Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 4 November 6 >

November 5[edit]

Eswatini templates[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 22:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: the head article for this small African country has been moved from Swaziland to Eswatini, per two RM discusisons (RM 12 October 2018 to "eSwatini", then RM 24 October 2018 to the conventionally-categorised form "Eswatini").
Category names should follow the article name, and the parent category for all templates from this country has already been WP:BOLDly moved by @Wiz9999 to Category:Eswatini templates. All these category titles are descriptive title per WP:NDESC, i.e. a phrase such as Swaziland football templates has been invented by en.wp editors to describe a set of articles, and is not a proper name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 5 November 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:S.S. Cavese 1919 players[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) 23:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two "clubs" were under the same article title Cavese 1919, thus the two cat should merged as Cavese 1919 players Matthew hk (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename per C2D, match parent article name. GiantSnowman 09:25, 7 November 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 convicted of rape by nationality[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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a duplicated category. Either have Category:People convicted of rape by nationality or have Category:Rapists by nationality but why both? I don't see the distinction between being convicted of rape and being a rapist. If the issue is one of labeling, then merge to the less stigmatized convicted of rape category rather than the rapist category. Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, both procedurally and substantively.
    1. Procedurally, this nomination is pointless. All it does is remove a {{container category}}. The only effect of that is to ensure that Category:American people convicted of rape, Category:Australian people convicted of rape etc are no longer grouped in a common parent category. To achieve the stated goal, each subcat would need to be listed individually for merger or renaming.
    2. Substantively
      • The categorisation of people convicted for a crime as a subcat of those who committed the crime is widespread. See the many subcats of Category:People by criminal conviction, most or all of which are subcats of a category not based on conviction: e.g. Category:People convicted of forgery is a subcat of Category:Forgers. No reason is given for singling out rapists, while leaving the split in place for murderers, arsonists, fraudsters, thieves etc.
      • the suggestion to merge to the less stigmatized convicted of rape category rather than the rapist category is daft. It will categorise as "convicted" people who have not been convicted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed this merger alone because I came across these 2 categories and other sex offender categories while doing some editing. I didn't look at all "Convicted of" categories. It looks like a duplication to me as I stated above so I made the proposal. But it looks like my argument will not prevail. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per the arguments of BrownHairedGirl. Note, however, that the accounts of rape should have reliable sources. We don't want to reproduce rumors and urban legends in the category tree. Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything REverse merge. We cannot generally have categories on unconvicted criminals, due to the risk of libel claims. The only exception is where the criminal is dead, but his guilt was clear: this is more likely to apply to dead murderers than rapists: rape is difficult to get convictions, because often only two people were present and it is the word of one against the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to maintain an objective inclusion criterion for what otherwise could be a slanderous category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:04, 12 November 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:Sex offenders in Florida[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 at 2018 NOV 13 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no basis to have state designated categories for sex offenders and no others exist. Each article listed in this category already has a sex-offense related category assigned, this one, focused on a state, is redundant and gives the impression that Florida has a unique problem with sex offenses. Liz Read! Talk! 15:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So that’s my case why Florida uniquely deserves this category. deisenbe (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I see your point, I think if we are going to categorize sex offenders/sex crimes based in Florida to a category like this, then we should create similar categories for every state when it is appropriate. That's my point of view on this. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. deisenbe (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with renaming it sex crimes is that the items in the category are not sex crimes, they are sex criminals. I don’t see where “topic articles” are in it. deisenbe (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 2 out of 10 articles in this category are about a criminal. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:28, 9 November 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:Films divided in chapters[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. Timrollpickering 18:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not convinced that this is a defining characteristic of films. I think any film could be arbitrarily divided into chapters...or conversely, that the "chapter breaks" could be removed without significantly impacting the final product. DonIago (talk) 14:41, 5 November 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:BL Lac objects[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 18:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Avoid abbreviations in titles, and match the corresponding article BL Lacertae object. Lithopsian (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: not every reader is going to be familiar with standard IAU constellation abbreviations, so it makes sense to use the full name for a category. This is consistent with the Category:Variable stars tree sub-category names. Praemonitus (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: should be more consistent this way. Psyluke (talk) 13:36, 22 November 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.

