Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 20

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

October 20[edit]

Category:Emigrants from Germany to British 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains one biography. Following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Category:Emigrants from the United States to British India and the one below that, covering three biographies between them, this category should likewise be merged to both parents. – Fayenatic London 21:28, 20 October 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:London Fire Brigade officers[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 10:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Better to broaden the scope ("officers" only refers to station officers and above, not to ordinary firefighters) and not all the people in the category were officers anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, wouldn't it be better to match the parent category (and similar sub-categories) and call it Category:London firefighters? I doubt anyone became notable for doing the admin or being the cleaner at LFB. Sionk (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That could mean a firefighter who was born in London but didn't work there. Not all these people were actually operational firefighters. Some were indeed administrators who'd never fought a fire in their lives. And the proposed category name is no different from, say, Category:Metropolitan Police officers as opposed to Category:London police officers. What's the problem with using the name of the service? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:02, 20 October 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:Crown Courts[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 28#Category:Crown Courts

Category:Ghaznavid 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. Currently 3 articles. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per WP:SMALLCAT; "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members." Both Category:Ghaznavid historians (now 3 articles, not that small) and Category:Ghaznavid scholars (6 articles) has a very high potential for growth, considering the amount of info we have on the Ghaznavids and the fact their rule was a golden age of sort in terms of scholarship and literature. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- The normal minimum is 5 articles, filing which the usual solution is to upmerge, as proposed here. If HistoryofIran can name more historians who should be here, I would be willing to wait for articles on them but otherwise merger should proceed. The nom retains a historian category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not really motivated to do some digging for the sake of this nomination, which I really find unnecessary and not an improvement to these categories. However, what comes on my right right off the bat is al-Biruni and the authors of the historical chronicles Tarikh-i Sistan and Majmal al-Tavarikh, though I recall the authors of those being unknown. So unless we're counting the anonymous authors, that's 4. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The Ghaznavid dynasty lasted around 200 years. I'm sure there will be more articles. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge for Now with no objection to recreating if I'm proven wrong and we ever get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:17, 20 October 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:Parishes of Europe / America[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) Qwerfjkltalk 10:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To distinguish it from ecclesiastical parishes. They are in Europe but not of Europe. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, not wanting to be contrary for the sake of it, but the Europe category contains civil and church parishes. Presumably these are the top level of category to contain both types. Sionk (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really a great solution, is it, to simply remove the church parish categories? Sionk (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole 'parish' thing is a minefield really, "Civil parish" seems to be a term used in the UK for the lowest level administrative divisions, but is it used elsewhere? "Parish" in the Caribbean seems to be a top level division and, in Louisiana in the US, "Parish" s the word used to describe "Counties" of the state. I'd be inclined to retain all three nominated categories as they are. I'm not convinced the semantic difference between "of" and "in" is sufficient reason to rename them either. Sionk (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sionk is right that it is a minefield. It is also largely a matter of WP:SHAREDNAME. It may make sense to move the subcategories to Villages or Administrative divisions categories (different per country) and to end this category altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I see no minefield. All of the examples cited by Sionk are administrative subdivisions. As such, they all belong to the Civil parish category. None is an Ecclesiastical parish. Where's the problem? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, I still think that adding "civil" in the name is helpful. But we also need (a) fresh discussion(s) about merging or deleting (some of) these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely "Civil parish" is what these third or fourth tier administrative areas are called in England. Should we really be imposing the name on administrative units in other parts of the world? The situation is being confused by Laurel Lodged cre4ating a category structure before consensus has been reached. Sionk (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be a better solution to categorise adminstrative divisions of countries in Category:Administrative divisions by level and country, considering not every administrative area with a similar name serves an identical purpose? Sionk (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply This does not address the fact that we have a simple dichotomy: civil parishes and ecclesiastical parishes. They are related but different. Only at the top level of category trees may the two be united. This proposal permits a clearer navigation of the dichotomy by continent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all simply, as we've discovered (and been saying for the last 10 days). Sionk (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change to "in" but oppose other changes. In England civil parishes are commonly coterminous with ecclesiastical parishes, because they created from ecclesiastical ones in 1895. This is a high level category and better left vague, allowing the tree to branch further down. We have been over this ground many times before: Louisiana has parishes, which in any other US state are counties. Also in US a Catholic parish is effectively just the local church. In England ecclesiastical parishes have precise boundaries that may occasionally be changed (but only by Order in Council), Civil parish boundaries can be changed by the principal council (district or unitary), but very often they are still boundaries that have existed for 800 or 1000 years or even more. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 23 October 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:Bangladeshi Sufi saints[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 28#Category:Bangladeshi Sufi saints

