Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 12 June 14 >

June 13[edit]

Category:NaCl structure[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 12#Category:NaCl structure

Category:Zincblende crystal structure[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 12#Category:Zincblende crystal structure

Egyptian Premier League seasons[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) 02:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no other parent categories, and I cannot find any other hierarchy for sporting seasons by century. – Fayenatic London 12:06, 13 June 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:Natural disasters in the Empire of 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: merge as nominated. For the record, Category:History of the Empire of Japan, Category:History of the Empire of Japan by topic and Category:Disasters in the Empire of Japan all become empty. – Fayenatic London 16:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, it is a container category with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would have thought a triple upmerge into the 3 parents would be more appropriate. Oculi (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One parent, Category:Natural disasters in Japan already has the content of the nominated category in it. The two other parent categories suffer from the same problem as the nominated category, they are container categories with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (singly). The other two parents similarly need merging/deleting. "disasters" contains only this category "geography" contains nothing else but a subcat for former prefectures, so that it is also a useless layer. I am not sure why we need an Empire of Japan tree, since its extent is much the same as the present Japan. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for info, Empire of Japan is meant as a period. Japan has a category tree by period of which this is one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not deep enough in East Asian history to know anything about known natural disasters like draughts, floodings, epidemics or hunger periods caused by crop failure. There must have been a lot of them if Japan is not a disaster free area. Are there any reasons why nobody translated those base histo knowledge into articles of the English Wikipedia? --Just N. (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'd suppose that seven earthquake articles are beating SMALLCAT. And the untapped growth potential is also very good. Someone who has access to Japanese sources could finally search for all those disaters I mentioned above. The category as it is now is useful! --Just N. (talk) 07:13, 20 June 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:Baliwal[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 move, evidently created in category space in error. – Fayenatic London 12:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Baliwal to article Baliwal
Nominator's rationale: Should be in article space where it can be patrolled. MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 13 June 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:Vinod Kumar[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: speedily moved to Draft:Vinod Kumar (Punjabi actor). – Fayenatic London 12:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Vinod Kumar to article Vinod Kumar (Punjabi actor)
Nominator's rationale: Should be in article space, where it can be patrolled. MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this should be converted to a draft article asap (the creator Vinoo892 might well be Kumar himself, as 'my' appears after a few paras) and speedily deleted as an empty category. Oculi (talk) 11:02, 13 June 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:Ancient Roman proconsuls[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many governors were titled 'proconsul' or 'propraetor', but if you're not stating which province they governed then this is WP:NOTDEFINING. Avilich (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Couldn't this just be solved by making this a parent category to more specific ones?★Trekker (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second is already a parent category to governors of Asia and Africa, who usually carried the title proconsul (there are exceptions). However you decide to look at the issue, in the end you're still categorizing based on title alone. Avilich (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just made several mistaken or misleading assertions and have not actually stated a reason for keeping. The three categories I nominated are all extremely underpopulated, since it is difficult and useless to categorize based on title/rank alone. A merger is unnecessary since the articles in question are linked to both types categories: those that indicate the province governed and those that indicate the title as governor. Here I make the case that those which indicate the rank/title alone are useless. Avilich (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • I don't understand why "ancient" or "imperial" is being specified. "Category:Roman Proconsuls" and "Category:Roman Propraetors" both seem worth having - not all consuls/praetors became pro-magistrates. Not all pro-magistrates served as governors. Furius (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the specific title of a promagistrate defining in any way? WP:NONDEF: if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. Avilich (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC) And all promagistrates were probably governors. Avilich (talk) 18:51, 18 June 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:Islamic scholars in Egypt[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. ✗plicit 06:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, two categories with identical scope. See also yesterday's discussion about the British sibling. In contrast to the latter discussion there is in this case no doubt that these people are all Egyptians. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, all the people in the category are Egyptian, that does not negate the fact that non Egyptians may be added. Obviously, if the category is named 'Egyptian Islamic scholars' then there won't be non-Egyptians in it, so it will be more difficult to find non-Egyptians scholars in Egypt because of the way the current categories have been named. Amirah talk 09:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Egypt, in contrast to the United Kingdom, is not an immigration country. The percentage of non-Egyptian people in an "in Egypt" category will always be very small if not zero. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* When you claim 'Egypt is not an immigration country', are you saying that nobody at all emigrates to Egypt. Egypt generally speaking is not a country which people commonly immigrate to for other reasons, but it is a country which Islamic scholars traditionally travel to for study and to further their knowledge of Islam. See: Category:Madrasas in Egypt. Are you saying that there are no foreign Islamic scholars at these institutions? Amirah talk 14:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody at all is of course an exaggeration. It is referring to the % of articles, not the % of people. People just studying in Egypt will not have an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'just studying' implies a short stay, perhaps a year for a masters degree at a university in the case of university students. In the case of Islamic scholars it is common for them to spend many years in a country where they have access to Islamic training or they may return to a country repeatedly, because a particular Alim they are studying under resides there for example. There may also be other reasons such as access to a particular library where they can find Islamic manuscripts or because they are seeking knowledge about a particular tariqa which has been passed down and practiced in that place. There is no reason why these people would not have an article. If a university student was doing research on the Church of England, then they would go to England, wouldn't they, probably visit places like Hampton Court etc. because that is where they would expect to find information. They would form a strong connection with the country, which is deeper than having just studied a subject in a country when the subject area is not intrinsically linked to the country itself. Amirah talk 15:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Whether people study in Egypt for a short or for a long time does not matter, whether they pay regular or irregular visits does not matter, just studying simply does not make them notable. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I doubt there are many Coptic scholars of Islam, in view of the difficulty of Muslims converting to follow Christ, nor expatriates. Leave well alone. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't about non-Muslims at all, both categories are about Muslims. And the fact that there are few expats is an argument in favour of merge, rather than in favour of keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But to claim that there are few non-Egyptian Islamic scholars in Egypt would be untrue and as I have said before even if there are only two or three they shouldn't be left out. I am happy to merge the two categories and form lists if the resulting category is named in a way which includes everybody and follows the category naming conventions in Wikipedia guidelines. It should be concise, clear, etc. The term 'Islamic scholars' follows these guideline, it is more concise than 'Muslim scholars of Islam' and it is in common usage, whereas 'Muslim scholars of Islam' is not in common usage. Amirah talk 12:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AmirahBreen. Egypt has a lot of non-Egyptian Islamic scholars as some renowned institutions are there. Don't chose the wrong wordings as the nominator does. --Just N. (talk) 07:22, 20 June 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:People born with cleft palate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 12#Category:People born with cleft palate

Category:People with developmental coordination disorder[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 12#Category:People with developmental coordination disorder

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_13&oldid=1033198736"