Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 9

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< September 8 September 10 >

September 9

Category:Carboxamides

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. It sounds like there is a hesitation to completely merge the two even though the terms are often informally used interchangeably. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Carboxamide is simply a synonym for amide and there's already a cat for that. Project Osprey (talk) 22:02, 9 September 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:Annual awards

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: speedy delete. – Fayenatic London 20:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I created this but as
talk · contribs) pointed out to me that almost all awards are annual so not such a good idea. Tim! (talk) 20:01, 9 September 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 British MPs by political party

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) 23:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Not every member of the UK parliament at Westminster is a British national. Some are Irish nationals and Irish citizens. See discussion here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've amended the target per Tim's suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Any member of the UK Parliament who takes his seat has to swear allegiance to the UK sovereign. They will thus in practice have to be British citizens, even if they may have dual Irish citizenship, as the people of Northern Ireland do and may wish to deny that their citizenship is British. Those born in Northern Ireland have British citizenship by birth, whether they want it or not. Exceptionally we have commonly abbreviated to MP and UK, because many MPs have multiple categories, one for each Parliament. In this case, we have a container category, so that the expansion of abbreviations may be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Gob Lofa (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and there needs to be more cleanup of this sort. "British MPs" doesn't mean anything to a lot of non-British people. The average Amercan probably thinks it means "British military police officers", since "MP" more commonly has a different meaning in Yankeeland. Just spell it out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:55, 13 September 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:1866 establishments in British Burma

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. — ξxplicit 22:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename following
British Burma (unlike e.g. British Honduras) – the page redirects to "British rule in Burma". Renaming was opposed on the Speedy page, see below, on the grounds that the country was not unified in 1866. However, it does not aid navigation to use a category name reflecting only part of the territory in this instance. – Fayenatic London 13:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Extract from Speedy discussion page
  • Support The name of the country was not "British Burma". Tim! (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. As nominator points out, we just went through a nearly identical discussion, which suggests that this should have been allowed to proceed speedily. There's not enough content here to divide the place called Burma into the various governments that controlled that territory in 1866. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - this is merely a case of semantics, since
    French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon.GreyShark (dibra) 08:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose Support -- There is not point in adding British in a case where there was not for example a French Burma too. If there was a period when the British were not in control of the whole country, I doubt we have enough articles for a split to be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes My vote was contrary to my intention. Therefore changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is supported by the evidence, I would support a split into Upper and Lower Burma. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since there's not enough material to support separate categories for two historical Burmas at this time. If there becomes enough such material later, split them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There were two Burmas in 1866, and no amount of historical revisionism will change that fact. There was British Burma and Free Burma. We need this category to adequately reflect this fact. It is not that "the country was not unified" it is that there were 2 distict countries. Just as there was East Germany and West Germany in 1966.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In 1866 Burma was split into Upper Burma and Lower Burma. Lower Burma's boundaries were the limits of British rule, while Upper Burma was an indepdent kingdom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would the division between
      Upper Burma fit the historical distinctions applying throughout the period 1824 to 1885? If so, it would be possible to set up sub-categories for those periods. However, you have not addressed   SMcCandlish's point that because of the very small size of the categories (currently 6 categories with one member each), doing so would not add any benefit for navigation. Ah, I see that you have set up Category:1861 establishments in Lower Burma, a lone category with a single member, which serves to illustrate this point. Note to closer: this new sub-cat might perhaps also be dealt with when closing this discussion. – Fayenatic London 13:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • You can't deal with unnominated categories in a close. Now Category:1861 establishments in Lower Burma has 2 articles (and I didn't even add the second article). There is also now Category:1852 establishments in Lower Burma.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both of these categories were created by you while this discussion was ongoing. That's not particularly good form, I don't think. It would have been more reasonable to decide to not consider creating these categories until this discussion were resolved. I would say that in light of the timing, it would be entirely reasonable for a closer to also deal with these categories, if they felt that it would be helpful to do so. There's no issue of lack of notification, since you are the sole editor of the categories and you are aware they are being discussed in this context. A closer wouldn't have to deal with them simultaneously, but it's quite likely that if the nominated category is deleted in this discussion, those two will also be deleted in a follow-up discussion to this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are many more articles that could go in these categories and more potential articles. There is no reason to suppose the current size is as large as they will get.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a very convincing argument; the same could be said of any category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not true. I have seen multiple categories that there is only one article that applies to it. An example that was actually kept was Operas in Klingon. In that case it was not just that there was only one article, but only one potential article until the situation in the real world changed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: RSVP. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It takes time to identify articles from specific years of organization. Good Olfactory has consistently demonstrated a failure to understand the difficulty in creating this type of category adequately. The fact that the 1861 category got a quick addition from someone else shows that his theory that creators should fully populate categories is flawed. Wikipedia is a collaborative system. It is long understood that expansion of a category and its contents is 100% acceptable during discussions, especially when the discussion is being fueled, as it is in this case, by the theory that the categories can not be large enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To give specific examples there is Yaw Mingyi Monastery formed in Burma (as opposed to British Burma) in 1866. This leads me to suspect there are more articles either that exist or that could exist on monestaries in both Burmas that were organized in 1866.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, I take that comment (which was mixed with a bit of a personal attack, which I'm choosing to otherwise ignore) to mean that we don't currently have very many relevant articles. If the currently available contents are not large, I don't think it needs to be split into the two different parts of Burma at this date. We're just back where we started: "there are many more articles that could go in these categories and more potential articles", which as noted is not particularly compelling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. There are not enough articles to make a split viable. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; dubious about whatever the "other part" of Burma was called, and whether are many articles and events for that entity. Hugo999 (talk) 03:20, 4 October 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:Field Marshal of the Philippine Commonwealth Army

