Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 19 September 21 >

September 20[edit]

Category:Specific Polish letters[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:Polish letters with diacritics and Category:Esperanto letters with diacritics. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Variant A
Variant B
Nominator's rationale: For consistency, these should have the same naming pattern. I would prefer the shorter version, though I get that we specifically don't want to include the basic Latin alphabet in each one of these categories. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 17:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:20, 20 September 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:Albums produced by The Glimmer Twins[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 14:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For band names and music producers we represent their name with lower-case 'the' in running prose, per MOS:NICKNAMETHE and MOS:THEMUSIC. Previous categories have been moved for the same reason; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 25#Category:Albums produced by The Alchemist (musician). Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: None of the other categories were tagged. I took care of them, so the nomination has only technically been completed as of the time stamp of this post. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Not sure why an unopposed nom is relisted as it could have been speedied in 2 days (if unopposed, per consensus in several previous cfds). Oculi (talk) 08:44, 21 September 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:Khakas culture[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. ✗plicit 11:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the category only contains a biography, which is not even specifically about Khakas culture, and a subcategory (see below). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 20 September 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:Khakas music[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:Khakas. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only 2 articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 20 September 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:Muhajir[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 22#Category:Muhajir

Category:Muhajir people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 22#Category:Muhajir people

Category:Law in fiction[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 07:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent category Category:Works about law and to be more defining. I admit the previous rename attempt was ill considered. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:34, 20 September 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.

Professional wrestling fake nationalities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 13#Professional wrestling fake nationalities

