Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 6

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.

(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Australia to Sierra Leone to Category:High Commissioners of Australia to Sierra Leone
• Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Australia to Zambia to Category:High Commissioners of Australia to Zambia
• Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Australia to Malawi to Category:High Commissioners of Australia to Malawi

Nominator's rationale: Sierra Leone, Zambia, Malawi, and Australia are members of the

High Commissioner" and not "Ambassador". Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - each of these 3 contains only the same person. Unless Malawi has an Australian High Commission, there will not be a High Commissioner (or an Ambassador). So I expect these should be deleted.
  Oculi (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • According to
    Oculi (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete, for the (potential) subject(s) in these categories this was only one occupation, not three or five. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am currently in the process of updating the relevant pages, for which these non-resident offices were held, so additional pages will be added to these categories, once they are renamed.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nom. The Nigeria High Commissioner will be Ambassador to Benin and Niger, since they are not in the Commonwealth. We should keep these for the moment and see how they develop, reconsidering them in (say) six months. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as demonstrated by the nom, their official titles are "High Commissioner". Joseph2302 (talk) 15:13, 14 November 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.

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.

(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose renaming Category:Acorn Archimedes games to Category:RISC OS games

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with the other subcategories in Category:RISC OS software, and accounts for RISC OS games that don't support the Archimedes (e.g. Abuse, Descent, Descent II, Frak!, Heretic, Heroes of Might and Magic II, Hexen: Beyond Heretic, Quake). Ccawley2011 (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We're talking about the difference between categorizing by software platform or by hardware platform. See parent cats Category:Home computer games and Category:Video games by platform. - jc37 09:26, 14 November 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.

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.

(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:Head Masters of Eton College educated at Eton College to Category:People educated at Eton College and Category:Head Masters of Eton College

Nominator's rationale: Surely I am not alone in thinking this is several intersections too far. (Created by Rathfelder.)

Oculi (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• It perfectly illustrates the self-perpetuating oligarchy in the British ruling class. And there is only one intersection. Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are not intended to make political points. Are you going to create 'Prime ministers educated at Roundhay School'?
    Oculi (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• De-diffuse or Delete I don't object very strongly to the category as such, but I really object to it being a diffusing one, with members being removed from the main Category:People educated at Eton College. Rathfelder, in his usual fashion, has been setting up large numbers of these, all diffusing. There are currently 16 of these. Many of these will not be at all defining ways of categorizing the individuals. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had hoped to nip this in the bud with Rathfelder's first such creation at
    Oculi (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yes, I'm afraid I missed that - but it did end as no consensus. Again, my objection to it being a diffusing category is far stronger than my objection to it existing - unfortunately no one raised that issue I think. But if I had to choose between these not existing at all and them being diffusing, I'd go for the former. Huge categories aren't much of a problem, imo, & the obvious way to break the Etonians up is by century. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back, I can see that the parent category is too large, but a by-century split would be far more natural than a split by a later occupation that people did not have yet when they were studying at this school. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• When did I encourage anyone to create these evil categories? And why is it a problem if the subcategories, like most, are diffusing? NB nobody is notable just because they went to Eton, or any other school. Its what they did afterwards that makes them notable. They are sent there precisely because it gets them into prestigious posts. Categories are supposed to be defining.Rathfelder (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXACTLY!!! And Category:Lord Lieutenants educated at Eton College is not defining for the great majority of its members, who were primarily landowners, soldiers or politicians (or some combination). Take William Fitzwilliam, 4th Earl Fitzwilliam - I can't see his long article even mentioning he was LL, though it may do. I've explained this to you before, but you don't listen, just setting up straw men, like "nobody is notable just because they went to Eton...". Who suggested that? Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and salt these categories There's a strong hint of
  WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in Rathfelder's comments above and these categories are somewhat biased in their choice of what to highlight - e.g. there's no Category:Writers educated at Eton College or Category:Artists educated at Eton College or Category:Cricketers educated at Eton College. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Indeed - nor Category:Actors educated at Eton College, apart from the Prime Ministers the most striking modern one. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do now have

