Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 26 July 28 >

July 27[edit]

Category:Leading women in Kenya[edit]

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:Kenyan women in business. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE DexDor (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even better! Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of Category:Kenyan businesswomen's sibling categories in Category:Women in business by nationality are, for the record, named in the "Nationality women in business" format rather than the "Nationality businesswomen" one. The article in question should definitely be merged into that category, and the one that's been nominated here should be deleted, but the target category should be renamed as suggested by Marcocapelle. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a discussion with good - better - best proposals. The latter is the best, for consistency in the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Target category has been renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2015 (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:Places of Interest in the United Kingdom[edit]

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:Lists of tourist attractions in the United Kingdom, with the understanding that the Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom tree will be renamed to "tourist attractions". If these renames fail to gain consensus and the renames do not happen, this category could be speedily renamed to Category:Lists of visitor attractions in the United Kingdom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Title that more accurately reflects the category text and current contents - otherwise articles about specific places are likely to be (incorrectly) placed in this category. Alternatively, this could be renamed to Category:Lists of visitor attractions in the United Kingdom (and hence placed under Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom). DexDor (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2015 (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:Female pornographic film actors[edit]

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. MER-C 12:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also propose renaming these subcategories of Category:Female pornographic film actors
Nominator's rationale: Mainstream acting categories do not refer to actresses as "female actors". For example, American mainstream film actresses are categorized in Category:American film actresses, not Category:American female film actors, actresses from Los Angeles are categorized in Category:Actresses from Los Angeles, California, not Category:Female actors from Los Angeles, California, etc. Remove "female" from all of the above categories and replace "actors" with "actresses". Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming per nom. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a relic of the complex history of these categories, where for about 7 years these were the only by gender acting categories allowed in Wikipedia because of various past policies. The only reason they have not been renamed before is that it takes more effort than anyone has wanted to expend.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These categories should be named to be consistent with other sections of Wikipedia, plus in an LGBTQ world, female actors is too biological. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 10:11, 4 August 2015 (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 shot in PixelVision[edit]

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 parent Category:Camcorder films. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per previous consensus not to have films grouped by how they were shot. Non-defining. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:30, 27 July 2015 (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:The Hills Have Eyes[edit]

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think that both The Hills Have Eyes (franchise) and {{The Hills Have Eyes}} offer more for navigation and this category is not really needed. Pichpich (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2015 (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:Footballers' wives and girlfriends[edit]

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable category JMHamo (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These topics are only very very loosely connected. Moreover, the whole idea of categorizing women through the job of their male spouse is borderline insulting. Pichpich (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been discussed numerous times before, the most recent being Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 17#Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends. As I said last time, the category (as a defining characteristic and cultural phenomenon) is well discussed (some would say, over-discussed) in reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question This category has survived nominations February of 2011 and October of last year. Was there some perspective or analysis that we were missing those times, has a policy changed, has the category's usage shifted? RevelationDirect (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I notice that the description of the category says "Only articles about those for whom this is a defining characteristic should be placed in this category". So does that suggest that it is a category for articles about women who are only famous for who they are/were dating......? Because in that case surely they shouldn't have articles anyway..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and no. Victoria Beckham is a WAG. It's a defining feature of Victoria Beckham's life, but she was famous before she became one and is still famous independently of her husband, but is still described as a WAG. Would she be as famous/successful/etc now if she wasn't married to David Beckham? Many WAGs are so famous that they are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Many WAGs go on to find notability in other areas. Coleen Rooney is a classic example. Became famous through her WAGdom, and went on to have a media career. –anemoneprojectors– 14:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it has been discussed many times. Here in the UK the newspapers and TV stations (all, not just the tabloid ones) are obsessed with such trivia, like it or not. Oculi (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic of many people. –anemoneprojectors– 14:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We have discussed this several times before. One one occasion, the category was called "WAGs" or "Footballers' WAGs", which was objectionable because it is an abbreviation (which we do not usally allow for categories). Many footballers come from less well off backgrounds, but become fabulously wealthy due to the high pay they get in the Premier League. Their WAGs get to spend some of this and the tabloid press gives a lot of coverage to their antics. Some become independently notable; others had that already. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a defining characteristic, for better or worse... GiantSnowman 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not categorize people by such loose linkages to other people, especially "girlfriends". I also think Pipich is right that this is a very strong example of sexism, much more so that Category:American women novelists ever was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We categorize by how people are categorized in reliable and verifiable sources, and these sources consistently describe these individuals based on their relationships as wives and girlfriends. Alansohn (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability is not inherited, so we say. This category puts paid to that. Let's not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a FWAG is not a claim of notability in and of itself. A woman for whom "FWAG" was the crux of her notability would not get into Wikipedia at all, and a woman who had a legitimate claim of notability besides that — e.g. as an actress, a Spice Girl, or an athlete in another sport — would get into Wikipedia on that achievement rather than her FWAGness. So this isn't a defining characteristic in and of itself: it doesn't get a person into Wikipedia as a thing in its own right — and for anybody who does get into Wikipedia for other things besides being a FWAG, it's just an extra biographical detail and not a core part of her notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood the concept of "defining characteristic" - it doesn't really have anything to do with notability. Being born in 1961 is a defining characteristic, but that doesn't mean that everyone born in 1961 is notable. StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is defining and moreover it is more than just tabloid press which uses this term to so define.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2015 (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:Daleks[edit]

