Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 16 September 18 >

September 17[edit]

Category:People of former Dutch colonies‎[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename. People of former Dutch colonies is ambiguous, as it might refer e.g. to 21st-people of New York. People of the Dutch Empire is more to the point. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- This is a container category, largely to house historic categories. Category:People of Dutch colonies‎ will cover the subject well. There are (I think) still a few Dutch overseas territories, but does that matter? New York is a example, as it only became New York when the British conquered the New Netherlands. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No fundamental objection against alternative rename. However the category is part of the Category:Dutch Empire tree, so it might be better to propose a rename of this entire tree in a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 25 September 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:Middle-earth food and drink[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:Middle-earth redirects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category and the contents indicate that this is a category for redirects. Such categories normally contain the word "redirects". Alternatively this could be upmerged to Category:Middle-earth redirects. DexDor (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge: We don't need a special category for a grand total of four fictional foodstuffs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, the content of the category is coming from just a single article and I don't think we should have redirect categories for every article. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Opposed to Merge or Rename All 4 of these redirects point to 1 article: List of Middle-earth food and drink. I don't object to using redirects in categories, but when they just list the same article over and over again it doesn't aid navigation. See here for a similar category we deleted. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we have Category:Middle-earth redirects then don't these 4 redirects belong in it? In the linked CFD perhaps there wasn't such a parent category. DexDor (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably they belong there. Although I wonder with this (and in fact all) maintenance categories, how can we check if it is used for maintenance at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favor of section redirects going in categories where the overall article doesn't belong, but there's a section that does that might become a future article. For instance, I added Illio yearbook to Category:Yearbooks. And I'm cool with administrative "Redirects with possibilities". But this is grouping redirects under a more generic topic tree (Middle Earth redirects) which has thousands of members when the target of those redirects is already easier to find in the actual Middle Earth tree so I don't understand the navigation benefit. Maybe there's an administrative function I'm missing here? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just guessing, maybe some editors pick these redirects in random order (or in alphabetic order) in order to expand it to a full article. Who knows? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 18 September 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:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a very similar category to Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters, which was previously deleted (multiple times I believe, along with variants to its naming). This should be as well. All characters in the cat are comic book characters that make an appearance on the show, with Coulson created for the MCU films, and one wholly original, Jemma Simmons. Here's are two of the previous CfD discussions related to this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_27#Category:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_characters and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_25#Category:Characters_that_appear_in_the_MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 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.

Grammarians categories[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:
Follow-up speedy nominations would be needed to merge/rename Category:Grammarians by nationality and its subcats to Category:Linguists by nationality and its subcats, and to rename the modern language sub-cats of Category:Linguists by language of study to "linguists". For the record, my edits which implemented this are here. – Fayenatic London 10:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: This category and its subcategories (Category:Grammarians by nationality, Category:Grammarians by language, and sub-sub-categories thereof) are conflating at least three things:

The problems are twofold:

  1. These roles are being mixed in the same category tree.
  2. Most of the linguists are not strictly grammarians by exclusive specialty, and should be classified as linguists, but the parent categories for them do not exist (that is, subcategories of Category:Linguists, arranged by language).
What I think needs to happen is that the vast majority of modern bios in these categories need to be in category structures like: Category:Linguists of Spanish, etc., with no Category:Grammarians of Spanish, etc., except where there are sufficient articles about grammar-specialist linguists in the language to justify such a subtopic. In most cases the existing "Grammarians of X" categories can simply be renamed "Linguists of X", with zero to a small handful of articles needs to be recategorized in the process for any of them. For the pre-modern bios, they should be classified by era (ancient/classical, medieval, etc.) under "Pre-modern grammarians", e.g. "Category:Medieval grammarians". We would want to merge Category:Medieval linguists into it (or just rename the latter to the former), as it is misnomer (linguistics did not exist in that period), and its contents would overlap almost completely. Anyone who qualifies as a Grammarian (Greco-Roman world) but not as a grammarian in the sense of a writer of a pre-modern grammatical treatise, should be classified as an ancient educator, not a grammarian at all.