Organization to organisation (Commonwealth)[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. The discussion here & precedent favour national consistency over subject consistency. Timrollpickering 18:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This nomination seeks to apply the long-term stable WP:ENGVAR-derived convention to defer to the usage of the top-level country category's creator, which is 'organisations' in all listed below. The countries in this particular nom have strong UK links. Oculi (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [All but 6 of these anomalies courtesy of Rathfelder]
  • There is a companion discussion 'ise' to 'ize' intended merely to root out a few stray 'ess's from 'zed' trees at cfd on 3 Nov. Editors might note WP:ISE and MOS:IZE. Oculi (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: did you actually read WP:ISE and the next para MOS:IZE? It doesn't support your case.
The MOS is very clear that:
  1. WP:ISE is one variant of British English. It uses organisation
  2. MOS:IZE is both American, and another variant of British English use organization
So organization is acceptable use everywhere, and British English does not require organisation.
The result is that this nomination is just shuffling between two acceptable forms. Inconsistencies in the country tree are being replaced with inconsistencies in the subject tree. This benefits neither readers nor editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My case would be that both are indeed acceptable (except in NZ and the US), but mixing them is not (in country trees; it is inevitable in subject trees, roughly 50/50). This has been tested at cfd many times: France, Brazil, Bolivia, Iran, Angola, Greece, Poland, Israel, Puerto Rico, Turkey, not to mention a slew in 2013 most of which contain "UK English predominates in Europe, so we should use the UKanian spelling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)". None of them call for RFCs or support a mixture, or are contentious. Oculi (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For goodness sake, centralise the discussion at RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:ENGVAR. Not everyone uses American spellings, and all of these countries use organisation, as highlighted by their main category being spelt organisation not organization. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing is gained by giving up the use of z which is perfectly acceptable in British English.Rathfelder (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:ENGVAR and in the spirit of WP:C2C, shouldn't these be wholly uncontroversial moves? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One would have thought so. Oculi (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: The point which Oculi seems to want to overlook is that it is controversial because it is not a straightforward ENGVAR issue like petrol/gasoline.
The Z form is not just acceptable in British English. It is actually the recommended form of Oxford spelling, and also recommended by other major dictionaries: Cassell, Collins and Longman. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:30, 8 November 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.

Organization to organisation (Europe)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale: This nomination seeks to apply the long-term stable WP:ENGVAR-derived convention to defer to the usage of the top-level country category's creator, which is 'organisations' in all listed below. The countries in this particular nom are in Europe. Oculi (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For goodness sake, centralise the discussion at RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why should standardisation, or standardization, by country take precendence over standardization in the subject heirarchies?Rathfelder (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's easy: there is strong and consistent pattern of precedents to do so. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unhelpful practises can last for a long time, but that's no reason to continue. It's long past time to call a halt to such futile piecemeal exercises, and have an RFC to try to explicitly agree an overall approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there was really a strong and consistent pattern we wouldn't be having this discussion. What there is in reality is a confused and timewasting mess. Time we were BOLD and sorted it out.Rathfelder (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:ENGVAR and in the spirit of WP:C2C, although I regret the opportunity is not taken to move all non-English speaking countries to z. Admittedly that would require a change in WP:ENGVAR. Standardisation in the subject hierarchies taking precedence over standardization by country would also require a change in WP:ENGVAR for that matter. So for these countries I can see the point of having an RFC but that should not affect these nominations which do not require a change in WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One would not wish to court controversy. Perhaps next time, after the RFC. Oculi (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support most. English is an official language of the European Union. As Ireland is not leaving, it will remain so; no doubt British English with the S-spelling, because Ireland uses British English. Furthermore, in several countries the S-spelling will reflect that of their own language (and Latin, from which the word comes). I am not sure about Kosovo and Ukraine and will abstain on them. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ukraine, reluctant support for others. I would suggest that Ukraine should go the other way; we should use/retain the more widely-accepted "z" spelling wherever there are no strong national reasons to do otherwise. ENGVAR does not state that WP:RETAIN is binding on category hierarchies. The others are right in principle, as odd-ones-out within the national hierarchies, but let's hold an RFC on the whole hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 11:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we have Category:Organisations based in Slovakia but Category:Organizations based in Slovenia? Rathfelder (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that there is little logic behind this. But we can always convert a whole country from s to z or vice versa. Ultimately I would favour to have (at least) all non-English speaking countries consistently at either z or s. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would help quite a lot. My problem is that if I am working on, for example Category:Journalism organizations, which needs splitting by countries, I have no quick way of telling whether I am supposed to use s or z. Rathfelder (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Where is the precedent for applying STRONGNAT to cats? I thought the precedent was to leave it alone and introduce redirects. Each of these cats is an intersection by country and topic, so not seeing the strength of the "national ties" that would warrant using the English variant very loosely associated with the country. Without linked precedent, RFC sounds like the right move. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:46, 13 November 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.