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a topic category, as it doesn't contain individually notable daleks, but concepts related to them, and therefore shouldn't be pluralised. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
  • Oppose per Tim! above. The convention is plural within e.g Category:Monsters as well as a sci-fi categories e.g. Category:Cylons. I acknowledge the nominator's observations above, but do not find them persuasive for renaming the category. – Fayenatic London 21:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The convention is stated at WP:PLURAL: category names generally differ from article names on this point. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 11 August 2015 (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:Predynastic Egypt[edit]

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 with no objection against splitting to a new category. – Fayenatic London 21:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Prehistoric Egypt, to which the current title redirects. It's also a subcategory of Category:Prehistoric Africa. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
  • Keep -- This is a well understood period in Egyptology. IN the context of Egypt, where there is written history so far back, prehisotric is a less useful term, because its meaning varies so much from place to place according to when hisotry begins: in Egypt, c3000 BC; Greece about 700 BC; Rome about the same; England 43AD Roman invasion; SCotland about 500 AD; some Scandinavian and estern European countries 1000 AD; America after 1500 AD. If anything it is the rename of Predynastic Egypt to prehistoric, which was mistaken and should be reveresed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This question was discussed at Talk:Prehistoric Egypt#Predynastic Period. My understanding is that the word "predynastic" applies to the periods before the unification of Egypt, and its applicability kind of fades out as one looks farther back. It always applies to the Naqada periods and it may sometimes be applied to the early Neolithic cultures like the Badarian and even Merimde, but it's never used for the Mesolithic or Paleolithic. I'm not happy with the lack of an article for predynastic Egypt, but I can see why Dbachmann didn't want to lump the Paleolithic and Mesolithic under that title. Perhaps the article and category can be split? A. Parrot (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The Predynastic period is a specific and well-known period. The British Museum defines it as the late Neolithic period which began in the sixth millennium BC, and ended with the unification of Egypt. It even devides it into 2 eras; that is the Naqada I period (4000-3500 BC) and the Naqada II period (3500-3100 BC) [1]. Some other academics call it Dynasty 0 [2]. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is confusing. Did it start in the 6th millennium or did it start by 4000 BC? And based on what criteria did it start? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that there's no hard beginning for the Predynastic. Some people apply the term as far back as the 6th millennium BC, when Egypt entered the Neolithic. Other definitions focus solely on the Naqada culture from 4000 to 3000 BC (as well as the cultures in Lower Egypt from the same period). A. Parrot (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with A. Parrot. The Met Museum, for instance, limits it between c4500 and 3100 BC. That limitation coincides with the emergence of the Merimde and the Badarian cultures but excludes the Faiyum A culture (c6000 BC). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per my comment at CFDS, this should be two categories -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE see Talk:Prehistoric Egypt where a move request is underway -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only article in this category that belongs firmly outside the Predynastic is Sebilian. Perhaps it can be recategorized in Category:Prehistoric Africa, and we can keep everything else in Predynastic Egypt. A. Parrot (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the earlier comments in this discussion, it seems like the concept of "Predynastic" is subjective, which is a new argument in favor of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (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:Scottish Christian ministers[edit]

