Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 6 October 8 >

October 7[edit]

Recurring events until 1800[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) 23:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, nearly all these categories contain only one article and/or one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline says part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme - which means that it is not permitted to nominate one or a few subcategories of an overall scheme that happen to be small just by chance while adjacent siblings are big enough to keep. The guideline makes perfect sense, but is not applicable here: it is the scheme itself that is being discussed (up to a certain point), not random parts of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not random because before 1800 the categories are consistently small. With the proposed merge Smithfield Show will remain in the 1799 tree and it will remain in the agricultural shows tree hence in the tree of recurring events. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can always discuss the period of 1800-1850 in a later stage if you wish. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact the large amount of these (ancient, medieval and early modern) recurring events are festivals and the festivals are already diffused by time. So there is no real need to create a parallel recurring events tree for older centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 5 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) 12:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a comprehensive system which admittedly has led to small categories. It is very difficult to 'undo' large comprehensive systems without making errors. Oculi (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you mean? Does the nomination contain errors? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not an error. In contrast to e.g. Festival, a recurring event is a very weak concept (e.g. there is no article Recurring event) and should only be used as a container category for grouping a large number of subcategories. If there is not a large number of subcategories with recurring events by year of establishment, the content should simply be put in the corresponding general establishments category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this nomination achieves nothing and hinders navigation. Tim! (talk) 16:39, 15 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.

Observances by calendar[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/no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, almost every calendar coincides with a particular country, a particular region, or a particular religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are comments about the target categories. Happy to discuss them at some other occasion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of the proposed categories' members are religious. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Observances on non-Gregorian calendars on procedural grounds, as you've not specified something to do with the individual articles within the category. Propose something to do with them, or advance an argument why we shouldn't have them in any category of this sort, and I'll be willing to strike this vote. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The individual articles are scheduled according to a country calendar or religious calendar that does not have its own subcategory yet (most of them Buddhist). The articles are not different from the subcategories in this respect. As the articles are already in the right country or religion category, they do not have to be in a calendar category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose at least in part Looking at Category:Observances set by the Hebrew calendar, there are holidays set by the Israeli government whose dates are determined according to the Hebrew calendar, but which are not holy days, as for example Jabotinsky Day. I'm afraid this is going to have to be addressed on a category-by-category basis. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in part -- Coptic and Ethiopian festivals should not be necessarily merged to Christian ones, since these independent churches are liable to have festivals that differ from those of the Catholic (and Protestant) and Orthodox traditions. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 30 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) 12:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw, it is apparent that this nomination needs to be split. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 11 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.