High medieval Austrian 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: merge. – Fayenatic London 18:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, articles directly in these categories are generally not people of the margraviate of Austria, so they directly belong in the Holy Roman Empire categories. Provisionally merge also to medieval Austria categories, these need to be diffused further before we can take next steps. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support as an interim step If they are generally not people of the margraviate of Austria, then why would we put them into Category:People of medieval Austria? But the proposal is less inaccurate than the current state of affairs. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge we need to avoid using modern terms for the past. This even applies to cases where the modern term was used in the past. Thus for 19th-century people we have Ottoman Empire categories, not Turkish categories. Even though in the 19th-century west "Turkish" and related terms were generally used to refer to people connected with the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Austria is not a modern term and the people covered are Austria's rulers. I do not see a close connection with the Holy Roman Empire. Dimadick (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? "Austria is not a modern term" - not true. Without the qualifier of Margraviate / Duchy / Archduchy, the term Austria on its own is very much a modern term as it refers to the modern republic. "people covered are Austria's ruler" - not necessarily. "I do not see a close connection with the Holy Roman Empire." - the Margraviate / Duchy / Archduchy of Austria was a state of the HRE. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is a difficult one. Strictly it ought to be limited to whatever was called Austria at the time. This might be extended to other polities with the same ruler, but some of the content is the rulers of other duchies that were later subsumed into Austria, which is an anachronism. I suspect the answer is to purge and then see what is left. This may leave categories with less than 5 members, whcih would need also to be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purging leads to emptying, apart from a few spouses of margraves of Austria. Therefore the nomination is to merge immediately. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Austria at the time would mean the Margravate of Austria. The other people are largely rulers of other polities (such as Carinthia and Styria) later subsumed into Austria and spouses. Accordingly as Marcocapelle pointed out, we would have nothing left after purging; certainly not five articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Peterkingiron. --Just N. (talk) 14:46, 27 September 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:9th-century German poets[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. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination, as the participants seem to be talking past each other, esp. about nationality/language. I note that the parent hierarchy Category:German people by century does not use "German" before 10th century, so this category is anomalous. – Fayenatic London 19:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the Carolingian Empire ended late 9th century and even considering the split of the empire these poets lived in Middle Francia rather than in East Francia ("Germany"). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We should use nationality related denonyms that conform to the national lines of the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Carolingian" is as artificial a designation as "Byzantine". It does not reflect these people's language, or their era's terminology. Dimadick (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It does not reflect these people's language, or their era's terminology." How do you mean? Category:Carolingian poets is not part of a category tree by language. Many of them wrote in Latin for that matter. In any case it certainly reflects that they were people of the Carolingian Renaissance. And by the way I can't see anything wrong with Byzantine either. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is not about German-language poetry or poets. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Two are associated with St Gall (now Switzerland), but to the extent that they were not writing in Latin, their language was German, not French. One seems to be regarded as the first German author. The Franks were a Germanic people who ultimately (in France) stopped using their own language, just as the Normans in English ultimately stopped using French. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree in principle with Laurel Lodged its hard to see how to do this in Germany. Although it was not a united country until 1870 it seems clear that people were referred to as Germans long before that, and the enormous number of small German states makes it impractical to subdivide in that way for most purposes. Rathfelder (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the point of the nom is to avoid splitting by small state. It is to keep within the legal state of the time - the Carolingian Empire. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, our knowledge about 9th-century duchies and counties within the Carolingian Empire is fairly limited. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peterkingiron and Dimadick. Poetry is not a matter of the rulers but of the language used. German poets means German language!. --Just N. (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Laurel, you seemingly did not understand the facts. It's about culture group mapping not about states! You misinterpreted it completely. The core of more or less stable historic culture groups is their language. States and their expanding of frontiers topics are maybe just the simple concept techocrats would like best (simple causality). But it is complexity reducing at its worst and certainly not adequate for a culture studies matter like this. --Just N. (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Justus Nussbaum: Where is it written that the scope of this, and related categories, is defined as a "culture group" (whatever that might mean)? That's not a concept in Wiki categories as far as I know. Perhaps you mean nations, which is indeed an established Wiki tree structure. However, in the period of time that is the subject of this nomination, it is highly debatable that a German nation, as opposed to a "Germanic people", existed. Germanic peoples lived on both sides of the Rhine; was one "French" / "Frankish" and the other "German"? Highly debatable. I think that the definitive split did not come for a few more generations. That's why we don't have 10th-century French poets. It is safer to label them all as "Carolingian". Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote maintained -- Laura Lodged want seem to want us to think that people spoke a Carolingian language, which is of course nonsense. This is about language, not nationality. Possibly Category:9th-century German-language poets. There are only three articles and I doubt we will ever get more, so that Upmerge might also be an option. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know where you're coming from with that comment @Peterkingiron:. Nothing that I have written above could conceivably be construed as me supporting a Carolingian language; I have only talked about a Carolingian state or empire. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:43, 22 September 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:Mythical utopias[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: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as utopias are already fictional/mythical. A person moved the articles from "Utopias" here recently. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are different kinds of utopias: Religious/mythical and secular/scientific/theoretical ones. Actually, every currently known social order was considered "utopian", before it was implemented. On the other side, some functioning countries are sometimes refered to as utopias like Yugoslavia. Anyway, there is no clear line between reality and utopia, but there is a clear line between mythical and non-mythical utopias. Communism is a non-mythical utopia, while Garden Eden is a mythical utopia.--Geysirhead (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it up to others to decide whether this is accurate. However, if they do decide that it is, I still believe it should be renamed to Category:Fictional utopias to match up with the general naming scheme of the parent category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Myth and fiction are different. Fiction has an author or authors, while the source of a myth is unknown.--Geysirhead (talk) 07:51, 21 September 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:Soccer clubs in Shreveport, Louisiana[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) 08:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted in 2017, this category was recreated in 2018. 5 of the 6 articles are actually redirects. There is no need to dual merge to Category:Soccer in Shreveport, Louisiana as it will be empty once this category is deleted. User:Namiba 12:06, 20 September 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:Sports venues in Houma, Louisiana[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 considering WP:SOFTDELETE (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge to Category:Buildings and structures in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. This WP:SMALLCAT contains just one article and a redirect. User:Namiba 10:09, 20 September 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:Terrebonne High School[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) 08:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this eponymously named article contains only one article and the subcategory for alumni. User:Namiba 10:08, 20 September 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:Public governance[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 28#Category:Public governance

Category:Executive branch of the government of Kwara State[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This broader subject will include the single article currently in this category. It will also be consistent with the government categories for all other states of Nigeria. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 04:24, 20 September 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:Sagesse SC managers[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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 19:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category pertains specifically to association football managers. Basketball coaches are categorized under Category:Sagesse SC basketball coaches‎. Nehme1499 01:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Nehme1499 01:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:55, 20 September 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:Cancelled Star Wars video games[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 07:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Completely redundant category. No other category exists that groups cancelled games by a particular genre or theme. The current by-platform structure is sufficient. CoolingGibbon (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a bit small but probably falls under WP:AINTBROKE as it's not hurting anyone by being there and is a valid cross-categorization.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:20, 2 October 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:Robots in fiction[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:Fiction about robots. – Fayenatic London 07:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "in" is not necessary in this case, per the subcategories such as Category:Robot comics and Category:Robot films. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep the current name, or rename to Category:Robot fiction / Category:Fiction about robots?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:35, 20 September 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_September_20&oldid=1051249830"