Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 5 January 7 >

January 6[edit]

Category:Ship designs of the United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Narrow category, Design 1013 ship only possible article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought it should be full upmerge, but perhaps it is all there already. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2017 (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:Order of Pedro I[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
Being a member of Brazil's royal family (House of Orléans-Braganza) is absolutely defining which is why we already have Category:House of Orléans-Braganza but automatically receiving the this award as a result is not. The rest of recipients of this Brazilian award are all royalty from other countries, like Alexander III of Russia. In either case, this is non-defining. If we decide to delete the category, the recipients are already listed here. -RevelationDirect (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified West Virginian as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Brazil. – RevelationDirect (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We deleted automatic awards to monarch categories for Malaysia and Netherlands here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Thanks, no the intent was for Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Pedro I to be the subcategory. (That subcategory was already tagged but this nomination listed the parent twice.) I'll ping @Johnpacklambert: so the closer won't have to guess if this changes his vote. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2017 (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:Grand Crosses with Collar of the Order of the Falcon[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. (non-admin closure) feminist 12:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
Being the President of Iceland is absolutely defining so we have Category:Presidents of Iceland but automatically getting the this award as a result is not. The rest of recipients of this Icelandic award are all royalty or officials from other countries, like Olav V of Norway. In either case, this is non-defining. (I saved the current category contents here in case anyone wants to make a list article.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Folks at 137 as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Iceland. – RevelationDirect (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We deleted automatic awards to monarch categories for Malaysia and Netherlands here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That particular award of the order of the falcon is only given out to royalty officials.--Snaevar (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2017 (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:Republic of Ireland association footballers who are not citizens of the Republic of Ireland[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 (non-admin closure) feminist 05:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation Sussexpeople (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it's unusual to categorise by the absence of a property. Besides, we have no idea what passports people may hold. Oculi (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Ireland's discussion page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Reply @Laurel Lodged: Firstly, this is WP:SYN, a form of original research. You are inferring one fact (citizenship) from another fact (place of birth), without a specific source citing the second fact.
    Secondly, it's a broken form of synthesis, because the logic by which you infer the claim about citizenship contradicts Irish nationality law. People are entitled to Irish citizenship if they had a grandparent who was an Irish citizen. So The fact that someone was born outside Ireland does not exclude them from citizenship, and they may also be citizens even if their parent was born outside Ireland. They may even be Irish citizens if their grandparents or great-great-grandparents were born outside Ireland, provided that the intervening generations have asserted their citizenship.
    Citizenship is hard to verify, and rarely defined explicitly even in detailed wikipedia biographies, which is why the long-standing convention is not to categorise people by citizenship. Instead, we use the deliberately fuzzier concept of nationality -- because in the vast majority of cases, that's all the sources allow us to do.
    Please link to this other discussion you refer to, where you claim nobody disagreed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to BHG I already did link. See above. Are you inferring one fact (nationality) from another fact (meets eligibility to play rules of a private sporting organisation), without a specific source citing the second fact? Do you know of any British born subjects who, upon being accepted as a player for the RoI association football team, has then chosen to exercise his right to apply for Irish citizenship? If not, have you committed a WP:SYN? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laurel Lodged: Ah, I see the link now: Category talk:Republic of Ireland association footballers#Sportspeople_from_the_Republic_of_Ireland. You wrote that bobody there disagreed, which is a misleading way of saying that nobody replied. (People usually don't on category talk pages, because v few ppl have them watchlisted; only 4 editors watch that category. If you want comments, take the discussion to project space.)
    As to substance, please stop your juvenile FUD technique of deflecting from a problem with your logic by making a baseless counter-allegation. I have not synthesised anything, because I have not made any assertion about any individual's citizenship or Britishness. On the contrary, I argued against any such assertion, and pointed out that it is not possible to determine it in the way you suggest. The category also makes no assertion about citizenship or Britishness: its description say "players who were born in what is now the Republic of Ireland or who have played for the Republic of Ireland national football team at senior level, junior level or both".
