Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< September 15 September 17 >

September 16

Category:Gabriel García Márquez

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) 10:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now Per
    WP:SMALLCAT. Only has 2 articles (the main one and a tribute) so it doesn't currently aid navigation. No objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 or so articles though. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:05, 17 September 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.

Archbishops by diocese in country Foo

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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 19#Archbishops by diocese in country Foo. ℯxplicit 00:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Croatia to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Croatia
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Czechia to Category:Catholic bishops by diocese in the Czech Republic
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Hungary to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Hungary
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in the Republic of Ireland
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Portugal to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Portugal
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Sweden to Category:Catholic bishops by diocese in Sweden
Nominator's rationale Most European countries are so small that only a couple of archbishops are present. Many only have a single archbishop. A handful have more than 4. Should be deleted per WP:Smallcat. A triple intersection of archbishop / diocese / country is excessive. The usual Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Foo is sufficient to contain them as all archbishops are just bishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind instead rephrasing the proposal so as to merge them with more relevant, respective categories, please?

talk) 16:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Amended to "Merge" as suggested. Laurel Lodged (talk)
@
talk) 20:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm beginning to think that my original proposal to delete was more correct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep -- I agree that 2-4 per country is on the small side, according to the normal arguments; while archbishops are by their ordination merely a variety of bishop. Nevertheless, they are bishops in authority over other bishops. As such the numbers are inevitably small, but the normal solution would be to merge with a higher category, not a lower one, but there is nothing higher that is obvious to use until we get to continent, but that is too high. We might theoetically merge Spain and Portugal to Iberia; Ireland, England, etc to British Isles; Croatia, Bosnia, Roumania, etc to Balkans; etc, butthat would not be normal practice. Accordingly Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that for now (pending further discussion) we still have the possibility to merge the archbishops-by-diocese categories to the plain archbishops categories, so keeping them all within the same country. That is something we may well do. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. For now go with the merges. Later we'll talk about further deletions / upmerges. Will also need to rename to be rid of the deprecated "Roman" part. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:18, 19 September 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:Kindergarten teachers

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) 19:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC) .[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Of the seven members, maybe one is known for teaching kindergarten, sort of. Two others also are actual educators (and are already categorized, one way or the other, as such); the others are famous for something else, but happened to have taught kindergarten at some point, so for them it is certainly not
WP:DEFINING. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 16 September 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:Undrafted National Basketball Association 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: keep the NHL, NBA, and WBNA categories. I will contact Cydebot's operator to discuss restoring the c. 1,870 articles that were removed from these categories; it appears about 1,100 have already been restored manuallly. Delete Category:Undrafted sports competitors by league as empty, without prejudice to recreating if necessary. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Relisting a previous discussion per WP:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 10. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 16 September 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:History of the Rashidun Caliphate

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. As pointed out in the discussion, the application of "History of..." categories has been inconsistent on the project in a broad sense, lacking a precedent for the merge. Even in this particular discussion, there is not enough support come to the conclusion that consensus has been reached in order to merge the contents of the categories one way or the other. ℯxplicit 06:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sometimes there is sufficient content about a former empire/country to make a "History of" category useful, but not here. Merge and add the target into Category:Histories of empires. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 16 September 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:Legendary creatures and Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings

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 legendary creatures; rename the other two. – Fayenatic London 07:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and


Nominator's rationale: Per current structure, we have Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings as subcategory of Category:Legendary creatures. Why cut "Mythic beings" from the cat title? Is too general, as you cannot distinguish it from "legendary creature", which is the name of the parent category Category:Legendary_creatures. A vast majority of the content of Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings are exclusevely either dieties or spirits, and those, who aren't, can be recategorized to the parent cat, if they are not already there, as is the case with Category:Ghosts.
"Legendary creature", "Mythical creature" and "Mythical being" are synonymous, but precisely because the cat includes dieties as well, who are no creatures, but creators, the latter is (1) more precise, (2) less offending to theists, which can also prevent edit wars like in 2013 [here]. CN1 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tend to think of "Legendary creatures" more as creatures from legend, which is often used in vernacular to be similar to fantasy (both genre as well as film). I am not sure if the content here is distracted by the changing use in common language. I have not heard anybody referring to Legendary creatures in a deistic way. --FULBERT (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FULBERT: But Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings already is subcat to Category:Legendary creatures. Would you like the option of supporting my second rename and exclude Category:Deities and spirits from Category:Legendary creatures? But this wouldn't fix the whole problem, because angels, demons etc, still are legendary creatures and at the same time spirits & dieties, you can not simply deny the connection between them, is that not true? CN1 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CreativeName1: How would you envision the two categories being connected? I suppose I am having trouble envisioning the overall taxonomy you are suggesting FULBERT (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FULBERT: Well, like this:
Contains creatures, spirits, gods, etc. Contains supernatural beings (human, plant, animal or ghost) from mysticism/folklore/legends etc.
Contains only deities and spirits
CN1 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • However I'm not sure about the first nomination. Legendary creature has its own article, while Mythical being redirects to Cryptozoology which implies to keep the category name as is, and to remove it as a parent from the second nominated category.
Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: The redirect is plainly wrong. Proof: (1) Mythical being = beings from mythology. (2) Cryptozoology = Study about "hidden" animals. Mythical beings involve also plants and immaterial beings like deities, spirits etc. CN1 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I realise the redirect is wrong, but for this discussion it's relevant that we don't have an article about Mythical beings. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a rule that states that a category can't have a non-eponymous main article? Because I think
    Legendary creatures can still be a good main article, it just would cover only 90 % of it's content instead of the usual 100%. CN1 (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support Legendary and mythical creatures are synonyms. Dimadick (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding "Fictional" sub-cat
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 14:16, 16 September 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:Czech and Slovak Oscar noms

