Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< November 9 November 11 >

November 10

Category:Song recordings produced by Christopher Rowe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 18#Category:Song recordings produced by Christopher Rowe

Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest participants

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 03:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants. Nominating after Grk1011 pointed this inconsistency out in this discussion. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Consistency. Grk1011 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 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:Southern Kings players

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 18#Category:Southern Kings players

Category:Facebook people

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. There is consensus to create a new category
(non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Nominator's rationale: The scope of this category is people of Meta Platforms, who may or may not be exclusively working on the Facebook service. feminist (+) 16:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename and redirect directors, split the others to new parents. – Fayenatic London 10:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- FaceBook has not been renamed. It has merely had a holding company imposed above it. A new category for the holding company would be appropriate, but one is probably enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Meta Platforms" is not a new company, it's merely renamed from "Facebook, Inc." which has existed for a few years as the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc. Had Facebook, Inc. not been renamed "Meta", I would have proposed a CfD for renaming to "Facebook, Inc. people" etc. feminist (+) 15:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the company was renamed, and the content before was just all Facebook, so should be renamed. Separate categories for people involved with just the Facebook platform might be considered for subcategories. It also simplifies "Facebook people" so that it doesn't mean people with Facebook accounts on first glance -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not at all happy about this renaming. Well, formally it's okay. But how can we all allow a highly controversial corporation to "kidnap" an important scientific language term like meta? No I do dislike it and can't support it even here. --Just N. (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice that. And we also have Category:Google people. Looks like we have a wider policy question. 12:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Split per Fayenatic london, this is the most accurate solution and also a fair compromise between keeping and renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make parent Meta Platform cats and then move "Facebook", "Insta" and "Whatsapp" cats there as children cats. --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 13 December 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:Tenzing Norgay relative

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: listify as article section and delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. At the very least, this should be Category:Relatives of Tenzing Norgay, but the proposed name is more in keeping with WP naming practices. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • (Nom) I could live with upmerging into Category:Tenzing Norgay - given the size of the category, it may make more sense. PS - @Laurel Lodged: no, these people are notable in their own right, which is why they have articles. Family categories are useful though for linking relatives with articles, as I'm sure you know :) Grutness...wha? 10:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Grutness: I never said that they were not notable. My point was that it is questionable whether being related to Tenzing Norgay is in itself notable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One person being related to another is rarely notable in Wikipedia -
notability is not inherited. But there are plenty of categories for families of people that are grouped together because they are related, even if the relationship between the members is not in itself notable. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you have a family with a number of notable people with articles, then it makes some sense to have them in a family category. And even if there is no "notable relationship", there are still cases where the family link is worthy of note - in Norgay's case, for instance, one of the relatives was the first person to summit Everest twice, which makes the connection an intriguing point. Grutness...wha? 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Sounds like it would make a better list than a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the small number (fewer than normally expected for a stand-alone category), mentioning these people in a subsection of the
Tenzin Norgay article is probably enough. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 12 November 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:Elliot See

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 14#Category:Elliot See

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_10&oldid=1062550516"