Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 1 June 3 >

June 2[edit]

Nantucket[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/rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: these two categories into Category:Nantucket (or Category:Nantucket, Massachusetts). The two categories are based on the same topic of Nantucket. The island of Nantucket, Nantucket County, Massachusetts, and Nantucket (town), Massachusetts are all the same. The categories should reflect this. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:00, 2 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:Business executives of the Dutch West India Company[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 12#Category:Business executives of the Dutch West India Company

Ministers-President of communities and regions of Belgium[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) 03:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationake: fixing the plural, as in wikt:minister-president and e.g. Category:Ministers-President in Germany. Place Clichy (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom; I don't think that this would even have to go through CfD as it's a mere spelling error. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:40, 8 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:Amsterdam 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not very clear how this is supposed to differ from the usual "Artists from ..." pattern. Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Possibly the category was created due to a too narrow interpretation of the adjective from. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 3 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:Women governors and heads of sub-national entities by 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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category would be more useful if moved up one notch and made a non-diffusing child of Category:Governors and heads of sub-national entities rather than a container category. Not all categories in Category:Governors and heads of sub-national entities by country have a female subcategory. It should be allowed to include individual women holder of a such office in countries that do not have a national gendered sub-category. WP:FINALRUNG seems to apply: if Foo has only had one woman governor in its history, she should be placed in Governors of Foo and Women governors categories, rather than a new Women governors of Foo. Place Clichy (talk) 13:45, 2 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.

Female premiers and first ministers[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 both into the new Category:Women heads of government of non-sovereign entities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME. The titles of premier, first minister or chief minister are used for many sub-national entities (such as states and provinces and devolved authorities) that have a dual system of leadership with a distinct head of government. The category for female holders of these positions should be defined by this function of head of government, as for the parent non-gendered Category:Heads of government of non-sovereign entities. Also note Category:Women governors and heads of sub-national entities by country‎ for women leaders of states and provinces where there is no separate head of government role. I have the feeling that women is preferred to female for political categories in recent discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both per nom. Obvious duplication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both per nom. Makes sense. This is Paul (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, isn't this a renaming proposal instead of a merge proposal? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be phrased as rename one and merge the other ... but the effect would be the same. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought of wording it as Merging A with B into C, but I found a two-line presentation just as clear. I'd say the bigger issue here is the overlap between the two, but that someone felt the need to create the second category shows imho that the scope of the first category should be based on the function rather than the title. The merge and renaming are therefore intimately linked.
Is there a technical issue such as post-closure actions for which it would be preferable in this case to use renaming instead of merging? In this case, this should probably be made clear in the guidelines, and maybe the CfD templates. A+B=C merger is a probable occurrence enough. Place Clichy (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, merge and rename are handled by the bots with the same instruction "Cat:A to Cat:B". So there is no practical difference.
However, the bot can't handle multiple request on the same line, so "Cat:A + Cat:B to Cat:C" won't work.
To help the closing admin, it's nice to keep the nomination's formatting as close as possible to the syntax used at WP:CFDW. That used to mean listing each cat as [[Category:A]], not {{cl|A}}. I dunno if that still applies since the new bot started work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 4 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.

Categories related to World Para Athletics European Championships[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) 03:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As of 2018, this is the name of the competition and which is what we should use for the category structure going forwards. Simeon (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as in line with new competition name. SFB 00:38, 3 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.

Aboriginal gods and goddesses[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. – Fayenatic London 17:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Aboriginal" by itself can be a reference to any indigenous group. These are gods and goddesses of the Australian Aboriginal people. The parent categories are Category:Australian Aboriginal deities and Category:Australian Aboriginal mythology. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 2 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:Strict nature reserves of Portugal[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what a "strict" nature reserve is. The word "strict" does not appear in the article Protected areas of Portugal. I suggest upmerging to the parent category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now Maybe there's some underlying classification here that didn't make it over from Portuguese language sources but it has no meaning with the current contents. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:27, 6 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:Fictional Taoists[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) 07:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories for fictional people by religion have been deleted multiple times: see here and here. This particular category has not been deleted before. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 2 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:Non-nationals associated with the Pitcairn Islands[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 (the subcat is already in Category:Pitcairn Islands politicians) (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC and WP:PERFCAT)
Charles Fremantle is in this category because he stopped by in 1833 and tried to resolve a dispute, no idea why Dea Birkett is listed, Luis Marden went there to take pictures for National Goegraphic, Thomas Staines visited in 1814, no idea why Irving Johnson is listed, and Harry L. Shapiro wrote a book about the H.M.S. Bounty. (I added Henry Evans Maude and Charles Blackie to the parent category because they were temporary residents and an official, respectively.) This is classic WP:OCASSOC. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmm. Yeah - that would make some sense. There is another problem with the first category as it stands, as technically Pitcairn isn't a "nation", so what does "non-national" mean in that context? Grutness...wha? 01:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the intent, but surely many of the people in the category pre-dated any such law. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Dea Birkett is in the category because of this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 5 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:Organisations associated with the Bengal Renaissance[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 (and reparent Category:Vangiya Sahitya Parishad‎ as proposed). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC) and maybe WP:OR
The association with these organisations must be pretty slight: not a single article in this category even mentions the Bengal Renaissance in the text. (4 of the articles do list have Template:Bengal Renaissance, but the reason for including that template is equally unclear.) The child category has content on this topic though and should be kept in the tree. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_2&oldid=1028726440"