Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 18 April 20 >

April 19[edit]

Category:Quincy Jones family[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. ✗plicit 02:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard naming for families of individuals. ★Trekker (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not necessary. No link to support claim of "standard naming". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Category:Family by person. Current naming makes it seem like the whole family is named "Quincy Jones" instead of being people who are family of an individual person.★Trekker (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats what you think, fact is still that "Family of Foo" is still standard over "Foo family".★Trekker (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2022 (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:Ascension Thursday songs[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:Easter hymns. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete or merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. As there is no category for Ascension Thursday, possibly merge to Category:Eastertide. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2022 (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:German Silesia[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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, German Silesia is and was never a real administrative entity, it is merely a made-up intersection between a past Province of Silesia and a current country. Note that the larger part of Silesia is currently in Poland, only a tiny corner of it stretches into current Germany. The category also overlaps quite a bit with the Lusatia categories nominated below by User:Fayenatic london. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The problem with the nomination is that the category was never intended to deal with an "administrative entity" but with a historical region and especially with the area that still makes part of Germany (like the former counties in Northern Ireland, which by the way also overlap with the present administrative jurisdictions).--Darius (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. German Silesia isn't a historical region while Silesia is.
  2. Even if it were a historical region, it should contain articles about the historical region - but these articles apparently do not exist, not even an article about German Silesia itself. The category merely contains articles about populated places which tell us nothing about German Silesia as a region. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per precedent, categories for populated places in former countries should not be allowed. If German Silesia is a thing at all, it is a former thing. The contents consists only of current places in the former thing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per precedents. Province of Silesia contains a list of districts; it might be useful to tabulate those lists with a column or colour code to indicate the current country, and to add a column for cities and towns within each district. However, using categories for this is not appropriate. – Fayenatic London 10:39, 23 April 2022 (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:Viking Age in the British Isles[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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this category does not add something to Category:Viking Age by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is quite a different discussion: should the by-modern-country exist at all? Still, the British Isles category does not solve that problem, since Ireland, Scotland and England had a very different history. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I have already added the article to both categories. Deletion of the category is all that is left to be done. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2022 (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:LGBT-related controversies in Saudi Arabia[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 8#Category:LGBT-related controversies in Switzerland. These categories all also suffer from the same problem: they're one-entry or two-entry categories being used solely to categorize the overview articles "LGBT rights in X" and/or "LGBT history in X" rather than actual articles about any specific controversies. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary hypercategorization. Tazuco (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2022 (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:Ovenbirds[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) 06:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be the same topic; see ovenbirds. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the single member page is already in a sub-cat of the target. – Fayenatic London 10:45, 23 April 2022 (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:French chronicle writers[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) 06:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I dont see any distinction here. No other categories of "chronicle writers". Rathfelder (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2022 (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 from Avonmore, Pennsylvania[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) 06:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small one county community with just 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:31, 19 April 2022 (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:Populated places in Lower Lusatia[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) Qwerfjkltalk 22:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following many precedents, we do not categorise populated places by former administrative regions. – Fayenatic London 10:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per precedent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Lusatia is/was an ethnic region (home of the Slavic Sorbs) rather than a former administrative unit, but it still results in a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2022 (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:Mayan chiefdoms of the Yucatán Peninsula[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 29#Category:Mayan chiefdoms of the Yucatán Peninsula