Organization to organisation (other)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This nomination seeks to apply the long-term stable WP:ENGVAR-derived convention to defer to the usage of the top-level country category's creator, which is 'organisations' in all listed below. The countries in this particular nom have no particular links with or proximity to the UK. Oculi (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. the idea that these spellings are derived from a long-term stable WP:ENGVAR-derived convention is a delusion. Rathfelder (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That idea has not been suggested. Category:Organisations based in Iraq was created by User:Brammen in 2006 and the long-standing convention (enshrined as a WP:C2C speedy condition) within the category is to defer to the creator (or bring the whole category to cfd if it is thought that there is a compelling reason for Iraq to use 'z'). The rough idea is that Category:United Kingdom say should use Br Eng within it (colour not color, Association football not soccer, transport not transportation, organisation not organization (as we are no longer in 1963) and many others). Oculi (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:ENGVAR and in the spirit of WP:C2C, although I regret the opportunity is not taken to move all non-English speaking countries to z. Admittedly that would require a change in WP:ENGVAR. Standardisation in the subject hierarchies taking precedence over standardization by country would also require a change in WP:ENGVAR for that matter. So for these countries I can see the point of having an RFC but that should not affect these nominations which do not require a change in WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ENGVAR doesnt say anything explicit about categorisation. Most of these subject/country classifications dont have articles of their own. It does say "For an international encyclopaedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable." "organizations" is common to all varieties of English as far as I can see. Nobody has shown me any policy which says that standardisation by country should take precedence over standardization by subjects when there is no local variant of English in play.Rathfelder (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly (but you probably know better than me), writing with a 'z' in British English is correct but archaic. If most British Wikipedians would be okay with a 'z' on Wikipedia, that would be even better, obviously, but so far I haven't seen a consensus on that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think archaic is quite the right word. In English there is no language regulator as there is in some countries. Arguably the nearest thing we have is the Oxford English Dictionary, and that deliberately takes a historical view of language. It favours spelling with a z, even today, on historical grounds. See Oxford spelling. My conclusion, and I might say English language is the only thing I am officially qualified to pontificate about, is that there is no justification for condemning "organization" as improper English. It's certainly true that "organisation" is more common in the UK, and its certainly what I would normally use, but its hard to see that as a justification for a big row. Spelling changes over time and place. It's not as though any English speakers, anywhere, would not recognise the word. My guess is that spelling checkers, which generally default to American, are probably altering usage across the globe. Rathfelder (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rathfelder. Shuffling around the location of the inconsistencies in this tree is pointless, when the "s" spelling is not even the clear long-term preference of any country. Time to just standardise of "organizations". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed -- Support Nepal, which will follow India; and Haiti: I think Haiti speaks French, so that it will probably follow it in issuing S. Unsure about Iraq (which had a British mandate after WWI) or Saudi Arabia. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant support. These are right in principle, as odd-ones-out within the national hierarchies. But please, let's hold an RFC on the whole hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 11:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Where is the precedent for applying STRONGNAT to cats? I thought the precedent was to leave it alone and introduce redirects. Each of these cats is an intersection by country and topic, so not seeing the strength of the "national ties" that would warrant using the English variant very loosely associated with the country. Without linked precedent, RFC sounds like the right move. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:47, 13 November 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:Egyptian revolutionists[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. Timrollpickering 18:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This could be speedied as WP:C2C per Category:Revolutionaries by nationality, but I am listing it here in case there is some reason to make a distinction between revolutionists and revolutionaries. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 5 November 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:17th-century Dukes of Normandy[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 at 2018 NOV 13 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category will only ever contain one person and that person is neither a Frenchman nor a ruler of Normandy. Consequently, it can be upmerged to Category:Dukes of Normandy. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was a title in the peerage of France and was not even included in Category:Dukes of Normandy. Dimadick (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom without upmerging, because the one person in this category didn't actually rule Normandy, it was just a title. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To cover the history of the title across centuries. Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 9 November 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:Tony Burrows songs[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: withdrawn and resolved as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Strange one this. This category contains songs were Burrows sang, NOT songs where he was the named artist. Many are where he is nominally a 'member of a band' put together to support the single. Some he may not have even sung on.