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting
Category:Czech submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Slovak submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OCAWARD - being submitted for a potential nomination for an award is overcategorization. Each year, 70 to 80 films are selected, with five eventually getting through to Oscar night. With other Oscar awards, we don't have categories for award nominations, just the winners. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:43, 16 September 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:Poles and Polish citizens helping Jews in occupied Poland 1939-1945

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 for any particular name, but a lot of good discussion. I will start a new, technical nomination here based on Fayenatic london's last suggestion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The last bit is unnecessary but at the very least, it should use an ndash per
WP:DASH (and consequently be Category:Poles and Polish citizens helping Jews in occupied Poland (1939–1945). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Parent category added
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 13:24, 16 September 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:Reformed denominations

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:Calvinist and Reformed denominations. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
talk) 12:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Disagree. I think the article realm
talk) 16:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Suggest Category:Calvinist and Reformed Christians, to match people. The difficulty is that Calvinism refers to a theological position on the doctrine of election/predestination that may be held by protestants of other denominations. The result is that Calvinist has more than one meaning. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Calvinism the article is there for common name reasons (despite my objections), because the broad movement is often called Calvinism, but the denominations and people are much more commonly referred to as Reformed. I know of no denominations with Calvinist in there names. I would be ok with Calvinist and Reformed. --JFH (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also List of Reformed denominations --JFH (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Reformed" is more than just your soteriology and sacramental theology (which is what's generally meant by "Calvinist"); it's the whole method of theological thinking and consequent acting, and that method is generally taught by people who teach a Calvinist soteriology because it fits with a general Reformed outlook. "Calvinist and Reformed denominations" is reasonable, but "Reformed" is not a subset or synonym of "Calvinist". Nyttend (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. After evaluating the comments. What about adjusting the proposal to "Calvinist and Reformed", then?
talk) 09:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I hence hereby formally request an administrator to change the request to "
talk) 13:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, great! Support ALT.
talk) 09:13, 29 September 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:Mysterious Island films

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To correspond with other "Films based on <name of work>" category names. Trivialist (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC) Trivialist (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • Speedy per
    WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:11, 19 September 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:Journey to the Center of the Earth films

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To correspond with other "Films based on <name of work>" category names. Trivialist (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per
    WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:11, 17 September 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 female World War I veterans

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT The two articles in this cat refer to the same character. JDDJS (talk) 02:35, 16 September 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 female World War II veterans

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since 2 of the articles are for the same character, there's only really 2 pages in cat.
WP:SMALLCAT JDDJS (talk) 02:34, 16 September 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:Azerbaijanis from Tehran

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:People from Tehran (or a sub-cat by occupation) and, where not already in its sub-cats, Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis. – Fayenatic London 20:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial combination of ethnicity and location. In the Ethnicities in Iran article it says ethnic Azerbaijanis make up 16% of Iran's population, while in Demographics of Tehran it says they make 20-30%, so while larger still not an overall majority. As the capital Tehran is a multi-ethnic city, so this shouldn't be considered surprising.
I would consider making this a merger to Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis, but most if not all of the articles in the former category is also in the latter so that is why this is a deletion. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had not spotted Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis, or if I did, I missed its significance. That would be a merge target, but I still fail to see why a well-populated category such as this becomes a trivial intersection. Upmerge in preference to plain deletion, but my view is that if an intersection of two legitimate categories can be adequately populated, we should retain it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if kept; there's a difference between Azeris (who you are) and Azerbaijanis (where your citizenship is), and this category appears to conflate them. Unless Azerbaijan has a really broad jus sanguinis policy (like Germany until recently), most people originating in Tehran are not Azerbaijani. Nyttend (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting point because afaics the articles that are in this category conflate these concepts similarly. Besides they mostly mention "descent" which seems to imply that these are people descending from inhabitants of the former Soviet republic Azerbaijan. Besides quite a lot of articles don't mention this characteristic at all, it seems like there is some OR involved in this categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why User:Nyttend mentioned these peoples ple are presumably Azeris rather than Azerbaijanis, but in articles they are nevertheless referred to as Iranian Azerbaijanis. That is, insofar Azerbaijani is mentioned at all, which is too often not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 23 October 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_September_16&oldid=1075705029"