Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 3 May 5 >

May 4[edit]

Winter Olympics by year stubs[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 , leaning towards keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of these stub types are used on more than 60 articles, and some do not have corresponding stub categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Category overload does exist, and the idea of deleting all these cats is nonsensical. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:07, 4 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:Songs about wealth[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Category:Songs about wealth

Seafood 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: merge all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, these all contain only one or two articles. The number of seafood company articles in Wikipedia is low altogether (not even 100 worldwide). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 4 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:Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards ceremonies[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily long category name. It doesn't really make sense to distinguish/disambiguate between "Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards ceremonies" and "Dresses worn at the Academy Awards ceremonies". Most people wear one outfit for both the red carpet and the ceremony, so there's no real separation between the concepts. Even when people do outfit swaps, the media tends to refer to red carpet outfits and ceremony outfits interchangeably as "Oscars dresses" and "Academy Awards dresses." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection (not that I think anyone will mind since there's been no response to this anyway) I've changed the target to "outfits worn" rather than "dresses worn", in order to be a) gender neutral and b) cover Autograph suit of Sandy Powell and the eventual article I'm going to write about Cher's stupid and wonderful 1986 Oscars getup. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 4 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:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field

Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to have identical purposes. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 4 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.

Reality television contestants by country[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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Convert to container categories, following precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Category:Participants in British reality television series. Those that do not have sub-cats by series should be deleted as WP:SOFTDELETE unless and until such sub-cats are created. – Fayenatic London 18:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming to contestants - A contestant is a participant in a game show or contest (which redirects to competition). Not all of these appear to be competition-based. Reality television would appear to be much broader than that. Maybe the whole tree could use better specification in naming? - jc37 03:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In practice nearly every reality tv show is somewhat competition-based. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not according to Reality_television#Subgenres. - jc37 14:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but I would support splitting out subcategories for those who are expressly contestants. Note that participants can include figures like Simon Cowell and Gordon Ramsey (who are judges on their shows, but not contestants), the Kardashians, the Jersey Shore cast, and others who participate in a non-contestant capacities. BD2412 T 03:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judges and other non-contestants should be removed as non-defining and over-categorisation per WP:PERFCAT. – Fayenatic London 10:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, "reality show judge" is pretty much its own occupation, and people who do that is their regular gig should have their own category. I would say that it is also clearly defining that the Kardashians, and the regular cast of non-contest reality shows like The Deadliest Catch and Million Dollar Listing, are participants in reality television series (and not contestants). BD2412 T 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. There is a potential alternative here, but this isn't it. For one thing, not every reality series actually has its own dedicated subcategory at all, meaning that some people just get pulled out of the tree entirely if these categories are strictly containerized. For instance, there isn't a dedicated subcategory for "U8TV: The Lofters participants", which would yank Jennifer Hedger and Mathieu Chantelois and Trevor Smith out of the tree; there isn't one for Masterchef Canada, which would yank Mary Berg out of the tree; and on and so forth. And even when there is a category, such as Category:Masked Singer winners, there aren't subcategories for winners of each individual international version, which would have the effect of orphaning lovebirds Wilfred Le Bouthillier and Marie-Élaine Thibert out of any categorization that clarified in any way that it was the Canadian edition that they won (and since there's only been one season so far of their version, they're five years away from the ability to create any Canada+Masked Singer intersection category on WP:SMALLCAT grounds.)
    And as for reality show judges, that most certainly can be defining and relevant to categorize for — it's probably not relevant or useful in the case of somebody who guest-judged one episode, but there's an entire class of professional judges who that's basically all they do. I mean, what is Michelle Visage even notable for at all, really, if not for being a reality show judge? (Without that, she'd just be a redirect to a band rather than having her own standalone BLP.) And yes, it's also true that not all reality shows are competitive: Kim Kardashian is certainly a reality show participant, but she isn't a reality show contestant, because Keeping Up with the Kardashians wasn't a contest.
    So there might be a better name for these categories, but this isn't it, and containerizing them isn't the solution to anything. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Renaming this to contestants would make certain people that are on reality television and in these categories currently, become miscategorized as not all reality TV participants are contestants. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:03, 13 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:Professors of chemistry (Cambridge, 1702)[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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More concise, and bit less narrow. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:08, 4 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:Former assembly constituencies in Telangana[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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proper naming like, see, and also Defunc is the correct meaning. IJohnKennadytalk 08:54, 4 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:Television series by Stone Stanley Entertainment[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Category:Television series by Stone Stanley Entertainment

Category:Hololive[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Category:Hololive

Category:Burial sites of the House of Burke[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 21:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are currently a couple of pages included in this category: burials at

Blackfriars, London, and Athassell Priory and Ballintubber Priory.