Not opposed to a list of songs Tony Burrows has sung on - which would be much wider and longer than a category. This category name is misleading. Richhoncho (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Melanie Makes Me Smile is a Tony Burrows song with him as the named artist so accurately fits this Cat.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Egghead06:. Fair enough. Trim all the other songs out of the cat and retract delete nom? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with that. Songs where he was the lead singer in a group really don't belong in this cat.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having just one song in the category would totally defeat the purpose. Categories are intended to lead the reader to other closely related articles. Perhaps including the songs on which he is the lead singer of a group but removing the songs on which he is just a backing vocalist would be the better thing to do. - 172.85.246.94 (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All songs listed which did not contain Tony Burrows as the artist now removed, leaving only Melanie Make Me Smile. Delete nomination withrawn. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:56, 7 November 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.

Swaziland[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 all except those removed from the list by the discussion. Timrollpickering 10:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
434 subcats of Category:Swaziland
Categories struck from this list per suggestions in the discussion below
plus about ~95 years/decades categories from before 2018
Changes to word order per suggestion by Good Olfactory in the discussion below
Nominator's rationale. the head article for this small African country has been moved from Swaziland to Eswatini, per two RM discusisons (RM 12 October 2018 to "eSwatini", then RM 24 October 2018 to the conventionally-categorised form "Eswatini").
Category names should follow the country name, so this nomination is a first step on that path. To simplify matters, I have tried to take only the simplest and most clearcut cases, as follows case as the first step: i.e. those which:
  1. use the full word "Swaziland", and not the demonym "Swazi" (so Category:Swazi people etc)
  2. are clearly a descriptive title per WP:NDESC, i.e. a phrase such as Category:Organisations based in Swaziland which as been invented by en.wp editors to describe a set of articles.
  3. are not a proper name (e.g. Category:University of Swaziland and its subcats)
  4. do not approximate the title of a public office (e.g. Category:Chief Justices of Swaziland)
  5. do not refer to the participation of the country in international organisations such as the United Nations, which sometimes uses a name different to he nmae chosen by Wikipedia' naming policies
  6. do not refer to a national sports team of the country or to the country's participation in international multi-sport events such as the Olympics, since those sports and events may have their own procedures
This left a list of 435 categories, out of my AWB-generated list of 721, of which 481 include the word "Swaziland". The other 45 categories which do include the "Swaziland" but which I excluded for the numbered reasons above is listed on a subpage of this one: Swaziland cats not included
These exclusions are not intended to prejudice future discussions of the other categories. Maybe the others will all be renamed without controversy, or maybe they need to be discussed in smaller sets. But simplifying this list will allow this discussion to focus on the principle, rather than on any exceptions. If you spot any categories listed above which you think should be left for a future discussion, please ping me and I will strike them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Swaziland: Discussion and survey[edit]
Yes, that's what I was thinking of - sounds good to me. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: I will leave a note for the closing admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass renaming. The vast majority of articles relate to the time when the country was called Swaziland. Wikipedia has never been in the business of revisionism. I'll clearly be outvoted, but I'm frankly very uncomfortable with this whole business. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Necrothesp:. There's no revisionism involved, simply an updating of the label by which we group topics in sets which are not by definition wholly before the name change. As you will see from the discussion above, we have already excluded over 100 categories which relate wholly to the period before the name change.
