Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 23 January 25 >

January 24[edit]

Category:Male villains[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 26#Category:Male villains

Category:Scalar quantities[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:Scalar physical quantities and Category:Vector physical quantities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Moving articles from Category:Physical quantities to these new categories loses the information that we are categorizing physical quantities. I propose either deleting the new categories and moving articles back to Category:Physical quantities, or perhaps renaming the new categories to Category:Scalar physical quantities and Category:Vector physical quantities, if it's felt that there is actually a need to split up the parent category.
Physical quantities are a specific thing. Not all scalar or vector quantities are physical quantities. If these categories are kept and the current names are retained, they should be moved out of Category:Physical quantities and the latter category should be restored to the articles from which it has been removed. — Srleffler (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (speedy, because WP:C2E) to Category:Scalar physical quantities and Category:Vector physical quantities. These cats are already children of Category:Physical quantities, so no information was lost. Undoing this significant intersection would also require upmerging into, e.g., Category:Vectors (mathematics and physics). Finally, the List of physical quantities highlights scalar/vector as a fundamental property of such quantities. fgnievinski (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename like Fgnievinski proposed. --Just N. (talk) 21:46, 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:Dictionary of chemical formulas[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) 23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename according to contents. – Fayenatic London 14:27, 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:Political prisoners in Spain[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) 23:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the people in this category is a political prisoner. They are imprisoned after being convicted of sedition, embezzlement of public funds and/or disobedience of courts and not because of their political opinions. StellarHalo (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the articles are already in Category:Spanish politicians convicted of crimes. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these people are inprisoned for clearly defined crimes, the name itself is inherently POV-pushing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete political prisoners is a quality that is more subjectively than objectively defined. Such nuances can be handled in a sourced article but not in categories which are "in-or-out". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category name does not reflect its content. Dimadick (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yes, category name should reflect its content. --Just N. (talk) 21:49, 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.

Container categories in Safavid Iran[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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant container categories with only one or two subcategories each. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge No conceptual objections to these categories but, at this point, they add layers without aiding navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge etc, but would plain "Iran" not be a better target? The country has existed as an entity (though with borders waxing and waning) since at least 1501. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair question, but it would require a broader nomination to discuss that issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 30 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:White supremacist organized crime groups in the United States[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) 23:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "White supremacist" is a compound adjective here, and it runs in my mind that we should be using a hyphen to make that clear. These crime groups are organized and embrace white supremacism, as we all know when we think about the phrase, but with a phrase five words long, it can be easy to mis-parse it initially as white groups that do something. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Organized crime is one of these few areas where ethnic identity is often defining. Place Clichy (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. good argument. Hmains (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I agree with Place Clichy that ethnic category is defining for criminals, but I feel thay a hyphen is needed here. Dimadick (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, with a hyphen it is no longer an ethnic category, it becomes an ideological category, which is of course the intention of the category in the first place. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:51, 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.

Education in smaller cities and towns in Sri Lanka[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) 23:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only a single subcategory for schools. There is no need to merge, the schools subcategories are already in the buildings and structures category of the city and in the schools subcategory of the district. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now Right now this is just adding a layer for the school articles. No objection to recreating if other education articles ever materialize. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt these categories have scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 17:51, 28 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.