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 (on the initial proposal). The rest is difficult to assess—there is consensus for some change, but it's not clear exactly how, so I would suggest a renomination for Category:Scottish Protestant ministers and clergy and possibly also Category:Scottish Christian clergy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge as a redundant category layer, it only has one child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding Category:Scottish Protestant ministers and clergy, which is also a redundant level. This should put it all the clergy together into one category. This one has some other parents, so that this may need to be followed up with some more noms. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose to this additional upmerge, since there are apparently 9 single articles in this category for which Protestant clergy is more specific than Christian clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: I don't understand the latter remark. Do you mean that 'clergy' should not be in the tree of 'religious leaders'? E.g. should Roman Catholic clergy not be in the tree of Christian religious leaders because it may contain ordained Roman Catholic clergy who are not in leadership roles? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Clergy categories contain predominantly religious leaders, so they should be in the tree of religious leaders per WP:SUBCAT. In my view they should be merged. Another editor objected to this because "clergy" also covers deacons (ordained non leaders); see the discussion below the precedents linked above. Merging the levels for Clergy and Religious leaders would need a full discussion, as you and I recently noted on the Speedy page.[3] I will need to set time aside to build that nomination. In the meantime, there are now several small nominations such as this one which go in the other direction, so I think these should be put out of the way first. – Fayenatic London 19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about the Scottish peculiarity. Withdraw this alternative proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly oppose "Protestant clergy" since all other Protestant clergy categories have already been renamed (to Protestant religious leaders); see link above to list of precedent CfDs. – Fayenatic London 21:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Changed my mind and can now support the original nomination. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2015 (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:Academic journals published in Burma[edit]

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, but administratively renaming to Category:Academic journals published in Myanmar, since all of the "in/of Burma" categories have been so renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with one member, without any potential for growth (and, of course, misnamed as the correct country name is Myanmar). Randykitty (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With no objection to recreating (under a different name) if more content appears. Note that I also added the article to Category:Asian media. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, the country article is at Burma, so that should be used for the category. What does "without any potential for growth" mean? That there will never be any more academic journals published in the country? StAnselm (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means that at this time, there are no other notable journals discernible. Note that the one entry in this cat is of doubtful notability and that Googling the two other Myanmar journals used in the article as references doesn't even render a functional website or any other meaningful hits (not even library catalogs). So while we cannot exclude that some of these may become notable in future or that still-to-be-established journals may eventually become notable, we have nothing to put in this cat at this very moment. Thanks for the note about "Burma", should have checked but since the country has been named "Myanmar" for decades now, I just assumed that that would be our article name. Note that most journals cannot be readily assigned to a country of publication (learned society in one country -or international-, publisher in another country -often with multiple locations in multiple countries-, editor-in-chief in yet another country, etc etc). --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just added a couple more pages to the category. StAnselm (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. It now contains two journals of doubtful notability and one redirect. In general, the country of publication is not really a defining characteristic of a journal, its subject matter is what defines it. It would not even be correct to call the current cat "Academic journals about Burma", because the original entry in this cat (Myanmar Medical Journal) is about medicine and even though it says it has an emphasis on medicine as relevant to Myanmar, articles most of the time cover more general topics (e.g., "Novel actions of leptin", "Unruptured Ovarian Ectopic Pregnancy", "Rectus Sheath Haematoma after Laparotomy", etc). --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Conventional WP tests for notability preclude a more accurate assessment of notability when one considers that most Burmese academic research is not readily available online, owing to its decades mired in economic and academic isolation. The country produces several academic journals, including the state-published Myanmar Journal of Medical Research, which serve as the country's primary platforms for publishing domestic research findings. There are library holdings for Burma Medical Journal in countries outside Burma [4], before the journal was renamed. Agreed that other countries aside from the US and UK should be given separate cats. -Hintha(t) 01:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Now, it contains two (or three) articles. IMO, both article, JBRS and MMJ is clearly notable. Currently, almost all of of the books/journals published in Myanmar/Burma do not have an ISBN or ISSN, and only a few have websites. PhyoWP *click 13:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The country of publication is notable to academic journals. Also, the country of publication was more notable in the past than it is now. Clearly we should add the Soviet Union, Germany and many other countries to the tree. This essentially is on its was to being a case of a large tree, so the Burma case will be allowed. The issue of whether the category should be Burma/Myanmar is distinct from whether we should have the category. The Burma/Myanmar debate should be carried out on a larger scale. It might be worth revisiting with the changes in Burma and a move towards a more Democratic government over the past 5 or so years, there may be a new consensus on what to call the country, but if there is (which I admit I still doubt), that would just lead to renaming, not deleting this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT to Category:Burmese media and manually add articles to right child category of Category:Academic journals by publication frequency and Category:Academic journals by subject area, with no objection to recreate this category if more content becomes available. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2015 (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:National Famous Historical and Cultural Cities in China[edit]

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. MER-C 12:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEFINING. These are official Chinese government awards for many large cities, including Beijing and Shanghai. There are no main articles for either category, Google references are scarce (at least in English), and the awards aren't even mentioned in the articles. This is similar to my earlier nomination of Category:Historical cities and towns in Russia. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Eakopskvm as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject China. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. No objection against listifying. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • LIstify then delete -- This is the usual outcome for award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2015 (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/2015_July_27&oldid=1141927802"