Category:Last living survivors[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, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a mish-mash of last survivors ranging from soldiers in wars, members of musical groups, stars of televisions shows to players from championship sports teams, so there is no real connection to make this a meaningful category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've thought long and hard about this. For example there are some list articles of last surviving people of this, that and the other event, which could in theory be categorised together successfully in, say, "Category:Lists f last living survivors". But the inclusion criteria for "Category:Last living survivors" is far, far too broad and amorphous. I've no idea why Buzz Aldrin, the first alphabetically, is in this category, but I guess of you live long enought you'll be one of the last living survivors of something. Sionk (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, he's the last crew member of Apollo 11, since both Armstrong and Collins are now dead. Ionmars10 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What do Richard Keith (actor), Frank Buckles, and John the Apostle have in common, aside from that they are all male? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- John the Apostle appears because he is thought to have been the last of the 12 apostles to die. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ignoring notability, the category is poorly named as few of these people are living. "Last survivors" would be more accurate. pburka (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 26 October 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:Female musicians from Sudan[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 10:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Merge with category following standard naming conventions. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:09, 20 October 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:History of cricket by club[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 10:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single article only which is adequately categorised elsewhere. BoJó | talk UTC 15:45, 20 October 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:English cricket seasons from 1598 to 1763[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: convert to century categories. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Combine Category:English cricket seasons from 1598 to 1763, Category:English cricket seasons from 1764 to 1786 and Category:English cricket seasons from 1787 to 1815 as Category:English cricket seasons from 1726 to 1815. Purpose is to synchronise with History of cricket to 1725, History of cricket (1726–1771) and History of cricket (1772–1815). BoJó | talk UTC 15:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good alternative. Simpler, too. BoJó | talk UTC 08:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to century categories as per Marcocapelle's rationale. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this alternate proposal. BLAIXX 14:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support century categories, but the articles are much more about what happened in particular years, so that the articles would be much better as English cricket in 1740, etc. This would change when there started to be a county championship. Matches retrospectively deemed to be first class matches were not such at the time. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Peter. That is a very good point about the years and I completely agree. Also, as you say, there was no official first-class status before 1895 and we need to be wary of using the term in articles about earlier topics. BoJó | talk UTC 04:00, 24 October 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:Cricket player auction[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 10:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Serves no useful purpose. Auctions are a function of the two leagues which are the category's only members and the items in the sub-category are adequately categorised by league. The sub-category itself is a member of the main cricket lists category which is sufficient. BoJó | talk UTC 14:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cricket player auctions are a unique process. When people being sold on auction, the topic extends just cricket. Geysirhead (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a unique process does not make it a useful process. The category's member articles are about the two leagues, not about the auctions they stage, and so they do not define this category. BoJó | talk UTC 12:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a redundant category layer, as the two articles do not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The auctions are certainly important, but the category for this is the subcategory to this. This one is an unnecessary level. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:25, 23 October 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 Voronezh Oblast[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. bibliomaniac15 03:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each Rathfelder (talk) 08:16, 20 October 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 Vologda Oblast[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. bibliomaniac15 03:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each Rathfelder (talk) 08:08, 20 October 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 Volgograd Oblast[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. bibliomaniac15 03:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each. Rathfelder (talk) 07:58, 20 October 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 Vladimir Oblast[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. bibliomaniac15 03:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each category. Rathfelder (talk) 07:49, 20 October 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:Tehsils of Murree District[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 28#Category:Tehsils of Murree District

Category:Murree Tehsil[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 28#Category:Murree Tehsil

Category:Murree District geography 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: merge. Only 20 articles currently. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, new stub categories are supposed to have at least 60 stub articles, this has far less. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Marcocapelle, this category for newly created district. There will be more than 60 pages in this category. I am working on this. Just give me some time. I am updating pages according to new district. If you merge this, it will difficult to work again on these pages. AAonlyA (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination will stay open for a week so it will give you some time to populate this stub category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commend nom's dedication, but agree that 18 articles is too few to merit a separate category. If there are 60+ after this week, a category would be appropriate. Meanwhile, there are 28 upmerged stub templates under Category:Pakistan geography stubs, which holds 744 articles, so it might be more useful for an editor to check those to see whether they qualify for sub-categories. Just saying. Her Pegship (?) 20:28, 21 October 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:Amphibia[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 10:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with main article Amphibia (TV series), and avoids any confusion with Category:Amphibians. 162 etc. (talk) 05:27, 20 October 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_October_20&oldid=1125649443"