Destroyed landmarks[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) 23:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, nearly all of the articles are about buildings and structures. The ten articles that are an exception (i.e. not about buildings and structures) should be purged, they are already in Category:Destroyed landforms or in Category:Destroyed individual trees. This is follow-up on this discussion, this discussion and this discussion; @SportingFlyer, William Allen Simpson, Doncram, RevelationDirect, Place Clichy, and Nigej: pinging contributors to these discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a brief glance, some of these don't appear to be landmarks, either. I looked at the Ohio entries, and three of them apparently never had any landmark status: Palace of the Fans, Gibson House (Cincinnati), and League Park (Cincinnati). Unless you're restricting the definition to officially designated landmarks, or unless you have some other clear definition, "landmark" is vague and ought to be avoided. Nyttend (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the assurance that non-buildings etc are identified fully for purging, following my vote on UK case. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In the absence of a unique definition for landmarks, these categories have been used indiscriminately with notable buildings. However the categories for notable buildings should be no other than the buildings and structures categories, because non-notable buildings do not have articles. Place Clichy (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — with thanks, among the most detailed and carefully selected nominations we've had in a long time.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We've been consistently merging each country in seperate noms based on the subjectiveness of "landmark". Merging them all makes sense at this point. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per precedent in previous discussions. Dimadick (talk) 17:53, 28 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:Participants of the 2021 Capitol storming[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. This may become more amenable to categorization when the dust settles a bit more and we start to get criminal convictions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Potential libel issues. Previously deleted in this CfD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken the liberty to merge the two nominations regarding the same category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to make clear that I vote to keep this category. Some articles of the participants were clearly created in relation to the notability of this broader event, and they were kept as such. Love of Corey (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename At some point, this won't be WP:TOOSOON. This has generally been added to the ledes of existing articles and, based on date of creation, a number of articles were created because of this event: Jake Angeli, Baked Alaska (activist), Derrick Evans (politician), Rick Saccone. I can't predict what someone will accomplish in the future, but it's hard to see those new articles ever not being defined by this event. By all means change the name to match the main article but, since most of these people admit they were there but claim their intents were peaceful, I don't know if if this is such a libel/BLP issue prior to any possible future criminal conviction. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair objection. While perhaps these new articles are a case of WP:TOOSOON, I will assume that they are kept for the time being. This means that my WP:NONDEF comment in the earlier discussion no longer holds and I need to withdraw my delete vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is that the content in the article space has shifted since then and many participants are now admitting to being present, while denying more serious crimes. Those may not be persuasive arguments, but no is claiming the wording change makes the difference. RevelationDirect (talk) - 18:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That claim is not persuasive. Presence at the riot itself would not be a crime. Presence in a restricted area (that includes the steps and the works being built for the inauguration) is a crime. The article currently has 3 concurrent RFCs for Requested Move. This is a mess, and there's no good reason to bring that mess into the categories.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One thing we agree is not reviving this every week in CFD! Now that we have more content, if the consensus is still to wait for criminal convictions so be it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my guess is that many of those stubs are likely to be deleted at AfD WP:1E. As we already have Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United States federal government, there's simply no need for a temporary, constantly changing, more specific name.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:53, 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:PSA Group people[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 nothing: discussion was corrupted. Articles were moved during the discussion, so a complete reassessment of the appropriateness of this category and related ones is needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To reflect the merger of PSA and FCA to form Stellantis. Ridwan97 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, nominator has moved Carlos Tavares to Category:Stellantis just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about :Category:Peugeot people by Marcocapelle. If that's indeed factual, it should be chosen. --Just N. (talk) 21:58, 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:United Daughters of the Confederacy awards[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) 23:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SMALLCAT)
I have no conceptual objection to this category grouping awards by an organization but the only article is the Southern Cross of Honor. The United Daughters of the Confederacy article does not mention any other awards so I don't think there is any room for growth. No objection to recreating this later if I'm wrong and it ever gets up to 5+ articles though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 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:Alumni awards[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) 23:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME and a loose reading of WP:C2C
Just about every established university has a scholarship or other awards from alumni. In contrast, this category is for awards given to alumni. This rename is just meant to clarify the inclusion criteria by following the format of some of the other subcategories of Category:Awards by type of recipient. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some of these like the Yorke Prize are open to both current students at the graduate level, and former students at the graduate level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I double checked the contents and removed one that was for a "graduate", meaning a graduating senior not a an alumna. I left the Yorke prize but agree it's an edge case. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 27 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_24&oldid=1009075863"