Oculi (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There are a lot more Category:Labour MPs educated at Eton College than that. Shall we create it? Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Eton alumni category is so enormous that it needs splitting. We have recently had created "government ministers" educated at and several more. My view is that if a category can be populated as well as this one is we should have it. This is an unusual case, which should be limited to it, with Harrow, Westminster, Winchester and not much more. I suspect that Category:Writers educated at Eton College might well be found capable of being well populated. Let us await the split being completed before we think about merging back. Furthermore a by century split will not work well: it would need to be done by the decade when they left the school; otherwise we will have more overpopulated categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??Eh?? The short time they spend at school is precisely why it would work well. Far less overlap & so double-catting needed than for career cats. There's absolutely no need for splitting by decade - why do that? But the main problem is that when these are made diffusing cats, as Rathfelder is doing, people are hidden away in cats that they are not actually known for, as with Category:Lord Lieutenants educated at Eton College. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that other categories dont exist is not a very good argument for deleting this one. I've started with categories I know something about. Category:Cricketers educated at Eton College would be enormous and there is no reason why it cant be created. Nobody is notable just because they went to Eton or any other school. Its what they do subsequently which makes them notable. With most schools we cant break people down by occupation because there arent anough of them, but there are more than 5000 articles about Eton. The occupational categories are big enough to break down by century. Rathfelder (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That still does not address my earlier objection. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Breaking down the occupational categories by century would be ridiculous.There is no consensus to create occupational categories in the first place. (Or, so far, consensus to delete them, surprisingly.)
  Oculi (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. If Category:Head Masters of Eton College is notable and Category:People educated at Eton College is notable then the intersection is even more notable. If it were to go it should be merged into Category:Teachers at Eton College educated at Eton College. Bigwig7 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That reasoning does not make sense. It would open the door to an infinite number of trivial intersections. About the second part of the response, merging to Category:Teachers at Eton College educated at Eton College is correct for now, that is a very fair point, but this merge target should be nominated too for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have an infinite number of trivial intersections. This doesnt look trivial - there is a very clear linkage. Rathfelder (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would then follow (if any valid pair can be intersected) that
        Oculi (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Most of the people you list are not categorised as criminals. But the point I am making is that these people were in two categories that relate to the same institution. The categories relate to each other. Rathfelder (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • They are all in
            Oculi (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Freddie Ayer was not a criminal, but even if he was, what relevance has it to this discussion? The point is that there is clearly a relationship between being educated at Eton and working there. Bigwig7 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
              ]
• Keep. No need to delete. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• CU note to closer I'm not going to go through striking lots of comments that have been replied to, but please note that I have blocked Rathfelder for socking through the account Bigwig7 (CU-confirmed). I have struck through Bigwig7's !vote; please treat their arguments as having come from one person. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:44, 6 November 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.

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.

(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:8th century in Morocco to Category:8th century in Africa
• Propose manually merging Category:8th-century Moroccan people to Category:8th-century African people

Nominator's rationale: merge, arguably the first Moroccan kingdom started in 788 under the Idrisid dynasty, which means that the larger part of the 8th century there wasn't anything that resembled Morocco. Articles that already are in the tree of Category:8th-century rulers in Africa should not be included in the merge (hence manually merge). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. No such country existed in the 8th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Largely an anachronism, then SMALLCAT. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 12 November 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.

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.

(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose renaming Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Yugoslavia and Serbia to Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Yugoslavia

Nominator's rationale: Category name is dubious, referring to two countries. Besides, it should be "manufacturers of Yugoslavia", as simply contains manufacturers from almost every former republic. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment - Category actually contains articles on defunct and existing manufacturers, two defunct and two existing from Serbia and one defunct from Bosnia. Existing from Serbia should be removed (moved to Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Serbia), defunct manufacturers from Serbia and Bosnia should remain in renamed category as proposed Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Yugoslavia.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although don't remove manufacturers that still exist in successor republics but were founded in Yugoslavia. -Vipz (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom; and move or add Serbian articles to Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Serbia dependent on whether they were founded while Yugoslavia still existed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- When Yugoslavia existed Serbia was part of it. New it has been dissolved Serbia is a separate country. We need a category for each and any manufacturers of the Yugo-era still operating in Serbia should be in both. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 12 November 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.

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.

(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:6th-century Arabic writers to Category:6th-century Arabs

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Child is parented to 6th century writers. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:38, 8 November 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.

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) Qwerfjkltalk 22:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who like Half-Life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per

WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians by video game * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support, we do not need a category for every userbox. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Marcocapelle. Jontesta (talk) 21:37, 10 November 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.