    LL, the underlying problem both here and at CFD 2017 January 2#Category:Sportspeople_from_Ireland is that you misunderstand the nature and purpose of en.wp categories. You persist in reading them as if they were some sort of legally-critical taxonomy, which they are not. Categories on en.wp are a navigational tool, and it has long been accepted that in order to prioritise navigation, it is accepted that not every page in a category would fit perfectly in every grandparent of those categories. Some fuzziness is needed. See the lede for WP:CAT The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics ... and please follow it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, if we had to start this all over again, that we might only have categories like Category:Association footballers in the Republic of Ireland as a container category consisting of footballers per Irish club. The same for other occupations and countries of course. So forget about both citizenship and nationality. That would have saved us all these unproductive discussions. In addition, in that hypothetical scenario, foreign footballers can be in an expatriate category of their home country, but without intersection with occupation. The whole point is, for example in this case with footballers, for their playing football it is neither relevant where they get their passport nor where they grew up, it is only relevant where they play football. With that, I support the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is being put on the articles of players where it isn't true, apparently due to a misunderstanding of what it means to be Irish? While it is possible to debate whether a player is "a Sportsperson from the Republic" these players are citizens. I would advise deletion on the grounds that by definition it makes no sense under the rules of the game and Irish law. ☕ Antiqueight haver 04:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Share with us your understanding of what it means to be Irish. A potential capability to become a citizen of a country is not the same thing as actually being a citizen of that country. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2017 (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:Catholic churches by autonomous particular church[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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Contents are identical. Each has a list of sub-cats for church buildings of 23 Catholic Churches that are in communion with the Holy See. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and because the present title is horribly ambiguous: "Catholic churches" could mean the buildings, or sects within or branches of the Roman Church, or independent denominations such as the Old Catholic Church. So "by autonomous particular church" could be a way to differentiate the various Christian denominations that claim the title "Catholic" e.g. Roman [the "autonomous particular church"] Catholic Church. At least that's how I read it until I read the nomination and then the lead — Iadmc♫talk  19:17, 11 January 2017 (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:Archaeological corpora[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have just been asked[1] to look again at this closure, and after re-examination, I reckon that there was a consensus to delete the subcat Category:Archaeological corpora documents. I am not so sure about the main Category:Archaeological corpora (where one of the two !voters preferred renaming it), so I will leave that as a no consensus outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Archaeological corpus" does not mean "a literary corpus which was discovered archaeologically" - it just means "material from one (or more) archaeological sites." Many of the items in this category are not literary corpora, anyway, and the category largely duplicates the Cat:Epigraphy and Cat:Papyrus trees. Furius (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can actually find articles that are about archaeological corpora. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: "Category:Archaeological corpora documents" should be deleted too, actually. The pages within it have in common that they are archaeologically discovered texts - but there are hundreds of thousands of such texts, not the 26 items which appear in said category. Essentially the intent of the category seems to be to contain every page in the epigraphy and papyrus trees - which is pointless. Corpus Speculorum Etruscorum records Etruscan mirrors - it shouldn't be in the Category:Corpora tree at all, but somewhere in Category:Archaeology publications. Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae belongs in the epigraphy tree, I think. Furius (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response @Fayenatic london and Furius: Apologies, I lost track of this. I agree with Furius, delete the sub-category. It's pointless. I agree with Furius's other comments also. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: adding the sub-category Category:Archaeological corpora documents to the proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 14:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- While corpora is pedantically correct, it is not a usual word: corpuses would be more normal in modern English.
Delete Category:Archaeological corpora documents has not main article and no criterion for inclusion. It seems to cover important documents from the ancient world, but that is not a corpus.
REname Category:Archaeological corpuses. These are published collections of similar items. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2017 (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 people by continent[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. There is no parent Category:Female people; just Category:Women. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support created by a now blocked ed who did weird things to categories in many more ways than this JarrahTree 14:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Obvious merge candidate, yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no difference between the two categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unless anyone can think of a reason to differentiate "female people" from "women"... Speedy per IAR? — Iadmc♫talk  19:23, 11 January 2017 (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:17th century in Paraguay[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. – Fayenatic London 22:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, little content in a distant governorate of the Spanish Empire. This merge would be a similar outcome as in this discussion about the Governorate of the Río de la Plata (i.e. Argentina and Uruguay). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge - reduce anachronism.GreyShark (dibra) 09:05, 10 January 2017 (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:User templates Iruc and all subcategories[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. This series of categories appears to be some sort of joke/hoax based on a user's created language. The first userbox linked to the category explains this as "These users have a basic understanding of the Alexazulian and Proto-Alexazulian scripts." We have no article on Alexazulian or Proto-Alexazulian. Proto-Alexazulian in the userbox links to User:Spc10K. Furthermore, the ISO code these use is "Iruc" which, looking it up, shows does not exist as a real ISO code. As joke babel categories, these violate WP:USERCAT. As for Category:User templates Iruc, that will become empty when the others are deleted. Additionally, we should not allow categories for individual users' projects, let alone a joke like this, even if it were to properly contain templates. VegaDark (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2017 (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:People executed by single firearm[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 relevant "People executed by [country] by firearm". – Fayenatic London 22:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An oddly specific category -- "by single firearm"? Appears to be trivia not of interest to the general reader. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article Execution by shooting shows some interesting cultural and political differences between execution by firing squad, and execution by single firearm. It should be split by country, since the country-specific factors are significant here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there may be country differences, is that a sufficient reason to keep this category? I have my doubts, it doesn't seem to concern a defining characteristic. By the way, the firearm execution category is already split by country, see Category:People executed by firearm. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I am far from sure whether we need to split according to whether an execution was done with one gun or several. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge not sure that being shot by one or by more than one firearm is defining for the executed person, who presumably is defined more by what happened in the 99.999% of his or her life prior to the one or more firearms being used to end it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2017 (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:Fictional Wikipedia editors in popular culture[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 but don't empty. Early closure per WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
The category page itself was one of a series created by User:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages.
That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory?
Whatever anyone's views on that question, WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question.
So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion.
WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created by Rathfelder, contains no meaningful content. Should return to status quo ante per BrownHairedGirl's recent closes of similar.  pablo 09:16, 6 January 2017 (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/2017_January_6&oldid=1144418126"