Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 5 November 7 >

November 6[edit]

Category:Wikipedians worried by climate change[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 14#Category:Wikipedians worried by climate change

Wikipedians by radio station[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) 07:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominatior's rationale per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by media station * Pppery * it has begun... 17:24, 6 November 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.

Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox[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) Qwerfjkltalk 12:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale None of these categories distinguish themselves from the parent category in a way that aids collaboration. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:04, 6 November 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:Wikipedians living in or associated with Wakefield, Massachusetts[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) 06:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Wakefield, Massachusetts has too few people to support a location category per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 17#Category:Wikipedians in Mount Juliet, Tennessee. Adding "or associated with" to the category title makes it even less useful for collaboration. A merge to the parent category is not necessary since the sole user is already in that category. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:54, 6 November 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:Wikipedians who like Space Channel 5[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) 06:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by video game * Pppery * it has begun... 16:26, 6 November 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:Hoards in Roman Britain[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 all. bibliomaniac15 23:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Hoards from Roman Britain. These hoards aren't in Roman Britain, since Roman Britain no longer exists, but they originate from Roman Britain. The articles are not about the hoards in Roman times, but what they are now. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I took the liberty to add the two sibling categories to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: when I saw this under article alerts, my first thought was that the title should probably be, "Roman hoards in Britain" (and extending that, "Anglo-Saxon hoards in Britain", "Iron Age hoards in Britain"). Would this formulation be preferable? P Aculeius (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably meant as 'in' modern Britain. If that is the intention I would prefer 'in the United Kingdom'. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the specific suggestion above of P Aculeius. And also watching this, as I'll create 'Medieval' and 'Post-Medieval' hoards categories in whatever nomenclature is decided.Zakhx150 (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Post-Medieval' should become 'Early modern' (16th-18th century) and 'Modern' (19th-21st century). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 13 November 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:Toronto FC Senior Academy players[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 14#Category:Toronto FC Senior Academy players

Years in Mexico[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: redirect all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per precedent in this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:08, 6 November 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:Cross listed companies[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. bibliomaniac15 23:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Unlike the often-confused-for Category:Dual-listed companies, which holds articles on companies with a rare, and defining, corporate structure, this recently created category is WP:NOTDEFINING for any of the companies currently within it, and of course is missing many thousands of companies for which this category applies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:23, 6 November 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:Khana Ratsadon politicians[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: split between Category:People of the Siamese revolution of 1932 and Category:People's Party (Thailand) politicians. bibliomaniac15 23:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The main article was renamed to People's Party (Thailand) in December 2020. This would be C2D to Category:People's Party (Thailand) politicians, but I'm suggesting renaming to Category:Members of the People's Party (Thailand) instead, as some of the members of the group, which wasn't an actual political party and is best known for instigating the Siamese revolution of 1932, did not enter politics. Paul_012 (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC), updated 05:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose while matching the main article title is of course fine, we do not have "Members of . . " political party categories for a reason: if the person is not a politician, it is likely that their party membership is WP:NOTDEFINING. The correct choice is the aforementioned Category:People's Party (Thailand) politicians and any non-politicians should be removed from the category. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite its often-used English name, the People's Party was an ad-hoc group and was never registered as a political party (this would have been impossible, as the legal framework for political parties didn't exist in the country at the time). Its Thai name, Khana Ratsadon, doesn't use the word for party. It is primarily known for instigating the Siamese revolution/coup of 1932, and only later did it become seen as a de facto political party. It wouldn't be right to exclude non-politicians who were involved in the revolution, as that is the most defining aspect of the group. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:06, 6 November 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 of the Siamese revolution of 1932[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: split per above discussion. bibliomaniac15 23:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Khana Ratsadon politicians, as the coup/revolution was entirely instigated by the group, and the entirety of the group were involved in it. Paul_012 (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural comment, the outcome of this discussion is dependent on the outcome of the discussion above. If the above category is split then this category should be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, same as marco. --Just N. (talk) 19:19, 13 November 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:Successful coups in Thailand[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 delete. Speedy delete after page creator tagged the page for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Recently created and now redundant to Category:Military coups in Thailand, which has now been purged so that failed attempts are separated into the (also recently created) Category:Failed coups in Thailand (itself nominated for speedy renaming). Paul_012 (talk) 04:01, 6 November 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.

