Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< February 19 February 21 >

February 20

Template:Arizona-airport-stub

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 category to multiple parents. The template does not need to be deleted but can go in multiple parent categories like Template:Colorado-airport-stub. – Fayenatic London 09:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unused; a number of similar stub types are upmerged to Category:Western United States airport stubs, though. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge now used; category way under 60 articles. Curbon7 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding category to nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 22:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, usually only the template is listed. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a valid sub-category (even if relatively small) in a wider scheme. There's still enough entries to justify a separate category for airports, IMHO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge, poorly populated, and many states in the western US do not have their own airport stub category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- It is potentially a valid stub, but the population required for stub categories is a high one, 60 articles. I see about 30, which is not enough. I doubt that it is capable fof being populated with another 30 to reach the minimum. Possibly also merge to Arizona stubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2022 (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:Amarna letters with photos, Obverse or Reverse

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 1#Category:Amarna letters with photos, Obverse or Reverse

Category:Amarna letter EA 364

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) 06:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT; containing only itself and a redirect to itself. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2022 (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:Tennis players of Greek origin

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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: This is basically the intersection of
WP:OCEGRS. Pichpich (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2022 (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:Suspended structures

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#Category:Suspended structures

Category:Kineta

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:
soft merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. Kineta is a very small town (1500 people) so I doubt that we can add more to the category which currently contains the town's railway station. We could also upmerge to Category:Megara since Kineta is part of the municipality of Megara. Pichpich (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2022 (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:Columbus Register properties

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: not renamed. bibliomaniac15 03:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Columbus Register of Historic Properties. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
  • Rename, I must be missing something because I don't understand Armbrust's oppose. (Sorry, misuderstood the history of who said what.) As Armbrust points out, the category should follow the main article so Category:Columbus Register of Historic Properties seems like the logical choice. Pichpich (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: as noted in the last discussion, this makes a fully clear category far less clear, and accomplishes nothing. I created the category, article, and most of its entries, so perhaps defer to the people involved in the topic? This is as irksome as if we were to categorize Breuer buildings in "Category:Marcel Breuer". Makes no sense; Category:Marcel Breuer buildings does. ɱ (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is a set category of properties, not a topic category about a register. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2022 (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:Physical Chemistry articles needing expert attention

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) 06:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category without a matching WikiProject, only entry has been removed because it used the category without the {{expert needed}} tag. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:44, 20 February 2022 (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:Skinny houses

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#Category:Skinny houses

Category:English expatriate football managers

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails
WP:DEFCAT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
If you had a clue about the sport and/or bothered to do any research, you would see the topic is covered in media, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (all from first page of Google, took me 60 seconds). GiantSnowman 19:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you could stop making vague (or in this case more direct) insinuations that I'm clueless, I might bother answering. Something being covered in news does not mean it is encyclopedic. This is true for many topics (
WP:NOTNEWS isn't my invention), and I do not see much coverage of the concept of "expatriate football coaches" - I just see listings of "expatriate football coaches". Again, there are lots of things which get listed in the news (bar drinks? Star Wars characters? you name it!) which are not encyclopedic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
and yet we have categories on Category:Cocktails and Category:Star Wars film characters! GiantSnowman 19:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, you can find more thorough coverage of these concepts than mere listings. And in any case, this kind of category often contributes to
WP:OVERCAT. You get "X country football managers"; "X country expatriate football managers", and sometimes even "Y country football managers". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Limited to sports is it? Then please explain Category:Expatriates by occupation. GiantSnowman 19:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was created years before that. Anyways, I might have been wrong on that, but your argument is still essentially "this is how it was always done" (combined with an assertion that this intersection is "incredibly defining"), not that it matters, an
ad populum does not mean anything. Sure, people made lots of dumb mistakes in the early days of the encyclopedia, doesn't mean we need to stay stuck with that forever. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep per GS. Nehme1499 18:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a valid category. Nationality of football players/coaches is an important and defining characteristic, as is if they are expatriate, and these things are mentioned in reporting about said group of people (as GiantSnowman has demonstrated above). --SuperJew (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a valid branch of the expatriate football manager tree, if the nominator thinks that the categories intersecting nationality and sports are excessive then they should either do a mass nomination or better yet, start a discussion on the WP:WikiProject Sports or in this case WP:WikiProject Football talk pages. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There are loads of football people working other than in their native country. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2022 (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:1942 in LGBT history