As you can see from these pages themselves, the burials of the people from the 'House of Burke' are surnamed either de Burgh or Bourke.

People with the surnames Burke, Bourke, de Burca and de Burgh are all derived descended from the founders of the dynasty, the House of Burgh.

de Burgh was the original surname which later (in Irish) became de Burca/Burc/Burke/Bourke, etc.

Therefore, since all these people are descended from the original dynasty of Burgh, this category should be renamed as Category:Burial sites of the House of Burgh to reflect the origins of the family. Thank you. WilldeBurgh (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 02:16, 4 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:House of Burke[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 21:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are currently a variety of pages included in this category: people surnamed Burke, Bourke, de Burca and de Burgh (which is correct).

All these surnamed people are descended from the founders of the dynasty, the House of Burgh.

de Burgh was the original surname which later (in Irish) became de Burca/Burc/Burke/Bourke, etc.

Therefore, since all these people are descended from the original dynasty of Burgh, this category should be renamed as Category:House of Burgh to reflect the origins of the family. Thank you. WilldeBurgh (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support - article is at House of Burgh. Although it was moved there without discussion in 2021 by the nominator there seems to have been no objection. Oculi (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per article name. But, as Oculi notes above, the article rename was a bit sneaky. At the very least, the nominator ought to have mentioned this fact and declared an interest. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I thought I'd followed the advice properly so that anyone could comment (advice on renaming page does suggest 'being bold' when renaming) though I didn't think I was being that 'bold', I weighed-up the pro's and con's and thought 'Burgh' was more broad as an umbrella for all versions of the dynasty's name. No sneakiness intended, sorry if I got it wrong as a relative newcomer. But thanks for your support for this category change. WilldeBurgh (talk) 13:24, 11 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:British lieutenant colonels[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 21:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Totally pointless category. The biggest problem is that it does not specify service and lumps lieutenant-colonels of the British Army, British Indian Army and Royal Marines together, despite the separate categories for officers of these services. But also, categorising by specific rank reached serves no useful purpose. The proliferation of these rank-specific categories needs to be stopped now. Pure overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If you object to having all these in one category, then split it. A colonel of marines would historically be an unusual appointment, possibly even a sinecure, as marines served on board ships in smaller numbers than required a colonel to command them. British officers in the army in India held the king's commission, even if commanding Indian troops, in contrast to Indian officers whose commission came from the viceroy. The distinction drawn is thus not a valid one. We should only categorise soldiers by the highest rank they attained (as they will inevitably have passed through the lower ranks first), but if we have articles on lieutenant colonels we should have a category for them. Colonels (unlike generals) are not notable per se, so that having an article means they have achieved something of note. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was going to be created it should have been split in the first place before umpteen articles were added to it, thus making more work for other editors. The point about the Indian Army is that whether they held the King's Commission or not, they were not officers of the British Army but of the Indian Army. Two completely separate organisations that should not be lumped together (but unfortunately all too often are by those lacking in knowledge of the subject). Indians could also hold the King's Commission, incidentally. Viceroy's Commissioned Officers were a completely separate rank category similar to warrant officers. As for the Royal Marines, lieutenant-colonels (and colonels) traditionally served ashore in the three Royal Marine Barracks, but it doesn't mean they didn't exist (and since WWI they have commanded battalion-sized units just like army lieutenant-colonels). But I don't see how any of that is relevant in the first place. I simply fail to see how rank-specific categorisation is not a classic case of overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This is a pointless mishmash. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mismash as BHG says it. British Indian Army ranks were also inflated, like 2-4 ranks above regular ranks.--Mvqr (talk) 11:45, 11 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_4&oldid=1091373611"