      Do you want to identify any more such categories? Or are you simply objecting to a country changing its name? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now, that's not what I said, is it? But, if you want examples. The ambassador categories. How many of these were ambassadors to or from Eswatini? That's revisionism. The judge categories. How many of these were judges in Eswatini? That too is revisionism. Category:Political office-holders in Swaziland. How many of these people held office in Eswatini? And many others. The vast majority of the people in these categories held office in Swaziland, not Eswatini. It seems to me that this is an attempt to eliminate the previous name entirely just because the country has decided to change its name. What is wrong with naming these cats "Foo in Eswatini and Swaziland"? That would eliminate all hint of revisionism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't split categories merely according to changes in country name. Granted, there exists Category:Rhodesian politicians within Category:Zimbabwean politicians. However, we generally prefer anachronistic categories over splitting the categories where there is not a major change in the national identity, e.g. Category:Zairean people redirects to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people, and Category:Prime Ministers of Burkina Faso includes the PMs of Upper Volta (see List). – Fayenatic London 09:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Necrothesp: "Foo in A and B" is a daft name when A and B are synonyms. It implies that A and B are distinct entities, rather than different names for the same thing, and it would break category navigation systems.
            Using your example, Category:Political office-holders in Swaziland, some will have held office old under the old name, some will hold office only under the new name, and some will hold office under both. Over time, the balance will shift towards B. But all refer to the same entity; there was no change of regime.
            @FL's other example of Rhodesia is a different situation, because while the territorial borders of Rhodesia and Zimbabwe were identical, there was a major shift in regime, so "Rhodesia" marks a distinct era, and is treated as a historical subcat of Zimbabwe. Similarly, Category:French Third Republic denotes a distinct regime in France, and its subcats are subcats of the equivalent French category. That is different to FL's other example of Zaire/Democratic Republic of the Congo, which was a simple name change. Similarly, changes of name in cities have been accommodated simply by using the new name and keeping redirects, e.g. Salisbury/Harare, Mumbai/Chennai, Calcutta/Kolkata.
            To clarify what has happened, I suggest that we simply add a hatnote to each category saying "Known until 2018 as Swaziland". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination as revised to date. – Fayenatic London 09:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but historic categories for periods before the name change should be kept (and these changes are now struck through). Parent categories covering all periods should be renamed, but should continue to parent historic Swaziland, e.g. "Swaziland in 2008", because it is exactly the same place. That is what we do for Belgian Congo/Congo-Kinshasa/Zaire/DRC; and Upper Volta/Burkino Faso; and I hope Gold Coast/Ghana. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 8 November 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:Non-talk pages requesting an edit to a protected page[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 10:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proposing moving to a more accurate name. By nature, people making an edit request can't actually put the template on the article itself since the article is protected. Therefore, any instance of this being on a mainspace, User:, Wikipedia:, Template:, or Help: page is not going to be an edit request. In general, its usage in articles and other non-talk pages seems to consist of misguided attempts at protecting a page by newbies rather than edit requests. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 November 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:Historic hotels in the United States[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 for now; revisit if the broader category tree is considered. Timrollpickering 10:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the characterization of a hotel as 'historic' is subjective when the hotel is not listed as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: How does the category for historic hotels in the United States differ from the other categories of Historic bank buildings, gas stations, house museums and warehouses in the United States or from the parent category Category:Historic buildings and structures in the United States; these are all "subjectively" regarded as “historic” but do not have a NRHP or similar local or state listing? Hugo999 (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, I have added four siblings to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose There is no reason to get rid of these categories, as they do not inherently have to contain historical structures that are not listed as such. To get rid of these categories would be nonsensical. SuperChris (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:25, 5 November 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.