Category:User siyi-1[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 any user can boldly create Category:User tisa and 1-5. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nonsense babel category - Category:User siyi does not exist and "siyi" does not appear to be a valid language code. While I understand that this was created to clear Special:WantedCategories, it's not clear why the creator didn't just remove it from the sole member's user page, since that user hasn't objected to several other redlinked categories being removed. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless empty. If this is indeed a nonsense category, then the remedy is stop the wretched Babel system system from populating it; then it can be speedily deleted as empty.
    I am annoyed with the nominator @Pppery for trying to blame this stuff on the editors who work hard on the thankless task of clearing Special:WantedCategories. Removing categories from userpages often generates howls of outrage from editors who don't understand (or won't comply) with WP:USERPAGE, and hacking their babel setup will be even more likely to cause drama.
    Please try to assist those editors who put in many hours on this maintenance, instead of making their job harder and blaming them for the disruptive folly of some users. The way to help is to fix the template which populates the category, rather than coming to CFD to tackle the symptom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't populated by a template; it's populated by the literal wikitext [[Category:User siyi-1|{{PAGENAME}}]] on the sole user's page. There's nothing I could have fixed here (other than removing that bit of wikitext myself, but wouldn't that be emptying a category out of process?) And I agree I should have stated that in the nomination statement since it was the premise of my "it's unclear why" part, but it somehow didn't occur to me at the time - sorry. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @Pppery. Sorry I misunderstood you; that triggered my memory of many months working all day ever day to clear a backlog of over 40,000 entries in Special:WantedCategories, while some wannabe-funny-guys spammed junk into the cleanup list. Sorry that my response came out as a growl.
    So it's not actually babel-crap; it's fake babel-crap. Nuke it, and nuke the user who thinks that this carp is funny.
    I guess that when I saw I saw it, I didn't investigate, and just treated it as yet another of the flood of babel cats. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this junk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think it is purely junk, I think its incorrectly coding for ISO 639-6 code "tisa" for Toisanese -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete immediately - Nonsense is just that, nonsense.--Darius (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AFAIR, "Siyi hua" is another name for "Hoisanese", a dialect of Cantonese (ISO:yue). So this could be someone's attempt to create a Category:User tisa-1; since Hoisanese has the ISO code "tisa" -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hoisanese/Toisanese/Taishanese/Siyihua was the lingua franca for North American Chinatowns in the early to mid 20th century. So, I think such a category could end up with several users, if it occurs to them to look for it, and to switch from using User yue categorization -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per anon, see Taishanese and Siyi Yue. The userbox code explicitly refers to Taishan dialect, see Special:Diff/240318035. – Fayenatic London 06:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose renaming instead of deleting; I find these contrived rescue missions of long-abandoned categories to be counterproductive, and there doesn't seem to be a convention of using ISO 639-6 codes in Category:Wikipedians by language. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's incorrectly named, how would they find it? This language has more speakers than many other languages with babel boxes/categories. It's a fairly prominent language in North American Chinatowns and in Hong Kong, so there should be a population familiar with English with this facility. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It has only just been placed within Category:User yue, where other speakers of this branch of Chinese might find it. Give it time. – Fayenatic London 22:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As a Cantonese (ISO 639:yue) speaker, I can't quite understand spoken Siyi Yue but the written one can be understood. I think one can just use Category:User yue and related (User yue-1-5) which is enough. Sun8908 Talk 08:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sun8908: I don't think merging into the detailed levels yue-1 to 5 would work. User:HongQiGong claims to speak Yue as a native (User yue-N) but Taishanese only at a basic level (User siyi-1), and I think you are in effect saying the same for yourself. – Fayenatic London 14:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, for spoken language, we are basically different but the written language is quite the same. We can write on Cantonese Wikipedia since both and other varieties are basically the same for the written form. They are usually regarded as the same language. It is not useful to include babel just for spoken differences on Wikipedia, at least in my opinion. Sun8908 Talk 16:40, 28 May 2022 (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:User nz-m[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) 06:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to cover the exact same ground as its parent. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:52, 19 April 2022 (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:User harpsichord[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale Unneeded empty categories that are not intended to become empty on occasion and incorrectly named. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:52, 19 April 2022 (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:User oji-2[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) 07:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Useless isolated babel category not part of a wider series and containing only one subcategory that's better categorized elsewhere. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:52, 19 April 2022 (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:Depreciated sources on Wikipedia[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) JBchrch talk 22:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is not an encyclopedic category, is self-referential, contains categorically wrong entries (like arXiv or Anadolu Agency, which are not deprecated by any stretch of the imagination) and is misspelled. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Amigao (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic, and as general errorful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is based upon: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources which are the URLs by consensus that Wikipedia won't let people use. CaribDigita (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is not a category with an encyclopedic purposes, nor are the sources you are adding to this category deprecated sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as out-of-order. I could understand a similar sort of category for projectspace, but it is completely inappropriate for this to be linking articles. Also, I may just be dumb and can't see it, but where is the misspelling? Curbon7 (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curbon7: see Depreciation vs Deprecation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – not appropriate for mainspace, fails WP:Defining. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories in articles are for our readers' benefit, not the benefit of editors. The idea of this category is to label the articles of deprecated sources as such, but that sort of information is collected largely for the sake of editors. Until a time where deprecation on Wikipedia is a notable topic and a mainspace list of these sorts of deprecations is justified, I don’t see a user-oriented reason to have a mainspace category. On top of that, depreciation and deprecation are quite different; the spelling indicates that the former is the core to the category, while the category's members indicate the latter is core. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsuitable for reader-facing content. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, could it be useful as a maintenance category? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Category:All articles with deprecated sources is the existing maintenance category. The only category I can think of something like this being used for would be a project-space category that contains all the project-space pages about deprecation itself. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although it might be feasible to make a category for talk pages based on Wikipedia:Deprecated sources (and correctly spelt). Oculi (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I have learned a lot from this thread. I'm changing my vote to speedy delete unless anybody else has an objection? I concede this wasn't the way to make an editor category. I should have asked for more peer guidance first. CaribDigita (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When we deprecate prominent publications it's often widely covered in reliable sources, so this isn't purely self-referential.[1][2][3][4] – Joe (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2022 (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/2022_April_19&oldid=1090401559"