Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< February 5 February 7 >

February 6

People who have or had an infectious disease that didn't kill them, at least not yet

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, except no consensus to delete Category:Ebola survivors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:PERFCAT
)
We have a categories for people who died from all of these diseases so these are the equivalent categories for people that did not die. One problem here is that many of these diseases are chronic or have significant long-term health implications. The bigger problem is that Wikipedia is not a medical history of every diseases or ailment (even serious ones) notable people contract in their lives. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We recently deleted other disease survivor categories here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apart from any other consideration there were millions of people who had these diseases who were not diagnosed. In fact most of us are Survivors of infectious diseases Rathfelder (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having survived a disease is hardly ever a defining characteristic (with exception of e.g. polio). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most -- However Ebola was so deadly that having survived it may be a notable characteristic, so Keep Category:Ebola survivors. Pauline Cafferkey is probably notable only for having had the disease, caught while treating victims of it. People who have survived a disease but are left with long-term disabilities as a result might make a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The early death rates were 88-90% while, during the subsequent Western African Ebola virus epidemic, the death rate was lowered to 40%, and the recent ebola vaccine reduces that much further. A decade ago I would have agreed survival was rare enough to be defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some people are defined by having or surviving a disease, but they are few. Category:Ebola survivors seems to have a few who are only known for their Ebola work - their having been infected in the course of it probably highlighted their notability. Perhaps a Category:People of the Ebola epidemic to replace that one, would more carefully describe their notability because according to our biography of Fatu Kekula, she never got the virus - she survived the epidemic but not the illness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are not trivia, but important aspects of their biographies. Dimadick (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty trivial. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-fatal infection by an acute disease is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most -- However Ebola was so deadly that having survived it may be a notable characteristic, so Keep Category:Ebola survivors. --Just N. (talk) 22:17, 12 February 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:Metropolitan Special Constabulary

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; users can work out the proper parentage of the subcategory Category:Metropolitan Special Constabulary officers in the normal ways. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT
)
The Metropolitan Special Constabulary is a voluntary auxilary to London's Metropolitan Police and I have no conceptual objection to the category. But the only things in this category are the main article, a well populated subcategory for volunteers, and a 2nd article about a national law that authorized special constables nationwide including in London with no potential for growth that I can anticipate. (If I'm mistaken and we ever get up to 5+ direct articles, no objection to recreating.) All the contents are already well catgorized under the Metro or Special Constabulary cats so no upmerge is needed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:54, 6 February 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:Films made before the MPAA Production Code

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems like an unnecessary and redundant category. We already have categories like
talk) 22:07, 6 February 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:Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. The topic itself. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:56, 6 February 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:Burials at Saint Andrew's Cemetery, Bratislava

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT, and non-defining as there is no article on Saint Andrew's Cemetery, Bratislava, nor on a church by that name. The one member article Július Satinský does not otherwise mention the place of burial. – Fayenatic London 14:57, 6 February 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:Subdivisions of 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 five from "subdivisions" to "administrative divisions"; no consensus on Category:United Kingdom by country. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative
Nominator's rationale: C2C. Nearly duplicate parentage. The usual expectation of "by country" is there aren't countries inside of them ("by country by country"). This complicates the naming of all country categories. Meanwhile, Countries of the United Kingdom calls them "nations", also country, province, or region.
WP:NPOV: Per Countries of the United Kingdom, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences". Therefore, I'm proposing we distinguish each by the anodyne
formal political geography terms.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming of
    Oculi (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support Oculi's alternative, "by country", "by nation" and "political divisions" are confusing, even if technically correct, and the alternative is a very easy way to avoid that. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know my preference is usually "technically correct". Made-up stuff is how we ended up with this UK mess.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt whatever else is done, we should end up with a sub-category named Category:United Kingdom by nation or Category:United Kingdom by constituent nation for the four constituent entities. This is how the UK describes itself ('nations') though not what some independence minded people there call the entities. These four entities are unique and should not just be placed directly into a category with the rest of the admin divisions of the UK Hmains (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why not. It is Hmains who has created all these unnecessary 'by country' subcat schemes for the UK; eg
      Oculi (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
I do not think that a level called by country or by nation is useful for UK categories, and it would also open a can of worms. British categories have been organized for years with head subcategories for the 4 home nations and BOTCD placed at the top of each topic category with a or * or + sortkey. This works fine, there is no reason to change it. Otherwise we see absurdities like the duplicate Category:British people by country (4 C) next to Category:People by nationality within the United Kingdom (7 C). Place Clichy (talk) 18:47, 12 February 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:Abbasid governors of the Jazira

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge (or reverse merge), it concerns the same region since Mosul is the capital city of the Jazira. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mosul was often governed separately from the rest of the Jazira, especially during the later Abbasid period when the Jazira itself was fragmented, and the sources are not always clear when a 'governor of Mosul' was also 'governor of the Jazira'. Constantine ✍ 08:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Constantine. Same for the preceding Umayyad period—sometimes Mosul was included but often it was a separate province. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Constantine. --Just N. (talk) 22:43, 12 February 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:Circus strongmen

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:Circus strongmen and strongwomen. As noted, Category:Strongwomen exists; I have added the circus strongwomen in that category to Category:Circus strongmen and strongwomen but also kept them in Category:Strongwomen. Further tweaks may be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are several women in the category. Not sure what to rename it though: "Circus strongmen and women"? "Circus strongmen and strongwomen"? "Circus strongpeople"? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 6 February 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.

Spanish municipal councillors

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) 23:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, only 1-3 articles in each category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 6 February 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.

Schools in Sri Lanka by city

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) 23:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, only 1-3 articles per category. In the first five cases the schools are the only content of the buildings and structures parent category, in those cases a further upmerge to the town "grandparent category" is proposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 6 February 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:Song recordings produced by The KLF

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) 23:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We use lower case 'the' in running prose for nicknames, stage names and group names, per
MOS:NICKNAMETHE
.

Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural comment, the category pages have not been tagged yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I should have used a bundled nomination but I saw the instructions too late. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hopefully I have fixed it with manual entries. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:41, 12 February 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.

IHG Hotels & Resorts

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 07:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Branded as IHG Hotels & Resorts since 4 February 2021. Ridwan97 (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These subcategory must be integrated under the company's main category page. Ridwan97 (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To reflect with the usage of the current corporate branding. Ridwan97 (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, if it was an official name change it should be mentioned and sourced in the article. Besides I do not understand the proposed merge of the brands subcategory, why isn't it a proposal to rename? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: instead of rename, I intent to merge the brands subcategory to the main category, while the IHG people subcategory remain separated. By the way, IHG Hotels & Resorts is now an official corporate brand (not the legal name), so you can check it on www.ihgplc.com. Ridwan97 (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The company is quoted on the London stock exchange as "INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP PLC". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Peterkingiron. --Just N. (talk) 22:40, 12 February 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:Lists of astronomical locations in fiction

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 rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the articles in this should be lists, due to Wikipedia policies about fictional listcruft. This should be a subcategory of Category:Space in fiction. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have multiple quality lists on fictional topics. Its one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths. Dimadick (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, regardless of whether we should have these articles in the first place, fact is that they are lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per prior. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not sold on the quality of all these lists but less precisely categorizing them certainly won't improve them. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- While most of the content is in theory an article on the location, in practice they are largely lists of works set in those locations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see any necessity of having a 'list of' in category title. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 22:38, 12 February 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_6&oldid=1073192884"