Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 19

< February 18	February 20 >

February 19

Category:People from Congress Poland

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The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn. MER-C 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose containerizing Category:People from Congress Poland

Nominator's rationale: In this discussion we decided to merge Category:People of Congress Poland into Category:People from Congress Poland. One question in this discussion remained unanswered, namely why do we take Congress Poland people apart and so why don't we treat them as just Polish people?

The answer to this question is, most people in this category are also categorized in Category:19th-century Polish people and Category:20th-century Polish people. So this is actually leading to strongly overlapping categorization, except that the child categories of Category:People from Congress Poland do add value. Therefore the proposal is to keep the nominated category but to containerize it. Which means that single articles that do not fit in any of the child categories of Category:People from Congress Poland would only need to be in the tree of Category:19th-century Polish people and/or Category:20th-century Polish people according to this proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what the proposal is. Does "Containerizing" mean not having any articles directly; if so, that needn't be discussed surely, if you can find the more limiting category for any such direct articles, merely substitute it. If that isn't what's meant, after this discussion what does the nom want to see? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the first question is yes, and the goal is to seek consensus about whether or not this is indeed a good idea. I realize I don't have to discuss it upfront, but I still would like to hear what you think about it as it's quite a change to current practice. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The category is, as I see it, intended to be a form of "who is who" in Congress Poland. We still have uncreated categories for Congress Poland people which exist in pl:Kategoria:Królestwo Kongresowe. Btw, I don't understand why my proposal of merging "from..." to "of..." category ended up in a reversed outcome? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I think there's a misunderstanding which has primarily to do with unclear inclusion criteria. In the previous discussion all people (including myself) have understood it as if any person of Polish nationality would qualify for the new merged category. Instead, it could also be perfectly valid to have a category just for people of the Congress Poland government, i.e. for civil servants, politicians and military, in this case the inclusion would be based on occupation. What's your idea of inclusion criteria? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: For the Category:People of Congress Poland which I intended to see, it would be anyone who was important for that statelet. Please note that the "of" would be consistent with other entries in Category:Polish people of the partition period such as "People of the Duchy of Warsaw‎" and "Activists of the Great Emigration". This structure comes from Category:Polish people by period, which in turns is a child of Category:People by nationality and period. An equivalent that some participants here may be more familiar with would be for example Category:People of the American Old West. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok it's meant as part of "Polish people by period". But then it's still nationality-based, right? So "from Congress Poland" is okay. The only thing I wonder, the whole tree of "Polish people by period" in this sense entirely overlaps with "Polish people by century", because that's also categorizing people by period, is that such a good idea? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per Carlossuarez46. I do not see point of the discussion. Pardon me for being noisy, but we need to keep it simple. No need to reinvent the wheel, wouldn't you agree? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, withdraw this proposal, I see the point that it's too vague a discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2015 (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:Fictional half-angels

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; merge contents to Category:Fictional hybrids. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fictional half-angels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles in cat, and are both from the same show. JDDJS (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a category specific to one particular TV show (that no longer is on the air) and not a general category that is applicable to any other subjects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Fictional hybrids. – Fayenatic London 16:57, 21 February 2015 (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:Gas station attendants

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 as moot: speedily deleted as empty after single article in it was deleted at AFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gas station attendants to Category:Filling station attendants

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think this should be renamed to match the parent category Category:Filling stations and the article filling station. A redirect should be placed on the nominated category. (This is being brought here from the speedy section because the difference in gas vs. filling station is an WP:ENGVAR difference between the U.S. and Canada vs. most of the rest of the English-speaking world.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

copy of speedy discussion

Category:Gas station attendants to Category:Filling station attendants – C2B per Category:Filling stations/Filling station Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Object to speedy I think this is a WP:ENGVAR change, so should have a full CfD -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you are correct—fair point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Shortening 'Gasoline' to 'Gas' is plain wrong in all circumstances and leads to confusion between Petrol/Gasoline vs LPG/CNG. Stepho talk 06:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment wouldn't that mean you'd want Category:Gasoline station attendants ? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I prefer 'Filling station attendants' but would accept 'Gasoline station attendants'. It's the 'Gas' part that is totally unacceptable. Stepho talk 01:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd question the notability of the one article contained in the category. Reads like a slow news day's "...and finally" section. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Hard to believe that anyone is notable for having been a gas/filling station attendant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, I've taken it to AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. It would be wise for this discussion to be closed after that one, in case it renders the category empty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agreed, wait on the AfD. We apparently have notable janitors and lifeguards, so well see.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; the distinction among whether the attendant pumps gasoline, CNG, propane, unleaded, or whatever is trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if kept per WP:ENGVAR. There is no confusion with the current name. However the best solution is likely Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. The current entry and sources don't really say that working in the gas station was behind the accumulation of money. So while he was rich which appears to make him notable, do any of his three jobs become notable? So based on that the article probably does not belong in this category even if kept. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems quite strange to me that once the article is named Filling station and the parent category is Category:Filling stations, that we would then diverge and make the subcategory named something different. That's not particularly helpful to readers or to editors who might try to predict what a category is named. I think we've avoided such situations in other category schemes, even where the variations are variations of English. If it were Category:American gas station attendants, then I could see the point of diverging—but not for the general category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. Not convinced if we need this category notwithstanding its name. It includes only one article which is currently nominated for deletion and there is no foreseen perspective to populate it. Beagel (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the single entry in this category has now been deleted at AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:18, 6 March 2015 (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:Blanche Lazzell

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Blanche Lazzell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary eponymous category having only a couple of images files and with no articles to populate it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2015 (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:Anti-government factions of the Syrian Civil War

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, defaulting to keep as it is.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anti-government factions of the Syrian Civil War to Category:Anti-Assad factions of the Syrian Civil War

Nominator's rationale: Its more common in the media.92.25.92.199 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative rename to Category:Rebel groups of the Syrian Civil War, which is C2C to parent Category:Rebel groups in Syria. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative. – Fayenatic London 17:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both – In my opinion both definitions are too vague.--Catlemur (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur: Do you have an alternative suggestion? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is.--Catlemur (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "rebel". By definition, anti-government armed factions are rebel factions. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to anti-Assad. This seems the least POV way to describe them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to anti-Assad. There are many entities which describe themselves as the "government" in Syria, and the WP:COMMONAME for Assad's form of government is regime. Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative rename to "rebel" or no change. Anti-Assad or regime are non-neutral terms. Wikipedia is based on neutrality. Anybody can claim to be the government of Syria, but in official views and as far as the United Nations is concerned the long-existing Syrian government is still the official government. EkoGraf (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative rename to "rebel" or no change. Same reasons as EkoGraf. Lekoren (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2015 (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.