Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 5
August 7 >

August 6[edit]

Category:Slavic-American society[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: upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to deletion of Category:Celtic American and Slavic Americans ‎(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic Americans (2nd nomination)). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2023 (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:Videocassette formats[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. No further comments on this, so seems there is no further reason for discussion. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, its single article is already in Category:Videotape and not much growth can be expected here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl nom has withdrawn nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw, yes, I am aware. A nomination cannot be closed as withdrawn unless all participants !vote as keep. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know that, sorry. Well I'll just strike my !vote now then, for my part. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (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:Use of the term Illyrian in modern history[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 20:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the name is a defining characteristic of modern history "Illyrian" topics because it's so strange - they used this ancient name to refer to South Slavic topics that have little to do with ancient Illyirans. This is rather distinctive even for modern day locals, let alone the average English reader. --Joy (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name "Illyrian" was apparently revived with the Illyrian Provinces and the Kingdom of Illyria after which the other items in this category have been named. They still share nothing but the name, and the two beforementioned territories have only little overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is just not correct, these 19th-century polities were predated by several centuries by things like Illyrian (South Slavic), Illyricus etc. This is a curious historical concept that is habitually explained by reliable sources in reference to these topics. --Joy (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, but then I do not follow why you think it is strange that people use the term in modern history. It almost seems like the term never really disappeared. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't fundamentally understand what's the difference between describing people by ethnicity and nationality in categories, and describing the use of the term 'Illyrian' in modern history. Why are we comfortable describing topics as Slavic or Croatian or Slovene in categorization, which is something reliable sources habitually do in reference to those topics, but when the same happens in these cases it's overcategorization? --Joy (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is completely beside the point. We do not have any "usage of the term" categories, neither for ethnicities nor for any other subject, per WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        They aren't unrelated subjects with shared names, they're just as related as e.g. modern-day nationalities. --Joy (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then what do they share, apart from the name? Marcocapelle (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          It was apparently most commonly used for ethnic or linguistic origin. --Joy (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is of course not an answer to the question. The question is not what origin the names have in common but what topic the articles have in common. The answer is simple: none. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            That was the answer for the topics. So you're actually arguing the category has a bad name? --Joy (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            No, the category has a bad scope. That's why we should delete it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            Would it be possible to move from more unsupported assertions to an actual rationale as to how removing this is based on an understanding on the topic and is being helpful to the average reader? --Joy (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Understanding of a topic is something to be elaborated in text in article space, like in this case in Illyria. Categories aren't for understanding, they are for easy navigation between articles that are about the same topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              They are about the same topic - about this historically relevant "incorrect" use of the term Illyrian in reference to non-ancient-Illyrians. The set of topics named Illyrian in modern history is considerably more interconnected than e.g. the set of topics named Croatian in modern history. --Joy (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:OR. This could be a legitimate topic for an article, but it mostly just seems a fork of Illyrian movement. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to explain why you think this is arbitrary when reliable sources describe these topics as such? Certainly there's a degree of arbitrary cutoffs between e.g. describing people as 'Illyrians', 'Slovenes', 'Croats' but it happens in reliable sources, we do not invent an arbitrariness in it. I'm also interested in what makes you think this is original research when we're talking about stuff from the 16th century in the 21st based on sources scattered in the centuries in between. (Also, the Illyrian movement is regarded by the preponderance of reliable sources as a specific series of events from the 19th century, not a general description of the use of Illyrian in modern history.) --Joy (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, these are not unrelated subjects with just a shared name, they are all from the same general area and time and the ethno-national origin (as understood today) is very similar. --Joy (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument could be made for any number of ancient ethnonyms still used in modern history. E.g. Batavus is the middle name of William Batavus V, Prince of Orange, but Batavus is also a bicycle manufacturer. They are both from the same general area and time and the ethno-national origin (as understood today) is very similar. But those similarities are still WP:NONDEFINING. Sorry. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice example of reductio ad absurdum, the problem here is that there is no such stretch in this case. The weakest categorizations in this case are two breeds of dog (Illyrian dog, Illyrian Hound). I don't know if they were named in the same time period (though it is likely) - we can easily err on the side of caution and remove them, and what you're left with is this historical story, no bicycles involved. --Joy (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is absurd about that example? It is also about the usage of an ancient name in much later times. I can't tell the difference. Even if we had 5 articles about Dutch people and things in the same century with "Batavus" in their name, that would still not justify a category, because those 5 Dutch people and things would have nothing in common with each other except the name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The absurd part is that it's so far from this example it becomes an orthogonal example. The same people would have to have been referred to as 'Batavus people' or 'people from Batavus' by their contemporaries and the reliable sources describing them - to match this case. --Joy (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2023 (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:Counts of Egmond[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 20:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, while Egmond is nowadays spelt with a "d" it used to have a "t" as is apparent from the biographies in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename But Leave Redirect The nomination is sound but, without a redirect, I suspect this will come up again as a maintenance issue. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2023 (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:East Bengal MLAs 1954[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 to East Pakistan. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to 1954–1958 per actual period. Option 1: rename to Category:East Bengal MLAs 1954–1958. Option 2: rename to Category:East Pakistan MLAs 1954–1958. At WP:CFDS a choice between the two options could not be made. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Jaunpurzada and Mehediabedin: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using East Pakistan, as we usually use the name applying at the end of the term. East Bengal became East Pakistan in 1955. – Fayenatic London 11:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:55, 6 August 2023 (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:14th-century rulers of Monaco[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: purge & upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to the Deletion of "13th-century rulers of Monaco", whose only contents were also François Grimaldi and Rainier I of Monaco, Lord of Cagnes, who should thus be Purged here as well. As Marcocapelle said: we categorize rulers by country, duchy, county or lordship, but not by occupied area. With them Purged, this becomes a redundant layer that should be Upmerged to both parents, so that Category:14th-century Lords of Monaco is contained directly within them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:54, 6 August 2023 (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:3rd-millennium executions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Category:3rd-millennium executions

