Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 29 March 31 >

March 30[edit]

Category:Boston articles missing geocoordinate data[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 category is empty, there is nothing left to merge) (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rarely-used cleanup category - new Boston-related articles are not frequently created, and there is unlikely to be a substantial number of existing articles that need coordinates either. Category:Massachusetts articles missing geocoordinate data is sufficient for the few articles that do come up. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:39, 30 March 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:Government of the Buyid dynasty[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. Amir al-umara and Hajib will be moved to Category:Buyid dynasty, as requested. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete and move the two articles to Category:Buyid dynasty. The two subcategories are already in the people sibling (nominated below) and it is not worthwhile to keep the category for only two articles. If kept, after all, the category should be renamed somehow, because thge current name may wrongly suggest that it is the dynasty to be governed, while in fact it is their territory to be governed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 30 March 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 of the Buyid dynasty[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) Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the current name is confusing, it may wrongly suggest that the category is for Buyid family members. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 30 March 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:Debut remix albums[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 10:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see anything defining to an album being a music act's first remix album, as opposed to a true studio debut. A remix album could be released anytime during an artist's career, and there's no fanfare around it being a first-ever remix album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'support' there is no notability in debut remix3s. - Altenmann >talk 21:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: non-defining, and it doesn't even differentiate between whether it's a remix album of the artist/musician, or of the producer carrying out the remix. Richard3120 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The remix album is a type of album that so many bands and artists could release during their career. This category simply lists an artist's first remix album, same as other types of debut releases. It is still being populated. Hiddenstranger (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other types of debuts (primarily, a band's first release) are defining. A debut remix is not defining and would not be regularly discussed as such in independent sources. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed – none of these were the first ever release by the artist, in fact most of them appeared well into their careers. So they wouldn't have received any special attention for being the first ever remix album by that artist. Richard3120 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see what is defining between two separate artists that should categorise their first mix album into a category. The information will still be there in discographies etc, so nothing is lost. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-defining per above. JBchrch talk 18:19, 30 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:Buyid-period historians[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:Buyid historians. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article - which is already in Category:10th-century Iranian historians Rathfelder (talk) 18:22, 30 March 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:Polish enlightenment[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 24#Category:Polish enlightenment

Category:Lists of String Quintets by composer[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 parents. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 07:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Capitalisation Tijd-jp (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agree--Toploftical (talk) 16:36, 30 March 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:Piano Trios by composer[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 18:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Capitalisation Tijd-jp (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agree--Toploftical (talk) 16:38, 30 March 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:Lists of Piano Trios by composer[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:Lists of compositions by composer. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 07:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Capitalisation Tijd-jp (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agree--Toploftical (talk) 16:38, 30 March 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:Wikipedians from Edinburgh[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 20:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Would seem that the vast majority of this category system is "Wikipedians in...". Additionally, Template:User Edinburgh which populates Category:Wikipedians in Edinburgh has several options in the /doc including "comes from". Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Template:User Edinburgh should also be adjusted to not populate the category if a custom parameter is specified, because most of the doc examples shouldn't populate location categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the point is that these editors may know more about Edinburgh. That may apply to both former and current inhabitants of the city. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the purpose of the location tree was that these editors could take photographs of places in Edinburgh, and knowledge should be covered by the interested in tree instead. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:10, 13 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:Novelty and fad dances[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-relevant articles should be purged. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 18:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category title is dubious. Some of the articles in the category are about songs rather than the actual dance - presumably they've been categorised as novelty because the dance appears in their music video. What classifies something as novelty or fad would be subjective unless a reliable source called it such. Further more, novelties and fads can be described interchangeably. A fad is usually short lived and arguably, all dances are novelty because they're all about fun and expression? Something highly subjective like this does not seem to be encyclopedic. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep well defined category and not at all subjective. These are exactly about ephemeral dances which are popular during brief time period only due to their novelty. And no, not all dances are novelty, and your "because" simply defies logic. In fact they are not real 'dances' , just a couple moves 'do the Freddy', 'mashed potato' 'suzie q',... unlike 'real' dances, such as folk/traditional dances or social/ballroom/street dances. - Altenmann >talk 21:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All are well known dance fads. Main category for the article Novelty and fad dances. Songs are included but in their respective articles they all contain info about their specific dances which became the fad or craze. A fine cat. Hiddenstranger (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If its going to be kept, there's certainly a lot of the articles can be removed. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge articles about songs, as the category is about dances the articles should be about dances too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 7 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:Traditional boats[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:Boat types. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge, "traditional" is a vague criterion and there is no "traditional" tree that the category could be a subcategory of. Many articles are already in some other subcategory of Category:Boat types, e.g. in Category:Canoes so that the merge has to take place manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. How could we differentiate traditional boats from other boats? Rathfelder (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'merge'. Even now many boats in boat types category i would call traditional. While the intent of the category is understandable, the vast majority of boat types are traditional, and it is better to define an 'opposite' category of modern/invented/patented boat types, but this must reflect the accepted classification in 'boat science' or whatever it is called.- Altenmann >talk 21:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not clearly defined, is Eurocentric. Traditional fishing boat should probably be deleted for similar reasons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:32, 14 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_March_30&oldid=1089613391"