Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< May 1 May 3 >

May 2

Category:Redirects from likely search terms to Wikipedia content

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. bibliomaniac15 03:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: {{
R from search term}} is a redirect to {{R from related word}}. However, I think none of the redirects included here fit that rcat and other ones should be used instead. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2020 (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:Protected redirects

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More precise and also less confusing as Category:Wikipedia protected redirects also exists and is a supercategory. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2020 (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:Redirects from other disambiguation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 13#Category:Redirects from other disambiguation

Cook Islanders

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. bibliomaniac15 03:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Category:Cook Islands educators to Category:Cook Island educators
Category:Cook Islands farmers to Category:Cook Island farmers
Category:Cook Islands activists to Category:Cook Island activists
Category:Cook Islands trade unionists to Category:Cook Island trade unionists
Category:Cook Islands civil servants to Category:Cook Island civil servants
Category:Cook Islands tennis players to Category:Cook Island tennis players
Category:Cook Islands female tennis players to Category:Cook Island female tennis players
Category:Cook Islands people stubs to Category:Cook Island people stubs
Category:Cook Islands sportspeople stubs to Category:Cook Island sportspeople stubs
Nominator's rationale: The usual adjectival demonym for people from the Cook Islands is "Cook Island foo", as is fairly common with island groups. This is explained at List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations and is the form currently used on around 105 other categories. Grutness...wha? 17:06, 2 May 2020 (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:Members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives from Dedham

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. bibliomaniac15 03:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to
overcategorization. User:Namiba 15:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose There are literally hundreds of members of the legislature each year, and hundreds of years worth of representatives. I'd like to see similar categories for other communities as well. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There would tend to be one in each house at a time, unless a legislative boundary went through Dedham and there would be two at a time.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But quite often the person representing a community does not live in that community. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We have categories for federal Congressional districts but I don't think such an approach is workable at the state legislature level. (Nor is that exactly what is happening here.) RevelationDirect (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RevelationDirect, Why not? There are likely to me far more state representatives from a particular location than federal representatives. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually misspoke: we listify cognresspeople by Congressional district like in Massachusetts's 8th congressional district, which is the district Dedham is currently in. State Reps are elected by districts that move every 10 years based on the census so creating categories for every municipality in a state rep district would not be defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what we are doing here, though. We are listing people who live in Dedham who represented it in the General Court. If in this decade Dedham is in the first district but next decade it is in the second, the representative would still live in Dedham. It is as defining as, say, sportspeople who live in a given community. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've added Category:Members of the United States Congress from Dedham, Massachusetts to the above nomination.--User:Namiba 15:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this happens, I'd like to see them all merged to Category:Politicians from Dedham, Massachusetts as well. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned directly below the nomination that they would all be upmerged to that category.--User:Namiba 16:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This is not a correct way to diffuse by geography. Place Clichy (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per all, bad method of categorization. ValarianB (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2020 (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:Animal rights media

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, so rename. This close does not bar anyone from bringing selected cases back for further consideration. – Fayenatic London 10:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More to extend Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Mass media. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I used full CfD and not the speedy section because maybe some of these should maybe be changed stylistically and unified. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but the NASA category what makes media (mass or otherwise) "Dinosaur" or "Car-related" or most of the others? Dinosaurs don't have media (mass or otherwise), so this is in essence a "Media about Dinosaurs", etc. which suffers from the same problems all the "about" or "related" as in the titles of several categories: how do we objectively decide much about the subject must it be and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much. How far afield these things go is someone's opinion to include the Category:Ace Ventura in animal rights media. Really - isn't he more of a slave bounty hunter returning escaped animals back to their owners? I note that the NASA category seems to be media authored or published by NASA and that's definable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I see this as a valiant attempt (by no means the last) to harmonise the names within
    Oculi (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2020 (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:Historical European Commissions

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per convention of not splitting current and former. The present title excludes the current Von der Leyen Commission/Category:Von der Leyen Commission; the rename will fix that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 2 May 2020 (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:English Jews of the Medieval and Tudor period

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: split per user:Hugo999. – Fayenatic London 11:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split, it is very unusual to combine the Middle Ages with the Tudor period in one category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that is a very useful comment, leading to me checking the articles one by one. We appear to have no articles about 14th- and 15th-century English Jews but we do have some from the Tudor period. Splitting in 1290 or splitting by medieval/Tudor has therefore the same effect. However, e.g. Joachim Gans was apparently not a hidden Jew in the Tudor period. So I think the split as nominated is still good enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2 The period following the Medieval period (which is generally taken to have ended with the Fall of Constantinople in 1453) is the Early modern period. Split as follows: Category:English Jews of the Medieval period and Category:English Jews of the early modern period. Why the need for dynasties in one but not the other? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because in English history, the Late Middle Ages are considered to include the Wars of the Roses (1455-1487), while the subsequent Tudor regime is associated with social changes. To quote the main article: "Historians debate the extent of impact the wars had on medieval English life. The classical view is that the many casualties among the nobility continued the changes in feudal English society caused by the effects of the Black Death. These included a weakening of the feudal power of the nobles and an increase in the power of the merchant classes and the growth of a centralised monarchy under the Tudors. The wars heralded the end of the medieval period in England and the movement towards the Renaissance. After the wars, the large standing baronial armies that had helped fuel the conflict were suppressed. Henry VII, wary of any further fighting, kept the barons on a very tight leash, removing their right to raise, arm and supply armies of retainers so that they could not make war on each other or the king. The military power of individual barons declined, and the Tudor court became a place where baronial squabbles were decided with the influence of the monarch." Dimadick (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply couldn't the same for every other country? "We're different from the rest of the world. Period dating doesn't suit us, so we have to use dynasty dating.". Where would that leave us with a single, widely acknowledged dating convention? You might as well tear it up. And tear up "by century" categorisation as well because we're different. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2020 (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:Governors-General (Military Governors) of Moscow