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
(non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 article in it. LGBT year categories normally start in 1960. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2022 (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:Namur (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: not renamed. Doesn't seem to be a consensus to rename. I should also mention that there is precedent for categories to carry disambiguators that articles do not (see the Sierra Nevada CFD, for instance). bibliomaniac15 03:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:The article and the category are not the same, which is an unhappy situation. This issue has been discussed beforeTalk:Namur#Requested move 14 September 2015 Rathfelder (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Necessary to distinguish it from the county / province of the same name. And possibly the former HRE county. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this necessary for the category but not for the article? Furius (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what Furius says. Rathfelder (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference because articles are being read so you immediately know whether you are at the right page or not. But when you are categorizing pages, you are not required to read the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No good reason has been provided why this relatively well-known (at least, to history buffs like me) city in Belgium needs a disambiguator in the category, when neither the city nor the province have one. In any case, the corresponding province categories should probably be speedily renamed to Category:People from Namur Province (and so on for the others) to match that article (Namur Province). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Laurel Logded and my earlier comment above. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The one comment were it was later shown that this kind of category exists as a redirect to one without the disambiguator? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Where a city and its county/province/etc share a name a disambiguator is needed. Classically the categories for Birmingham are at Category:Birmingham, West Midlands, to prevent the category inadvertently picking up on Birmingham, Alabama. We need a separate series of categories for Category:Namur (province) or such like. We have the same thing with Japanese prefectures which take their name from their main city. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But the categories should match the article. Rathfelder (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2022 (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:Songs about Belgrade

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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 members, both redirects. Serves no navigational help to readers. Richhoncho (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why this category should be deleted. Yeah, it might has only have 2 categories for now, but it's just because I know about those two specific songs about Belgrade. I'm pretty sure that there are more and if someone finds them they should add them in this category. DZEI3101 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above was originally made as a separate "propose keeping" proposal. I have merged the two together.
Delete While songs "about" a city might be a more specific intersection than others, this is still open to the same kind of misuse as most other "songs about X". In addition, this is currently only used on two redirects, and while there might be some potential for growth (after all, cities usually don't cease to exist, and even if they did, there'd likely be something written about them), but such growth is unlikely to be particularly rapid, so fails
WP:SMALLCAT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, so I found one more song about Belgrade and this one is not redirect. There is definitely more and I will add them when I find them. Is category okay to stay now? DZEI3101 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prinz Eugen, der edle Ritter - That is clearly not "about Belgrade". It might about the Siege of Belgrade (1717), but it isn't about the city itself (the same way that books which cover that battle might very likely not cover the city all that much - or to take a more recent example, there are hundreds of books about the Battle of Verdun, very few of which have much coverage about the city itself). That still doesn't address the fact that "songs about X" is a bad idea anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But song is about history of Belgrade. I'm not only one who added that, there are other song categories that are more about historical event connected to city. How can a Wind of Change by Scorpions be categorized as songs about Moscow? Song is clearly more about end of Cold War then Moscow itself. DZEI3101 (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Song

Beograd (Fatalna ljubav) by Ceca is definitely about Belgrade, even though it's redirect page. DZEI3101 (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@DZEI310: please reread the nomination, it is not about Belgrade, it is about redirects only being in the category, FWIW, I agree with you regarding Wind of Change and have removed it from Songs about Moscow. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I said I only added those two because I know about them, I'm sure there are more and people should add them in this category. I personally think that Prinz Eugen, der edle Ritter and Wind of Change should be categorized with Songs about Belgrade and Songs about Moscow, even if songs are not specifically about city they are connected to a historcal event in that city (maybe they should be subcategories for page). DZEI3101 (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This misses the point that these "songs about X" categories do not serve a useful purpose. Categories are supposed to link similar items together. A song by a Serbian pop-folk singer and another on a concept album by a Swedish heavy metal band have, in all likelihood, about as much in common as the music of, I don't know,
J. S. Bach and John Cage... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
In addition to RandomCanadian's very valid point, the reason for the nomination that categories are supposed to join articles together, not just redirects. Somebody who is actually looking for songs about Belgrade (or any other place or theme) won't be happy to be directed to to an unverified redirect. Sort of defeats the whole point of categorisation. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my late response, I was very busy. I still think that's not good enough reason for this page to be deleted, this category is connecting pages with songs that are about Belgrade, not necessarily songs of same genre or musicians, but if that's big problem I can find more pop-folk Serbian songs dedicated to Belgrade, but they might be another redirect. I still think Prinz Eugen, der edle Ritter should be connected with this category, even though song is not entirely dedicated to Belgrade it's connected to historical event from Belgrade and really it's more dedicated to Belgrade then Wind of Change which is dedicated to Moscow, but to very small degree. If this page is added category will have one page and two redirect page and it will definitely have chance to expand when people find more songs about Belgrade.DZEI3101 (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the purpose of the category is to learn more about how Belgrade is portrayed in music but the articles hardly provide any information about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2022 (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:JonBenét Ramsey

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:Killing of JonBenét Ramsey. bibliomaniac15 03:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the title should change to the latter because she is not notable. The majority of the articles are about her death and its later impact. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2022 (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:Zambian Premier League

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:Zambia Super League. bibliomaniac15 03:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the two categories refer to the same league (albeit using different names) and as such shouldn't be distinct categories. The main articles name is
Zambian Premier League redirects to this) so the category should be located at Category:Zambia Super League Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2022 (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:Homenmen AA Beirut players

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 28#Category:Homenmen AA Beirut players

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_20&oldid=1077009530"