Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 31 February 2 >

February 1[edit]

Template:Chef-bio-stub[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Template:Chef-bio-stub

Births in India[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) 06:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We dont categorise people by place of birth. We use "people from" which is deliberately ambiguous. Both articles are already in appropriate categories. Rathfelder (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as already covered by existing category tree, Category:People from Delhi.--Mvqr (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not categorize people by place of birth. We categorize them by where they are "from". Exactly how long you have to be in a place is not clear. However this would lead to categorizing people born in a place if their parents were on a short-term vacation there, or even in some cases a day long plane layover.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the first to Category:People from Delhi. Delete the parent. My target is a well-established cat-type, which is purposely vague as to how the people come to be from there - birth, past or present residence. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles are already in Category:People from Delhi.Rathfelder (talk) 17:27, 6 February 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:Daimler AG[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 03:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Daimler AG company was renamed earlier today as Mercedes-Benz Group. I suggest that in the main category and all the subcategories containing the text "Daimler AG" it should be replaced with "Mercedes-Benz Group". Urbanoc (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Hint: the corporation section that produces trucks has been split off to an own stock market noted company some time ago and thus should not be included. --Just N. (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Urbanoc: please also tag the sub-cats, and list the old and new names in the format above. – Fayenatic London 11:36, 8 February 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:Democratic Labor Party members of the Parliament of Australia[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 22:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This split dates back to when we had separate articles for the pre 1978 (at Democratic Labor Party (historical)) and post 1978 (at Democratic Labour Party (Australia)) incarnations of the party. (Note that in 2013 the party slightly changed its name to use the "Labour" spelling.) The two articles were merged in 2020 but the categories were left over. The small numbers of DLP parliamentarians over the years makes a split of what is the same party unnecessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:18, 1 February 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:North American traditional 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: rename. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Folk music is a more consistent term than traditional music is, and is also more common to refer to this kind of music. YellowJelly (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't it problematic to subsum all traditional music as folk. Especially in the US a lot of them are IMHO unclear if they are not Alt Country or 'Americana' instead. If this is right we should rather keep 'traditional'. --Just N. (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Alt Country nor Americana are folk/traditional music, and all "traditional music" under this is already also folk, so I'm afraid I don't understand the point you are trying to make, sorry. --YellowJelly (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the "traditional music" articles/categories on the wiki refer to a hardly separable mixture of folk and classic/art music (mostly found in Asian cultures). This category is not intended to group classical music. Solidest (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to eventually split those other folk/classical "traditional genres", but that's a more difficult change to make. --YellowJelly (talk) 22:51, 9 February 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:Fair use images that should be in SVG format[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) 09:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I recommend that this category be deleted, and all accompanied images in the category get the {{Should be SVG}} tag removed. Tagging non-free images with this template is at odds with our non-free content policy. Per WP:NFC: ... editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com or Brands of the World where the vectorisation of a logo may have been done without authorization from the logo's copyright holder.

Having these images tagged as such leads editors to believe that it is okay to have non-free logos vectorized by themselves or other users; I believed so for a long time, and such requests are made regularly at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. The only proper use of this category would be so that users know what non-free raster images exist, such that it would be nice if the copyright holder has released a vector version of said image – something that more-often-than-not does not exist. In all, the category serves almost no purpose and leads to misconceptions about Wikipedia's policy on non-free SVG logos. – Pbrks (t • c) 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Red X I withdraw my nomination - After some thinking, simply deleting the category would likely not fix this issue. Changes have been made to {{Should be SVG}} in efforts to dispel any confusion about the vectorization of non-free logos. – Pbrks (t • c) 00:39, 4 February 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:Artist skateboarders[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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inexplicable overlap considering we have Category:Artists and Category:Skateboarders. Also set a risky precedent for future overcategorization. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While I don't fully get the connection between art and skateboarding, the category's scope note says it is for skateboarders who do art – what else? It is well-populated and I don't see any conflict between Category:Artists and Category:Skateboarders. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I argue that "Artist skateboarders" is a genre of artists; as well as, a specific type of Contemporary artist. --Wil540 art (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Skateboarders. This is a trivial intersection. It appears cover musicians and other performers who like skateboarding and may also do it professionally. There might be scope for skateboarding performers, where skateboarding is part of the performance. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep We should use it only for professional sports artists or people who would perform in a variety show. The Category:Skateboarders OTOH comprehends all other people who skateboard just as a hobby sport. --Just N. (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Skateboarders per Peterkingiron. With a few exceptions, being an artist is completely unrelated to skateboarding. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 8 February 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.

User-created public domain files[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 20:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale Clean up after Special:Diff/1069089328 and Special:Diff/867363798 which entirely depopulated the Category:User-created public domain files tree and mostly depopulated the Category:User-created public domain files (no Commons) tree by compressing everything into one undated category for each group and deleting leftover relics. Also rename Category:User-created public domain images without user-name to use "files", as it was somehow missed when the entire set was speedily renamed in 2012, and to remove the nonstandard dash between "user" and "name". * Pppery * it has begun... 04:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support (and you beat me to it, as I was still working on it): There is no "maintenance" to be done on these files, so it never made any sense to put them into monthly categories. Note that you will also have to ensure the relevant bot code is changed, or Category:User-created public domain files from March 2022 and Category:User-created public domain images without user-name from March 2022 will be automatically created, as well as all the future months, which will repopulate the respective counter cats. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All that is required to get AnomieBOT to stop creating new categories is to remove the parent category from Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month (usually by removing {{parent monthly clean-up category}}). As always when I start a CfD, I will be willing to implement it when the time for that comes. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support and thank you for doing this! This was also discussed at Template talk:PD-self#No Commons, and as such, I'll ping MGA73, Magog the Ogre, and Elli, all of whom also participated in that discussion. I said there that there's no point in creating monthly maintenance categories when we won't be able to do anything to maintain them for decades, and I still feel that way. Also note that if this passes, Template:PD-user will need updating. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The idea about sorting the files in months was that it would be easier to check the files and move them to Commons (or nominate for deletion in unusable) if there were perhaps 100 or 1,000 files in the category instead of 137,000 files (or how many there was originally). I think we can easily live without the month categories now.
The idea about putting files that could not be moved to Commons in a different category is that otherwise users would keep checking those files only to find out the file could not be moved. I think that is still a good idea but there is no reason to sort them in month categories either. --MGA73 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above reasons. --Just N. (talk) 14:28, 7 February 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_February_1&oldid=1076044408"