Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 21 January 23 >

January 22

Category:Swedish syncretists

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
(non-admin closure) feminist 02:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, the further potential of Swedish syncretists in particular is very limited since currently we only have two articles worldwide in the syncretists tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2017 (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:Video game referees

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) 07:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
Overcategorization as small category. Already covered by Category:eSports people—the title of "referee" is a novelty title for the category's sole member as no others claim the same title. czar 20:57, 22 January 2017 (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:Fictional eSports players

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) feminist 05:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization as
small category unlikely to have more than a few members for the foreseeable future. czar 20:54, 22 January 2017 (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:Architects by activity

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: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The inconsistency came to light with the recent creation of Category:English architects by type. The most suitable upper level category at the moment is Category:Architects by activity. In my view neither name works well, I would suggest Category:Architects by specialty fits better with the contents. Architects are architects, but they often specialise in, or are primarily known for their work on a specific building type. It is a similar approach to the existing Category:Engineers by specialty. There is the secondary question of whether Category:English architects by type is a premature, over specific subcategory, but I suppose this can be dealt with separately if needed. Sionk (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2017 (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:Forcible religious conversion

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, retain redirect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, improved wording. This is a new proposal after a brief discussion at CFDS (see collapsed below). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copy of discussion at CFDS
  • Support Brings it closer to the main article name. I will also support @Armbrust:'s RM proposal for the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The term used in India (where it is illegal) is "forced conversion". This is a charge frequently made where Christians are seeking converts and it is alleged they have been bribed to convert. It could also be applied to what happened to Jews and Moors who remained in Spain and Portugal. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    category redirect -- both terms are synonymous, but "forced conversion" is more common. Jarble (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2017 (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.

Courts in the United Kingdom

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 all per amended nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The naming pattern "Courts of Foo" was agreed at CFD 2016 June 20. The parent "court systems by country" was renamed to Judiciaries by country at CFD 2016 May 21, but the UK already has Category:Judiciaries of the United Kingdom, E&W, NI, Scotland; however, it lacks sub-cats named per Courthouses. I acknowledge that all these nominations will need manual follow-up to recategorise contents, and I am happy to commit to that. – Fayenatic London 15:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this. Clears up a rather messy situation.Rathfelder (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the Courthouse bits. In the UK we do not use the term courthouse - it seems to be a legitimate UK/US variation. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I am not against a restructure of this tree, but I do not think this is the right one. England and Wales have a single judicial system and should not be split. "Courthouse" is not usual in England and Wales, and I suspect not in Scotland. The term court is used both for the judicial meeting and the building. The matter is further complicated by some court being held in buildings or rooms used for other purposes. I attended a trial in Hereford County Court, where the venue was the council chamber of Herefordshire County Council. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      Courts in England and Wales. I have not proposed any more splitting between England and Wales categories than exists already, which is essentially for court buildings; and I have now amended the nomination (except NI) to use "court buildings" instead of courthouses. Local courts with no building of their own such as Hereford County Court do not appear to have articles. As for the ambiguous use of "court" in England, Wales and Scotland, what would you suggest instead – to merge the categories for courts as organisations and court buildings, as the ambiguous name "courts"? For other types of premises where the same issue arises, e.g. hospitals, we already have e.g. Category:Hospital buildings, so this seems a good precedent for keeping the categories separate, and using the artificially clear name "xxx buildings". – Fayenatic London 22:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • A merger of English and Welsh categories can be discussed in a separate nomination, if needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We definitely need to be rid of "Courts in Foo". I've no problem with "courthouse" - it's the most common term in Ireland. Could live with "Court buildings" though. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this will better distinct court institutions from court buildings. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • various: see at end -- Having looked at several articles, then content is a mixture of descriptions of the buildings and of the proceedings that take place within in them. We are I think never going to get articles that make the distinction between the courts and their buildings. Historically the provision of buildings was in some cases the responsibility of county authorities and in others of the government (via the Lord Chancellor). This dichotomy means that the current system (which all comes under the Justice Secretary) is fuzzy. When courts are rebuilt magistrates, county and crown courts may all be housed in a single building: it depends where one starts. Merge England and Wales. Keep court systems for general articles of types of court (and central courts in London; and assize circuits when we had them). Keep the rest, allowing them to remain fuzzy as to whether they are about the court buildings or the institutions they house and their proceedings (such as lists of convictions from notable trials). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are decidedly mixed here, and there isn't much policy basis to weight the arguments based on. More participation would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 07:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Twiceuponatime: Your opinion on the updated nomination would be especially helpful. ~ Rob13Talk 07:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opposition was only to the use of courthouse (in England and Wales). I can support the use of court buildings, although as the comments indicate it is often unclear from the articles whether they refer to the buildings or the functions carried out within those buildings. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now support having "court buildings", provided the head note makes clear that it covers proceedings undertaken in them. And using "courts" for court systems, but a headnote will need to make this clear. However we still need to merge England and Wales. The court system is not within Welsh devolution. Appeals from courts that are physically in Wales lies to the Court of Appeal, which generally sits in London and only rarely elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2017 (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:Knights 2nd class of the Order of the White Falcon

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non defining category for an obscure decoration of the German Empire, which is not the highest grade either. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but consider merging into parent category. The award was not "obscure" in the Grand Duchy and was held by some prestigious people. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for Now I've struggled with this issue too: we have hundreds of awards categories that say "X is the highest award" which we normally find defining. But that award comes in 5 levels: 1st most important, 2nd most important, etc. Are levels 2-5 really the top level award we find defining? (All that being said, the parent category does not currently break out 1st Class and includes a lot of articles don't specify what level of award was received so I think a merge is the right move for now. Ultimately though, the articles should be updated to be more specific and the parent category should be renamed/purged to just contain 1st Class.) RevelationDirect (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's comment -- I would be okay with a merger. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2017 (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 Austrian military awards and decorations

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) feminist 05:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of
WP:C1
, an empty category.
This is really just a cleanup nomination after we deleted all the subcategories here. This category is not empty but it should be because it only contains loose biography articles for people who won any military award from Austria. (These national categories are meant to hold subcategories for earning specific/defining awards.) If any new subcategories appear, no objection to recreating the category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Afil as the category creator and this discussion has been included in the WikiProject Austria. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2017 (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:Order of the State of Republic of Turkey

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) feminist 05:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NONDEFINING
)
When foreign leaders visit Turkey, or vice versa, the
here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note:
Notified Maurice Flesier as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Turkey. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2017 (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/2017_January_22&oldid=1090392312"