Teachers colleges[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/rename to "Teacher colleges"; revisit if needs be. There's stronger support for "colleges" over "schools" and keeping separate categories by default is an undesired outcome but given the limited discussion after multiple relistings this may need further consideration in a merged environment. Timrollpickering 10:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option A:
Propose merging Category:Teachers colleges to Category:Education schools
Option B:
Propose merging Category:Education schools to Category:Teachers colleges
Propose renaming Category:Education schools by country to Category:Teachers colleges by country
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in China to Category:Teachers colleges in China
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Japan‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Japan
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Poland‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Poland
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Russia‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Russia
Nominator's rationale: merge (option A) or reverse merge (option B). The previous attempt of merging Category:Education schools and Category:Teachers colleges failed, not because because anyone objected merging, but because there was an issue about the 'correct' name of the category. Here is a new attempt and please note that "no consensus" is worse than either of the two proposals because it will leave us with two categories with an identical scope. Also note that in option B a large number of country subcats have not been included in the nomination; the ones that have not been listed here should be decided upon individually, taking in mind WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A - there are only 2 articles (one in Zimbabwe, one in Turkey) and no subcats in Category:Teachers colleges, created in 2016, long after Category:Education schools. Also Teachers college is a redirect to Normal school. Just create Category:Education schools in Turkey and Category:Education schools in Zimbabwe for the 2 articles. Oculi (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B:. I think "Education schools" invites misinterpretation. Rathfelder (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer Teacher Training Colleges. I sampled a number of countries, mostly anglophone and Teachers' Colleges and Schools of Education (not Education Schools) seemed to predominate. My recollection of UK system is that Colleges of Education and Teacher Training Colleges were free-standing institutions training school-leavers to be teachers, whereas Schools of Education were providing a post-graduate Certificate of Education to those with a Batchelor's degree in another subject. Whatever the outcome, we need a single worldwide parent (and a "by country" parent. The national subcategories should reflect national usage. Categorisation should reflect their function, not their name. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Prefer Teacher Training Colleges, but this may be because I went to one. In the UK they were independent, but have subsequently become universities, or merging into them. Previously the universities ran Schools of Education. But I think we should avoid using the word school, because it invites misinterpretation. I think the word Teacher needs to appear. And we need to make it clear whether this category includes only independent organisations or also departments of universities.Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It should definitely be college, not school (or maybe both, to cover those that were part of universities). "School" is not commonly used for an independent tertiary institution outside the United States. Teacher training colleges would also be my preference, but I too am British and that was the common name for them here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 7 November 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:BioWare companions[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. Timrollpickering 10:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT, the subject does not merit such an overly specific category. As far as I can tell, pretty much all Bioware characters who have articles here are party members for the main character's party. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I originally created the category, I figure I might as well give the context for why I made it. I noticed a lot of overall coverage of BioWare companions taken in aggregate -- who was the best, the worst, what were recurring archetypes BioWare used and how game romance was handled, etc. So I felt it made a degree of sense to just give that a category outside of the usual franchise-specific character ones. But yes, the vast majority of articles we have on BW characters are on companions -- the obvious exceptions being Revan, Commander Shepard and some of the listy character articles, but these are rare enough that, even for a hypothetical person just searching for info on BioWare companions, they probably wouldn't have much of a problem. On the record I do think the idea of RPG party members is probably distinct from the more general idea of a 'sidekick', though I'm not now actually advocating that be split into a separate category. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 07:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I guess there are enough articles that we could diffuse the main category. But, at the same time, it's not that many and it's not like the main category is large. Problem is, we do not have a video game sidekick article, so even the parent category's cross-cat is on a OR-ish narrow-cat grounds. I would lead towards merging if the overall consensus is on the fence on this. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:08, 8 November 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:2018 hardcore punk albums[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. Timrollpickering 10:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't keep by year/by genre albums categories (except for catch-all genres such as "Classical"). The two articles in the category are already part of the parent categories Category:2018 albums and Category:Hardcore punk albums so there's nothing to upmerge. Pichpich (talk) 01:31, 5 November 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:Employees of the National Museum of Natural History (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: rename to Category:National Museum of Natural History (France) people. From other cases, this seems to be the preferred form for this type of category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Technically, I suppose this expands the scope of the category a little bit but it makes it easier to fit inside its only natural parent category: Category:Museum people by museum. Pichpich (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I noted when I created this category, I copied the name from Category:Employees of the Natural History Museum, London. I see now that there is also Category:People associated with the Natural History Museum, London which includes the latter. Finally, I agree with the renaming. However, that expands the scope, and I wonder what to do with people who never worked with this Institution but donated their collection; are they "associated" or not? jeanloujustine (talk)
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_November_5&oldid=1073191785"