I'm not listing or tagging every potentially affected category; this is just an initial discussion of how to clean up this collision of distinct topics.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:57, 17 September 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:Abstract Figurative[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. Not really eligible for a speedy deletion since the category is not empty, but since there has been no objection after several weeks ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Article associated with this category has been deleted. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • List it for speedy deletion, then.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:59, 17 September 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:Swedish banjoists[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has no page (in fact, adding the deletion template forced me to create the page). Category has only one member, Björn Ulvaeus, for whom being a banjoist doesn't come close to being defining - the only mentions of "banjo" on the page are in the infobox and in this category. —烏Γ (kaw), 09:10, 17 September 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:Writers who use less punctuation[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. If anyone wants to start a sourced list, the contents of the category at deletion was Samuel Beckett, Cynan Jones, James Joyce, Saadat Hasan Manto, and Cormac McCarthy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a writer, in the sense that would be necessary to justify a category for it — for example, while any coverage of Cormac McCarthy will virtually always state that he's an Category:American novelists regardless of its content, his use of punctuation is a characteristic that will certainly get mentioned in sources that are specifically about analyzing his prose style, but is not routinely mentioned as a basic biographical detail in sources that aren't expressly about that specific thing in particular. We should not be categorizing writers by every individual stylistic quirk that might be present in their work, lest we open the door to categories like Category:Writers who don't use capitalization for e.e. cummings, and Category:Writers who tend to overuse em-dashes for Timothy Findley. An article about deviation from conventional punctuation in prose writing might be an interesting thing, and these writers could certainly be named in it as notable examples of the phenomenon, but it's not suitable for a category. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 17 September 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:Food by ingredient[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 Category:Dishes by main ingredient to Category:Prepared foods by main ingredient and also merge Category:Food by ingredient into that new category. No consensus for now on Category:Breads by ingredient, Category:Seeded breads, and Category:Sesame seed breads, but they can be nominated again, if desired, for a more focused discussion on them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT
This tree duplicates the very large and developed Category:Dishes by main ingredient tree. These 4 categories only group 2 articles: Bagel is incorrectly in Category:Seeded breads (not all bagels have seeds) and Ka'ak is in the bottom category. The pre-existing category tree is better named because the main ingredient is more defining than any minor ingredient in food. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Lagoset as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support food category. Some food is not a dish, as a bread, sandwich, fruits and so on. Really, dishes are a subcategory of food. On the other hand, as said in the lead section of the article, bagels are often topped with seeds baked on the outer crust, with the traditional ones being poppy, sunflower or sesame seeds. Also in the other article is said that Ka'ak refers to a bread commonly consumed throughout the Near East that is made in a large ring-shape and is covered with sesame seeds.--Lagoset (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lagoset: Clarification Can you confirm you support my nomination to delete the categories you created? (Your analysis seems to suggest we disagree and I want to make sure the closing admin considers your view.) RevelationDirect (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha,ha,ha, no.  :-) But think this talk is very constructive. Good work.--Lagoset (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Lagoset is correct that "dish" is too narrow; "Food" is a singular we wouldn't use, so just merge them as "Foods by main ingredient". Agreed with nominator that main is the key thing, since it obviates trivial intersections (I've had beer with chili peppers, with chocolate, with spruce, with grapefruit, etc., but we do not want weird intersectional subcats like "Beverages with hot peppers", etc. If we want to keep "foods" in the sense of foodstuffs separate from "dishes" made of foodstuffs, well I give up and go with delete.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: I tagged Category:Dishes by main ingredient so your proposal can be considered by the closing admin (and I'm fine with your rename of the top category to Foods by main ingredients). Note that the child catgories (Category:Eggplant dishes, Category:Lemon dishes); any thoughts on what they should be named? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Lemon dishes" category is really "lemon dishes and beverages". But by now, they both can be as they are today. --Lagoset (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential Compromise I pity the closing admin that looks at this cordial conversation and tries to figure out what to do so here's some guidance:
This gives us 1 category tree with a name that makes sense. (Some of us will still have concerns about lemon and seeded subcategories, but they can be dealt with later.) Of course other editors may come along and have other ideas below, but I think this reflects the conversation above. (@SMcCandlish and Lagoset:, correct me if I'm wrong.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:44, 19 September 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:Leaders in various Latter Day Saint denominations[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. — ξxplicit 06:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose upmerging to parent. This is essentially a "remainders" category, which is recommended against in the guidelines. These leaders of the smaller Latter Day Saint groups can simply be housed in Category:Latter Day Saint leaders or one of its appropriate subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Name is silly anyway; every denomination qualifies under "various", and it can also imply that each individual must have led multiple denominations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I understand the LDS to have splinter denominations, apart from the mainstream one. I think this is trying to bring together the leaders of the splinter groups. If so, it may be better not to merge (which will lose us data) but to split the category by denomination. If that leads to small categories they can then be merged to a denominational one. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 19 September 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_September_17&oldid=1074815724"