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, the current category name is unnecessary long. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2020 (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:Municipal City Heads (gorodskoy golova) of Moscow

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Category:Municipal City Heads (gorodskoy golova) of Moscow

Category:First Secretaries of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 13#Category:First Secretaries of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU

Category:Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union candidate members

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. bibliomaniac15 03:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, we usually do not categorize candidates for anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously keep. There is no any reason for deletion. In Soviet Russia... candiadte is not just candidate. It was the title of very powerful office, among the highest leaders of the country (see
    talk) 08:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I don't know about voting mechanism in Politburo, but full name is Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. All of them are voting members of the Central Committee. The most powerful members of the Central Committee were appointed as full members or they were appointed as candidates of Political Bureau of the Central Committee. Obviously candidates are less powerful than full members, but they are very powerful among ordinary members of the Central Committee.
    talk) 12:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per
    TarzanASG. It's disappointing to see another nomination by Marcocapelle which wrongly assumes that the power structures of the Soviet Bloc mirror those of liberal democracies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I was commenting on your rationale: we usually do not categorize candidates for anything. That's an assumption that the word "candidate" carries the same meaning as it does in other contexts, whereas in this case candidate status conferred a right to become active participants in the Politburo. That's wholly different to the status of e.g. candidates for the United States Senate or the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
    Instead of taking offence, it would be better to withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word candidate can be used in many different contexts. The fact that I am not describing all those different contexts should not logically lead to the conclusion that I am not aware of that. It was simply a case of
    WP:PERSONAL. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It was not a comment on any failure, it was speculation that I "assume that the power structures of the Soviet Bloc mirror those of liberal democracies". That is something completely different. Don't twist your own words. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not twisting anything. If you believed that there was some material distinction between Politburo candidates and other types of candidate, then that should have been mentioned in the nomination to avoid misleading anyone. I was AGFing that you nominated on the basis of a mistaken assumption about the power structures rather than by consciously omitting pertinent info. Sorry if my AGF was misplaced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at a sample of the articles and many don't mention this characteristic. For example, compare the text and the categories at Petru Pascari. Thus, I'm inclined to delete (or possibly purge or upmerge) on the basis on NONDEF. DexDor (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My mind could potentially be changed with an affirmative argument to keep these categories: "These particular positions were defining in the Soviet Union because... " RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These ranks seem to be very notable positions in the Soviet cursus honorum. For instance, Felix Dzerzhinsky, a most important Soviet political figure, "only" made it to candidate member of the Politburo and was never a "full" member. Place Clichy (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2020 (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:Snakes by common name

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. bibliomaniac15 03:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clarity and consistency e.g. with Category:Reptile common names. DexDor (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename Doesn't need a full conversation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems very close to
    WP:SHAREDNAME. Is that fact that a snake has a common name, and that Wikipedia has chosen to locate its article on that critter at that address, not at its scientific name, really defining for the snake? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Indeed - whether an article about a species (etc) is (currently) at a common name or the scientific name shouldn't affect what categories the article is in (it's the same topic). Articles about species (e.g. Yellow-naped snake and Javan spitting cobra) have been removed from this category on that basis. The rename to avoid "by" (and subsequent changes to the category text) may make this clearer.  The pages remaining in this category are things like Fox snake. DexDor (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added
    gopher snake, the latter a redirect to an article named for the genus - which ought not make a difference because where WP puts an article is immaterial to its inclusion, right. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support, consistent with names of similar categories. Plantdrew (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2020 (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:Associations

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 action, further nomination required. – Fayenatic London 14:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match the mainspace page Voluntary association. Association is a disambiguation page. The headnote says this is for unincorporated associations, but most of the members seem to be incorporated. Most of the members appear to be voluntary associations. The natural meaning of "association" is fairly ambiguous, leading to many pages being included here just based on their names. Jfhutson (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Jfhutson: The headnote's "unincorporated" associations is definitely out. What's the plan with he continent/country subcategories if this passes? RevelationDirect (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, and discuss how to merge this with Category:Organizations by type and Category:Organizations by subject. In principle, I agree with the split that Marcocapelle has suggested; however, I think that those two target categories themselves have almost no difference and should be merged in some way (I think "subject" to "type," considering scope and also creation date), and so deciding how to split the contents of Associations between the two is a fraught venture. I'd really like to see all three of these merged together into one category, but I think that's a better topic for a future discussion. bibliomaniac15 17:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think this should be closed and a completely new nomination opened. bibliomaniac15 02:37, 16 May 2020 (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:Prometheus Award-winning works

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. bibliomaniac15 03:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OCAWARD
)
The Prometheus Award is for libertarian science fiction and I can certainly see how libertarians would be inspired by resistance to government overreach in Fahrenheit 451 and It Can't Happen Here but neither work presents libertarianism as the alternative. And neither conservative Ray Bradbury nor progressive Sinclair Lewis are even remotely defined by this libertarian award. The authors who are libertarian are already well categorized but the minority of these books that are explicitly libertarian should stay in the category tree. The contents are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to
WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here
. -RD
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:Literaturpreis der Reichshauptstadt Berlin Award-winning works

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. For reference, in case anyone wants to make an article about this in the future, the only entry in this category was Hasko. bibliomaniac15 03:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OCAWARD
)
In lieu of a Literaturpreis der Reichshauptstadt Berlin Award main article, the actual category has an introduction that explains this is a German award issued from 1935-40. I can't definitively say that this award is non-defining but there is nothing in English Wikipedia that even hints it might be. There's only one article here so there's really nothing to listify. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to
WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here
. -RD
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/2020_May_2&oldid=957190036"