notable for the subjects of biographies on Wikipedia is if they received this medal. It is similar to to creating a list of old boys of Eaton Collage (in itself not particularly notable), but being in the British cabinate and having been to Eaton is. At the time that the Waterloo medals were struck, such campaign medals were a relativly new idea. The campaign was of limited scope and in both cases they are notable as the first campaign medals that either country issued. They were only issued to officers and men who fought at one or more of the battles Ligny (16 June 1815), Quatre Bras (16 June), or Waterloo (18 June), so they were not campaign medals in the more modern sense of the word (eg those members of the Allied reserve army posted to Halle or to garrison duties in Brussels on June 18 were not entitled to it even if they were part of the army that went to Paris). There was a lot of resentment in the British Army that there was no such medal for the Peninsular War, but one for Waterloo (where many of the men were new to the colours). However for the rest of time, time and again those who continued to serve in the British Army tended be identified (or not) with whether they had fought in the Waterloo campaign (many of the officers in the Hanoverian Army were British). @User:Marcocapelle participation in the Waterloo campaign was a defining characteristic of the lives of all notable people who fought there, any obituary or biography will mention it in the lead to the article. This is in part because after this campaign, there was no major West European war for over a generation (in the case of the British for 100 years), and AFAIK no other Britiah campaign medal was struck for the Napolonic Wars. This is informative category and a useful navigation tool. -- PBS (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Participation in a specific campaign is hardly ever defining - hence nominator's reference to WP:PERFCAT. The defining characteristic of an individual person is being a soldier or military officer. In any case the award is certainly not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boris is a politician, he is also an old Etonian. That he is an old Etonian is not in itself notable, but it becomes so when that school is over represented in the Cabinet. That an officer fought in the Waterloo campaign is notable over and above his other military service, because it will always be in the forefront of any biography about the soldier. PBS (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that the Victoria Cross is a key element in the biographies of people who received it. That is not the case with the category that we are currently discussing. You seem to confuse the importance of an event for the course of history with the importance of a medal for an individual person. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea why he got both. "two hats"?, but there is a danger of systemic bias in deleting one but not the other. -- PBS (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have several other Waterloo campaign medals without corresponding categories: Waterloo Medal (Nassau), Silver Memorial Cross, 1813-1815 (Netherlands), Waterloo Medal (Brunswick). - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those who will participate in this discussion and may not know much about the Battle of Waterloo and its importance. It is now over 200 years since the end of the Napoleon Wars. There were only two battles which had major commemorations on their 200th anniversary the naval Battle of Trafalgar (1805) and the Battle of Waterloo (1815), this along with contemporary recognition is why this category is exceptional. -- PBS (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Original Topic We've covered a lot of ground in this discussion: bicentennial celebrations, Eton College, the Battle of Trafalgar, systemic bias, British campaign medals, troop morale, Boris Johnston and the Victoria Cross. In the end though, this nomination is about whether a single German award category is defining to the single biography article within it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — WP:NONDEFINING, WP:PERFCAT, and WP:OCAWARD. For goodness sake, "... with the reserve near Hal on 18 June, and did not engage in the battle." That was roughly two days away; one day under forced march, but then worthless for battle. Seems like given for being in the general vicinity, and heard about a few days later. Wouldn't want the oldboy feeling left out.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should only have categories for the recipients of awards of any kind when they are clearly defining for the subject of the article - as the Victoria Cross generally is. The award is what makes them notable. Rathfelder (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- clear case of OCAWARD. The one person is already listed in the main article (which is well categorised), so that there is nothing to listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the one biographical article in this category is in 18 total categories, this is excessivie, although actually super low compared to many people who end up in these award categories. Some articles I have seen have had over 50 categories. The award is not on the level to be super defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 25 January 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_January_22&oldid=1006623062"