Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 18 October 20 >

October 19[edit]

Category:Philanthropic organizations based in Azerbaijan[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) 00:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, describing an organisation which would be called a charity in other places. I'm not sure whether charity is, or was, a legal status in Azerbaijan, but all our other Philanthropic organization categories are concerned with organisations which collect money and give it away, not those which provide any sort of service. Rathfelder (talk) 20:37, 19 October 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:Philanthropic organisations based in Namibia[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) 00:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No articles in the category. These subcats are generally put in Non-profit organisations categories, of which there is a well established heirarchy. Rathfelder (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of Category:Philanthropic organizations by country tree. Tim! (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question shouldn't we merge the philanthropic organisations tree into the charities tree? It looks as if they are very closely related. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to reflect local usage. All three articles use the term "Foundation". Hence perhaps Category:Charitable foundations based in Namibia. "Non-profit" is an American tax-related designation. UK uses "charity". Other countries will have their own terms, which may need translation. Maharastra (in India) uses "Philanthropic Foundation", so that this may be the appropriate national term there. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As ever words vary in their connotation by time and place but charity is used very widely, even in the USA. Foundation generally seems to mean an organisation which has money and gives it away to good causes. Foundations, generally are legally charities. Philanthropic organisation seems to mean an organisation which collects money and gives it away to good causes. But the definitions, if there are any, are related to legal systems in different countries, so not very hospitable in terms of founding category trees. I'd be in favour of merging the philanthropic organisations tree into the charities tree, or the foundation tree, as appropriate. Many of the articles say nothing about the legal basis of the organisation, and there aren't articles explaining the law for smaller countries. Rathfelder (talk) 08:40, 22 October 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:Late ancient Christianity[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with main article Christianity in late antiquity. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
discussion at CFDS
  • @Marcocapelle: Thanks. It seems that @Chicbyaccident may indavertently have made a valid C2D nomination. However their own expanded rationale above says There reference is mainly to Category:Christianity in the Middle Ages, which is not C2D. This is part of nearly 2-year long pattern of this editor making speedy nominations when they either don't understand the criteria or are gaming the system. This group of renames should be considered together in a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Interestingly, it seems that Chicbyaccident is permanently blocked on Swedish Wikipedia for similar reasons (I don't know more, I don't read Swedish). Place Clichy (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the speedy nominations of Category:Ancient Christianity, Category:Early Modern history of Christianity and Category:Late Modern history of Christianity as invalid and stale. Meanwhile @BrownHairedGirl: would you withdraw your opposition to this one, or do you think the group should only go forward together? – Fayenatic London 20:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I think the common term is "late antique": hence Category:Late antique Christianity. This is a transitional period in the East between Roman and Medieval. The equivalent in Ireland is "early Christian"; in Britain "Dark Age". Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't the nom then be changed to Category:Christianity in Late Antiquity ?Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular preference for capitalisation or not. You speak better English than I do. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:08, 29 October 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 associated with oil shale[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 6 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, and per WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure if Alexander Carnegie Kirk, Alexander Selligue and Fredrik Ljungström (not included in this category but should be) will fit in this category any more if renamed. They are engineers who developed shale oil extraction technology, not oil shale researchers. Renaming will exclude also oil shale industrialists and business persons if relevant articles would be created in the future. Beagel (talk) 17:52, 22 October 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:  Relisted at 2018 NOV 5 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 5 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]
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:History of the Aztec civilization[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no longer any Aztec history categories by year. The purpose of the first category is currently ambiguous with its parent Category:Aztec history. – Fayenatic London 17:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Note that the relevant article titles are at History of the Aztecs and Aztec Empire, while Aztec Civilisation redirects to Aztecs, so replacing "Aztec civilization" in the category names by "Aztecs" or "Aztec Empire" could be an option as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • IIUC, the Aztec Empire (1428–1521) covers only part of Aztec history (fl. from 1300), so "Aztec Empire" would not be right for Category:14th century in the Aztec civilization. As for "Aztecs", I don't think e.g. "Category:16th-century disestablishments in the Aztecs" sounds right; if not Aztec Empire, then I suggest we need to retain the chronology category names using "Aztec civilization". – Fayenatic London 19:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The chonological element of this is a bloated tree of thin threads, which needs tidying up. I note there is a speedy rename proposal invovled: perhaps we should await its outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speedy rename of the parent category has already been implemented, it is now Category:History of the Aztecs, but that does really make a difference considering the earlier expanded argumentation of the nominator. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 22 October 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:Parks in Barisal[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) 03:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only one article, and little prospect of significant expansion, since the head article Barisal mentions only 2 other parks. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 19 October 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:Winter Olympic venues by year[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 ALT version specified. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Full list of Winter venues – Original nomination
Full list of Winter and Summer venues, for ALT rename, added on relisting
Nominator's rationale: While only the 2022 category (Category:2022 Winter Olympic venues) uses "Olympic" rather than "Olympics"; all the Summer Olympics use "Olympic". Hence it seems preferable to change (e.g. to Category:2018 Winter Olympic venues etc.) so as to have the same format as for the Summer Olympics (see e.g. Category:2016 Summer Olympic venues). Hugo999 (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For me, the word "Olympics" should stand as a plural. I think for example "2018 Winter Olympic venues" looks wrong as it contains the familiar name "2018 Winter Olympics" but with the 's' missing, so it just looks unfinished. "2018 Winter Olympics venues" seems correct as it describes venues of the "2018 Winter Olympics". Personally I'd prefer to see all the summer categories changed to "???? Summer Olympics venues". I can see that the singular version matches the idea of an "olympic venue" in which the word 'olympic' is an adjective describing the venue, but I think it's more important to retain the familiar plural word "Olympics" in this case. An alternative suggestion would be renaming to "Olympic venues of the 2018 Winter Olympics" but this might seem too wordy. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment While the possessive "Olympics" applies to events so Category:2018 Winter Olympics events as the events are part of the Olympics; the Olympic venues do not belong to the Olympics, but are associated with a particular Olympics; hence the category Category:2016 Summer Olympic venues (with "Olympic" not "Olympics") for venues associated with that Olympics. Hugo999 (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In which case why not just call it "Category:2016 Olympic venues" or "Category:Venues of the 2016 Summer Olympics" Rodney Baggins (talk) 05:43, 17 September 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) 12:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me - support that. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • alt rename "Venues of the xx Olympics" - seems like an acceptable compromise for both sides. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding venues of the Summer Olympics, and 2022, for ALT proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 15:27, 19 October 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:Workhouses in Scotland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Terminology was different in Scotland Rathfelder (talk) 09:23, 19 October 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:Poor law unions in Dorset[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) 03:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. No other categories for counties. Not likely to expand much. Rathfelder (talk) 09:21, 19 October 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:Wikipedia categories named after English composers[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 both Category:Wikipedia categories named after British composers and Category:Wikipedia categories named after English musicians. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Diffusing from British to English for this scheme for eponymously-named categories seems unnecessary right now. These are only created to give a parent to such categories and until there are hundreds in 'British composers', I see no need for such diffusion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, I agree with Oculi, too. Forgive me for failing to include both parents. This is why we have these discussions. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree; Handel was a naturalised British subject (1727), although it could be argued that Thomas Tallis (16th century) was too early to be regarded as British (18th century on) Hugo999 (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This will make a category of 11 items, which is OK. Great Britain existed before it was politically united, so that I see no problem regarding Tallis. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no reason to needlessly shrink and separate sections like this when a larger category will serve effectively the same purpose. SuperChris (talk) 19:00, 27 October 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_October_19&oldid=1073191818"