Show business and sports families[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 without objection to a short term renomination of these categories, but in smaller batches. I will leave the CfD tags on the category pages for a few days in case User:Mike Selinker finds it easier to re-use them. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Standardizing to style of most Category:Show business families and Category:Sports families categories. There is no other Alvarado, Baldwin, Gibb, Starr, Sumner, or Swan family] with a category. There is a Category:Matthews family (UK), so Matthews needs the disambiguator per Category:Long family (American football); similarly the Earles, Harrisons, Harts, and Johnsons. Belle Starr and Pearl Starr are in Category:Hatfield family, so don't need a Starr category. The Stewarts and Youngs' businesses are less uniform, so I just went with location.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Alvarado wrestling family and Category:Alvarado wrestling family - they should not be moved, but should instead match the parent article. I am also concerned about the proposed move of Category:Family of Rod Stewart to Category:Stewart family (UK) because there are multiple Stewart families in the UK... GiantSnowman 08:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close as this bundling is entirely inappropriate, things need to be considered on an individual basis. WP:TRAINWRECK applies. GiantSnowman 08:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I support a lot of these, but GS is right - several of them need individual attention, so they need to be unbundled. @GiantSnowman: yes, I believe that the Hart and Alvarado articles should be moved, given that there is substantial precedent for using the form "Foo family (Bar)". I'm also a little concerned that there is a Category:Matthews family (UK), which should surely be at Category:Matthews family (United Kingdom). Grutness...wha? 11:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: except categories should match the article name, see WP:C2D. GiantSnowman 12:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC),[reply]
Exactly. We're currently in a quandary, with trying to get categories to match article names and also match a category tree. Since that can't be reconciled without (a) moving a handful of articles and categories to match the current usual format, or (b) moving hundreds of articles and categories to match a different format, it would make sense to move the handful. And given that there doesn't seem to be any reason in terms of common usage why one article title is naturally the "right" one, so it's hardly going to cause a major problem to make them conform to the others. Grutness...wha? 12:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it seems to me that the question is not whether the category "Starr family" exists, but whether the term "Starr family" is ambiguous. "Ringo Starr family" is entirely clear but "Starr family" is not, and as for "Stewart family (UK)" ... all sorts of Stewarts will just be added. Oculi (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Category:Norvind acting family has not any genuine surname in it, because these actresses are all female and surname does not generally stay in the family through female line, except in some cases as an additional mother's name according to Spanish custom. But it is not a surname. (Terot (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • I agree with Giant Snowman, bundling these was a mistake, they should be nominated individually. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least Category:Ringo Starr family, Category:George Harrison family, and Category:Family of Rod Stewart (possibly as Category:Rod Stewart family). Harrison and Stewart are common surnames, so that including the forename of the most notable member is appropriate. This will serve to keep these inadvertently picking up unrelated people. Equally, Category:Baldwin acting family needs a name that could not include Stanley Baldwin. I prefer category names to be short, to limit category clutter. Thus I have no problem with Category:Matthews family (UK), rather than United Kingdom. Categories sometimes need a disambiguator even where the main article does not, classically, Category:Birmingham is a DAB-cat not the category for Birmingham. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' I agree with Giant Snowman, bundling these was a mistake, they should be nominated individually. --Just N. (talk) 19:23, 13 November 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:Historical inaccuracies in film[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. bibliomaniac15 23:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Historical inaccuracies in film are so common that I don't see this being a defining category. All things being equal I'd say we could perhaps limit it to films that received significant attention for their inaccuracies, but I don't know how we could define 'significant' in this case, as there's plenty of sources that will cover even relatively minor inaccuracies. Which in turn begs the question of when a historical inaccuracy becomes noteworthy. DonIago (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless a category can be compiled that would contain articles discussing the inaccuracies themselves, not the films. As it stands this category appears to be equivalent to Historically inaccurate films, which practically could apply to all films, to some degree. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining and impossible to objectively determine. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overbroad and definitely non-defining, impossible to judge where you draw the line when all historical films are prone to this. (Don't get me started on "heraldry" in film, for example; or the whole "Romans speak with British accents" trope.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly broad category that only encourages original research, a very common issue in articles on historical fiction. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The category would be correctly titled "Films with historical inaccuracies". One article is about controversies, which might appear in the category as currently named. Possibly Listify as a table, with a column to list the inaccuracies. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to A Wizard Did It Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any noteworthy historical inaccuracies should be described in the article with reliable sources. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suppose this category could be refactored with the intention being that it be applied to articles that discuss specific historical inaccuracies in films (or articles in which there are discussions of related historical inaccuracies in films about the article subject matter?)...but I'm not sure that we even have any articles of that nature, and I don't have the words for how weakly I'd support this idea. DonIago (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining at best. Historical films would require artistic license to be entertaining so inaccuracies can't be avoided. --Lenticel (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The category would be correctly titled "Films with historical inaccuracies". --Just N. (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV category. Who is judging the accuracy? Dimadick (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do I sense WP:SNOW? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:24, 30 November 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_November_6&oldid=1073193220"