Category:Medieval rulers of Thessaly[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Category:Medieval rulers of Thessaly

Category:David Suzuki[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 20:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by association. This is an eponymous category for a person collecting articles randomly "relating" to him in various, not always defining ways: the eponym, his foundation, the television show he hosted, his autobiography, his daughter, an international project his foundation supported but was not a primary creator or organizer of, a school that was named after him, and a cartoon series in which an animated parody of Suzuki was a minor supporting character in one episode.
So not everything here is defined by its relationship to David Suzuki at all, and even the things that are legitimately defined by that relationship aren't all defined by it in the same way for the purposes of constituting a cohesive group. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or define better). I'm not a regular here, but I did create this category because I think it serves a useful purpose of identifying things created or co-created by or with David Suziuki. I find the above rationale more persuasive that two of the eight (cartoon and organisation) should be removed from the group.
I reject the assertion that the relationship is random, there is nothing random about the grouping at all. WP:DEFINING guides us towards having categories that "reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic" which is an accurate description for most of the articles categorised here, notwithstanding the two that maybe I should not have added. CT55555(talk) 20:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are David Suzuki's daughter, a school which violates WP:SHAREDNAME, and an animated cartoon in which a fictionalized version of David Suzuki appeared as a minor supporting character in one episode a unified "group" of anything? Bearcat (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to WP:COAL as often as possible, but replied to emphasize that I already agreed that the cartoon one is an outlier. So please note what I said above and you will see the answer is they are a group of things affiliated with the environmentalist David Suzuki. If we remove a handful of them, they are a group of things created or co-created by or with David Suzuki. CT55555(talk) 12:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Things are not a "group" unless they're all related to the subject in the same way. That is, a category for "Books about X", grouping things that are books about X, would be fine, but if such a category does not exist then a book about X does not go in a broader category for "X" if that "groups" it with things that are not also books. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So should I create Category:Works_about_David_Suzuki and Category:Organizations_Founded_by_David_Suzuki and then populate them from this category and move them both into this category? CT55555(talk) 21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not until there are at least five things to file in each of said categories, no. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON, and articles are just vaguely related to each other. The "what links here" feature suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2023 (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:Canadian trade unionists of Italian descent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Category:Canadian trade unionists of Italian descent

Category:Slovak football logos[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 20:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the category is meant for club logos so the name should reflect that Michael H (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current name is consistent with other sub-categories of Category:Association football logos. Either all of them should change, or all should stay the same, but this shouldn't be changed in isolation. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the nominator of this CFD has been blocked for WP:CIR issues. Could this be speedy closed as the nominator clearly didn't understand how category name consistency works? Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 08:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above. GiantSnowman 08:34, 9 August 2023 (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:Football people in Slovakia[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 20:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: there could be a better name Michael H (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2023 (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.

20th century in Yugoslavia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#20th century in Yugoslavia

Category:Members of the Yorkshire Naturalists' Union[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Category:Members of the Yorkshire Naturalists' Union

Category:Members of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals[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 21:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING, WP:OCASSOC and (potentially) WP:OVERLAPCAT
The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals is a mebership-based association in the UK. According to their their membership page there are a variety of levels to join at including £160 for librarians/IS professionals, £40-60 for library/IS students, and £80 for non-librarians. Of the 2 articles in this category, Sue Roberts (librarian) is mostly known for her work in other countries, Robert H. Thompson is not known for being a librarian at all, and neither is defined by having paid membership dues. (Alternatively, we could populate the category but that would largely overlap with Category:British librarians.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mere membership of an organization is hardly ever a defining characteristic of an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2023 (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:Rede Globo original programming[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 21:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Channel renamed to TV Globo, so it does not make sense to have two categories with a former name and a current name. Notrealname1234 (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but Leave Redirect Per WP:C2D, but I think the redirect will reduce maintenance issues and confusion later. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2023 (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/2023_August_6&oldid=1170400777"