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: Deleted as G5. Diannaa (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Obviously badly named anyway, but given MacArthur was the only one and already appears under Category:Field marshals I really don't think this is necessary at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 9 September 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:Filipino Military Heroes of the Philippine Commonwealth Army

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: Deleted as G5. Diannaa (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Completely POV. Being a "hero" is merely a matter of opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 9 September 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.
Re: sock suspicion: What gives you that impression? LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Visitor attractions in South Africa by province

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: speedy rename. Further nominations like this can go straight to
WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 20:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: To rename categories in line with recent renaming of all Visitor attractions categories which was renamed pursuant to an August 21 discussion and August 30 discussionGbawden (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Less ambiguous. At some point, the clear consensus should allow speedy renaming. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and agree on speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 12 September 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:Korean-language singers of South Korea

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) 23:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. There are no other categories within the same vein (no Category:Japanese-language singers of Japan, for example) and it will ultimately include every South Korean that falls under Category:Korean-language singers. Categories splintering off into nationalities are helpful in instances when the singer isn't Korean (like Jackson Wang or Nichkhun if one were created for him), but not for people from South Korea. — ξxplicit 05:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Is there not a need to distinguish them from singers of North Korea? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced such a distinction is needed. North Korea has very few notable singers (for obvious reasons). I do believe the purpose of categories like these is to categorize 'X-language singers of country' for non-native speakers of said language. This is why Category:English-language singers of South Korea exists, but not Category:English-language singers of the United States, Category:English-language singers of Canada, and Category:English-language singers of Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explicit (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Explicit's reasoning. The "X-language singers" categories are linguistic, not geographical in nature (other than we might split them that way if they got overly large, and there are not enough of them outside S.K. to need such a split); the "Singers in/of/from Y" / "Zian singers" categories are the other way around. The presence of a "Category:Korean-language singers" and "Category:Singers from South Korea" or whatever on any given article will be enough to properly categorize it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. I suspect that the overwhelming number of articles about Korean-language singers are about South Koreans. No reason to categorize by country. Dimadick (talk) 13:52, 15 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_9&oldid=1090392155"