Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 6

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

June 6[edit]

Palestinian territories[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 (or merge). – Fayenatic London 22:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: rename (or merge in one case), these are subcategories in the tree of Category:State of Palestine that apparently have been overlooked while the remainder of the tree was renamed. This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_11#State_of_Palestine. And there are even more Palestinian territories subcategories left, because I deliberately omitted political and history subcategories from this nomination. I guess those should be split rather than renamed, but I'm open to other suggestions. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2018 (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.

Misnamed portal 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: rename/merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge to standard form. There are only a few with this form, see All pages with titles beginning with Category:Portal:. Two of the others are sub-projects for specific purposes (Quote; On This Day) which might as well remain. – Fayenatic London 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency. SFB 20:51, 7 June 2018 (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 without hands[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not an appropriate category per WP:COP. Natureium (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2018 (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.

University of Alaska System[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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Oppose speedy. The main article of the category is University of Alaska system. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
  • Oppose. There have been numerous XFDs over many years which have incessantly fiddled with trying to define "University of Alaska" and have not come close to getting it right. Locally, the entity is commonly known as "University of Alaska Statewide Administration", so that should have been discussed rather than merely dwelling on "system" versus "System". The entity in question is strictly an administrative unit which does not award earned degrees, so "University of Alaska system alumni" would amount to a false identifier unless we're using it to collect honorary degree recipients. Also, trying to claim that the position of University of Alaska president prior to 1975 is somehow different than the position of president since that time amounts to a curious piece of original research found nowhere else in the world other than Wikipedia (already evident with {{University of Alaska System presidents}} and {{University of Alaska Fairbanks leaders}}) and part of this nomination appears to continue that practice. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time right this moment for the normal (at times lengthy) explanation. There have been multiple XFDs related to the University of Alaska already and each one seems to make matters even muddier. I've done some basic searches of news archive sites, but haven't had the time to analyze anything other than noticing that they're no more consistent than we are. The article University of Alaska system doesn't make it explicitly clear whether it's about the statewide University of Alaska as a whole or about the administrative unit known as Statewide Administration, mostly located in a single building on the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus. The home page on their website says "University of Alaska System", with a clear instance of capitalization. Further confusing matters is the fact that there are two distinct uses of "University of Alaska": one referring to what is now UAF for pretty much the entirety of the middle 20th century, and one referring to the statewide university in the years since. "S/system" is a fairly recent concoction. Confusing things even further, signage on the George Parks Highway at the Geist Road interchange refers to the "University of Alaska", not the "University of Alaska Fairbanks", even though one would suppose that should or would have been fixed years or even decades ago; control signage on the Parks has been a controversial issue in the past, though most of the controversy was in regards to other intersections. As to the specific language, is it appropriate to tack on "S/system"? I'll try and provide links later on when I have time. Right now, a NewsBank archive search of the Anchorage Daily News returns 194 hits for the term "university of alaska board of regents" versus zero for "university of alaska system board of regents", just to give one specific example. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:14, 6 June 2018 (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:5th-century German 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: Rename. Timrollpickering 12:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, "German" people did not exist yet in the Early Middle Ages, but "Germanic" is a perfectly valid term for the people in these categories. After renaming these categories can be further populated, e.g. by adding Category:5th-century Frankish people to it. Only Anthony the Hermit probably needs to be purged from the first two nominated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and historical accuracy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Pretty pointless - how exactly did Germanic people suddenly become "German" in the 9th century? Because of Charlemagne? That's silly. "Germanic" is usually used more widely, to include the Dutch, English, Scandinavians etc (ie speakers of Germanic languages), which is not what is wanted here. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the early middle ages there was no country that resembled Germany in any way, there were no people that we call Germans either. While there were Germanic peoples around, like Saxons, and Thuringii. And yes, this nomination does imply that the scope of these categories becomes wider indeed, as also mentioned in the rationale. Since the categories are currently nearly empty I do not regard that as a problem, on the contrary. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Germania was a concept firmly established by the early Imperial period of Rome, and the borders weren't all that different from today, though in some ways closer to Großdeutschland than the modern republic. Expanding the category to include most of northern Europe, plus much of north Italy (Lombards, Ostrogoths), half the Balkans (Ostrogoths again), Spain, Portugal and north Africa (Visigoths), and so on, seems a really bad idea, and runs against many decisions on questionable ethnic/linguistic/cultural collectivities. Johnbod (talk)
