Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 27

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

October 27[edit]

Category:Minor characters in Norse mythology[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:NONDEF, minor character is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:59, 27 October 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.

Viking Age people[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: not renamed. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 18:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per article Norsemen and also because the current category name is slightly ambiguous (it might also include 10th-century Chinese people). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a somewhat contentious area, with the English meanings not exactly matching the ones in Scandinavian languages (or some of them). "Norse" is thus ambiguous - more so than Norsemen accurately represents. It is best avoided in category names. What "10th-century Chinese people" have to do with it I can't imagine. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Something. Either as nominated or remove "Age" and just using Viking. The "10th-century Chinese people" were in the age of the Vikings, but weren't Vikings themselves. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably not recommendable to rename to just Viking. As I understand it, the term Vikings is rather used for a subset of Norsemen (or Viking Age people), namely for those Norsemen who left their home country and traveled as warriors, traders or explorers. Thus Category:Vikings is a child category of Category:Viking Age people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, nearly. In English Viking is effectively an ethnic term for Norse folk, in Scandinavian languages it is more a job, available for males only. See the relevant talk pages ad infinitum. Of course this is the English WP, but some Scandinavians seek to impose their meaning on English WP. Best left as it is. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod: "Age" doesn't work because it includes anyone in the world during the "Viking Age." Is there a workable English term that doesn't conflict with other languages? (If not, since this is English Wikipedia, we should go with "Norse".) RevelationDirect (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Age" works fine - no one is likely to be confused. "Norse" is a slippery term which covers a wider period. There isn't a problem; don't let's fix it. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the "Viking Age" is rather vague but the offered alternative is worse, because it would exclude folks on the other side or narrators of the events, like Alcuin, who was clearly in the Viking Age (writing woefully of the attack at Lindisfarne) but clearly not a Viking or even Anglo-Norse as he seems firmly entrenched in the Roman Catholic faith and the Carolingian court. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The rename would make this category overly narrow. The category could be properly expanded to include figures from the 8th to the 11th century that had an impact on the Vikings without being Norsemen, like military opponents, spouses and employers. Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 8 November 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:Women legislators in ltaly[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: speedy rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2A recommend correcting WP:TYPO in which "ltaly" (with a lowercase "L" as in Lima) should be "Italy" (with an uppercase "I" as in "India"). ➢ Bgpaulus (WORDS & DEEDS) 22:46, 27 October 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 set in Sidney, Ohio[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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also propose deleting Category:Films set in Shelby County, Ohio

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Sidney is a small community. This category is not a good candidate for growth. Films set in Shelby County, Ohio is Sidney's parent category and only has one entry. It isn't a good candidate for growth either. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:21, 27 October 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:Gas turbine locomotives of France[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 with no prejudice against a future rename proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have both Category:Gas turbine locomotives of France and Category:Gas turbine multiple units of France. AFAIK, France had neither of these: all of the several French gas turbine units were instead trainsets: two power cars at each end of a fixed rake of coaches.

They're not stand-alone locomotives. They're not equipped to work in multiple, outside the trainset. Neither of these names are ideal.

More importantly, whatever we call these, they're all the same thing and they belong in one category, not split across two unlinked categories.

The same issue may apply in the few other countries with similar trains. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're happy with "trainsets" as a term, then Category:Gas turbine trainsets, Category:Gas turbine trainsets of France, Category:Gas turbine trainsets of Iran and Category:Gas turbine trainsets of the United States would seem like the best result. Category:Gas turbine locomotives of the United States can stay, for anything like the GTEL. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 27 October 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:Things named after Taras Shevchenko[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: delete/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We do not normally categorize things (e.g. airports) by characteristics of their name(s). Taras Shevchenko's legacy isn't really a list article. Related discussions: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_24#Category:Organizations_named_after_Taras_Shevchenko, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_16#Category:Things_named_after_Nnamdi_Azikiwe. DexDor (talk) 06:40, 27 October 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:Unassessed-Class articles[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. Renaming the contents piecemeal sounds like a constructive way ahead. – Fayenatic London 10:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should reverse this March 2007 discussion. From what I can tell, unassessed articles all appear in the "Unassessed X articles" not the "Unassessed-Class X articles" (in the few places that have both). See for example Category:Unassessed India articles (20 subcategory, > 450 pages) versus Category:Unassessed-Class India articles. Unassessed-Class only appears if a project uses "by quality and importance" subcategories (see Category:India articles by quality and importance) which I'll leave for a later time but the main issue is that most projects use Unassessed not Unassessed-Class. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've made a comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Unassessed-Class_versus_Unassessed_categories which I presume is the best place for an overall discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't the category get defined by the WikiProject banner? Therefore if it's in the "wrong" category, the change needs to be in the banner template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose matches naming for other categories, for consistency. As this isn't a content category, rather a maintenance category, consistency with other maintenance/assessment categories should be maintained. This is not reader content. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest adding Wikipedia or WikiProject to preface all assessment categories, to clearly show it isn't reader content. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested that before but it's considering too large to do at once. It could be done on a piece-by-piece basis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 9 November 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:Musical quartets[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) 09:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Virtually random and only defining in vary narrow contexts which have subcategories (e.g. Category:String quartets). It is virtually impossible to police through its criterion of being known specifically as quartets. If this passes, I suggest deleting all other such categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose necessary part of the tree. Rather incoherent nom - I can't follow the reasoning here - why is it "random"? If this is done it will just clutter up the parent category. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The number of members that a band has is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the band, in the sense that would be necessary to justify a category for it. A string quartet, specifically, is an identifiable and definable and objective type of thing — but in most genres of music, there's no inherent difference in the type of music that a band is able to make that's in any way quantifiable as a factor of whether they're a trio, a quartet, a quintet or whatever. And the number of members a band has isn't even necessarily a fixed characteristic that can never vary — plenty of notable bands have bounced back and forth from threesome to foursome to fivesome or even moresome at different times in their history, and thus would need to be multiply categorized as both trios and quartets, or both quartets and quintets, or all of trios and quartets and quintets, and on and so forth. So this isn't a helpful or "necessary" or WP:DEFINING point of categorization for most bands, and none of the rest of the "musical groups by number of members" categories are either. Except in the rare instance (like string quartets) where the number of members is part of the basic definition of what the band even does, bands should not be categorized by the number of members they have or had or used to have before the number changed. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge out all the bands. Being a 4-piece band, should not qualify. In classical music, there are a lot of string quartets, because there is a lot of repertoire for them to play. I would suggest that we might have a new parent "classical chamber music groups". Some will perform quintets by bringing in an additional person for the occasion. Barber shop quartets are characterised by being unaccompanied and might be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 1 November 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_October_27&oldid=1074815635"