  • Germania also included current Poland and Czechoslovakia and besides the Romans were gone after the 5th century. More importantly, this side discussion distracts from the key issue that someone like Hadugato is simply not known as a German person but as a Saxon person, and Saxons are known as a Germanic people, not as a German people. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notoriously, Germany included much of "current Poland and Czechoslovakia" for most of its history (all of its history before 1945 for some parts), so I don't see the force of that argument. Germans would certainly regard Hadugato as German not just Germanic, and understandably so. When do you think the Saxons stopped beoing just Germanic, and became German? And you haven't answered my point about North Africa etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Poland has been an independent country until 1795, Slovakia never belonged to the Holy Roman Empire. I would rephrase the question: from when on are people defined by a German nationality? Certainly not this early. And I did reply about the Visigoths earlier: I do not have a problem with extending the scope of the category, since it is currently almost empty anyway. It would be helpful however to diffuse the Visigoths by century (just like the Franks) so that they can be added to the Germanic tree as a subcategory, in every century. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally support but would like to see a stronger rationale for the exclusion of 9th century and onwards. Holy Roman Empire as a proxy for Germanic? Tenuous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up until the 8th century we have articles about individual people who are primarily defined by the Germanic people (e.g. Saxon people) to which they belong, rather than to which state they belong. That comes to an end in the 9th century when the Carolingian Empire is established. This does not necessarily imply that Category:9th-century German people and onward cannot be changed some way, but at the very least something different should be proposed for later periods. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People of medieval Germany includes all kinds of very early German types via the sub-cats (probably too many). You are trying to wrench a national category into being an ethnic one, which will create far more problems than it solves. Our History of Germany recognises no sudden start at 800. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no suggestion of a sudden start in 800, just there were certainly no German people before 800. Note that the current start of the category tree (in the 5th century) likewise does not suggest a sudden start in 400. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Before there was any German state (such as Holy Roman Empire), it is difficult to define Germany, so that I think that we must use Germanic, probably as late as the death of Charlemagne in 814, but since we are dealing with centuries, 800 is perhaps an appropriate boundary. The Marches of Meissen and Brandenburg were to some extent German encroachment on lands of the Poles and Balts, while the Czech lands, while within HRE were clearly not Germanic. At this period, we need to use a linguistic test, not a national one, because nations had not really formed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Germanic people? That has the potential to inculde Romanized Germanic people of various backgrounds (Stilicho, Ricimer, Aspar, etc.), the Franks, the Ostrogoths and Lombards of Italy, the Visigoths and the Suebi of the Iberian Peninsula, the Vandals of North Africa, the Burgundians and their ephemeral state, the Anglo-Saxons in the British Isles, and a few Danes that turn up in Frankish chronicles. During the Migration Period (4th to 6th centuries), Germanic people spread to nearly every area of the Roman Empire. Dimadick (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These categories are about individual people of whom only few per century are known from most Germanic peoples in this distant past, that is, apart from those who will be contained in subcategories (e.g. Franks, English people). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - though i agree the cats should be renamed, i'm not sure about the target. We generally classify people by centuries according to nationality, so what was the nationality of those people in the categories? So far if we look into Category:People by ethnicity - there are few 17,18,19,20 and 21st century categories, creating new Germanic people categories would make a precedent for many others. I'm not against it, but rather asking whether this is the intention.GreyShark (dibra) 13:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not the intention to create any precedent. Germanic peoples was terminology of the Romans and of the Early Middle Ages so for this period it is helpful to have these particular categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2018 (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:Protostomes by location[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. Timrollpickering 12:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and unhelful categorization layers, primarily because "protostome" is jargon. I'd recommend also nominating the similar Category:Deuterostomes by location tree for deletion/merging, but it's late. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but why in some cases (e.g. Pakistan) upmerge to both fauna and invertebrates? DexDor (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:LaundryPizza03, all the categories proposed for merge/delete need to be tagged - e.g. I've done Category:Protostomes of Asia. DexDor (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; yet another useless intersectional category generated by an editor who never seems to join in discussions. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yes, the equivalent Deuterostomes category tree should also be upmerged. There should be a barrier to creating categories without prior discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - more nonsense from NotWith/Caftaric. Oculi (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Note: I've struck where the nom was upmerge to both fauna and invertebrates. DexDor (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Except where species are indigenous only to one country or island, we should not have biota categories by country. Marine creatures and flying creatures are clearly not limited to one area. Otherwise, we should only be using continental or subcontinental categories. Here I have in mind the effect of the Wallace line dividing Asia (and islands) from Australasia and islands. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2018 (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:Latin Grammy Award venues[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) 05:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE. Hosting the Latin Grammys is not a defining characteristic for these articles. Toohool (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this is over-categorising the venues. Some venues have such a multiplicity of uses that a comprehensive categorisation would be enormous. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think its notable. I know its a newer industry award show, but it is every bit as relevant as other industry shows. I can see that many venues have been categorized for holding other events; sporting events in particular. My view is why shouldn't musical events be less notable than a sports event? This is my stance on this topic. --MusicAndArtFan (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The category is not about the award, but about the venues. Accordingly it fails WP:OCVENUE. The awards ceremony is no doubt held in a multi-purpose venue. Categorising them leads to category clutter. Category:Latin Grammy Awards would be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2018 (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/2018_June_6&oldid=1138411826"