Medieval 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: no consensus . Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more nominations with one merge target
more nominations with two merge targets
more nominations to delete decades
Nominator's rationale: merge years to centuries per WP:SMALLCAT, the large majority of categories contain only one article. The tree of years in Ireland is a bit special because most content consists of articles like 1101 in Ireland. Categories that only contain an article like that require just one merge target, namely (in this example) Category:1101 in Europe; it does not require a dual merge to Category:12th century in Ireland because it is already in Category:Years of the 12th century in Ireland. Note for closing admin: the categorization of articles like 1101 in Ireland is controlled by Template:Year in Ireland. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 1 For the two merge candidates, why is there a second candidate (the century)? Each of the "by year" already has the "by decade" as a parent. Isn't that the correct lowest level of diffusion? Why introduce the century when each "by decade" already has "by century" as a parent? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 2 Why single out Ireland for "by decade" deletions? Why about other European countries in the same period, for example, Category:1110s in Germany which has a single article? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel Lodged, IIRC, there was a much larger CfD for most of Europe months ago, and one of the criticisms there was to split up by country first. A few hundred at a time are better than thousands, and better than multiple country-specific nuances to geo-political self-identification.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment once again the nom is trying to do too much at once. I think we should keep decades in Ireland. Furthermore, I am not wholly convinced of the merits of merging national events to a continent-wide category, such as I deplore these thin thread categories. Might it be better to abolish the templates that create such trees? I suspect the nom has thought this out carefully, but I cannot support this nom without a clear assurance that the requisite checks have been done to ensure that no articles are left partly orphaned. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am largely on the same page as Laurel Lodged and Peterkingiron - in that I don't understand why Ireland-specific cats alone are in scope, or why we are trying to do 25 different things at once here. There may be scope to declutter some of this area - for example by merging the contents of the year-specific cats (like Category:1180 in Ireland) to the decade-level cats (like Category:1180s in Ireland). But I have a problem with the targets proposed here (Category:12th century in Ireland and Category:1180 in Europe) for two reasons. The Ireland-specific target (Category:12th century in Ireland) will immediately become over-populated. And the Europe-level target (Category:1180 in Europe) seems too broad and loosely related to the subjects to represent an appropriate target (specifically I am unsure that we should be applying the modern boundaries and concepts of a European macro-region to 12th century subjects. I suspect that if you asked a 12th century Irish person about even the *concept* of Europe that they would look at you sideways. Yes, we ball-up these categories hierarchically today. But actually putting the sub-articles/etc in the macro-level cat? Not seeing it....) Guliolopez (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply on 1st criticism: in fact with this proposal there will not be over-population at all! If you check the nomination carefully, you will see that Category:12th century in Ireland will end up with about 10 articles directly in it, and so on for every next century. The centuries will in fact become very modestly populated. Note also that Ireland is not singled out this way: by far the most countries have century trees in the Middle Ages.
Reply on 2nd criticism: regarding Category:1180 in Europe as a merge target, while diffusion by continent may well be abolished (i.e. just have a Category:1180) that would require another nomination; however for the time being Category:1180 in Europe it is the immediate parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 23 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) 12:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In the past, I have supported many similar nominations. However, after processing many of them and wrestling with the resulting complexity, I had a rethink when I last encountered such a nom, earlier this year before my WikiBreak. I came to the view that these merges are actually mistaken.
The rationale per WP:SMALLCAT, the large majority of categories contain only one article is of course true. It accuately states the guideline and accurately describes the state of these categories.
But it doesn't consider the fact these country-by-year categories are all accompanied by an effective navigation system which allows easy movemnent between them. Hence the main problem with smallcats (i.e. that they impede navigation) doesn't apply. These categories are actually way easier to navigate thatn most heavily-populated categories.
So the reason for merger doesn't really apply.
Also, merger does actual harm. Because categorising articles from this period now requires two or three categories instead of one. Editors used to categorising by year will now have figure out what set of categories to apply, and many of them won't bother figuring out the new logic. So we will get incomplete categorisation, which is a real impediment to navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You just figured this now? The mergers over the last couple of years have been a pain in the ass, and I have increasing trouble with actually locating articles. Dimadick (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am equally surprised. Merger per WP:SMALLCAT normally always implies increasing the number of category links in an article, regardless whether the article is about history or about anything else. Should we then have a complete stop on all smallcat merge proposals? Likewise, categorization of every article implies you have to look where it fits in multiple trees. That is also not different in history than with any other topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Marcocapelle: it seems to me that you were a little hasty in responding. You seem to have missed the point of what I wrote.
The issue with merging smallcats is a trade-off between the navigational difficulties caused by tiny categories, nad the hassles of articles needing multiple cats to replace one.
My point is that in the case of by-year categories' (and some other types which we are not discussing here), the navigational tools in use minimise or eliminate the downsides of small categories. That does not apply to many types of smallcats. but it does apply consistently to by-year categories.
So the result is that smallcat mergers of by-year categories are all pain, for little or no gain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS @Marcocapelle: take a look e.g. at Category:1494 in Ireland, which you have proposed upmerging. It has excellent navigation to related categories. Per WP:CAT, categories are all about navigation, so pease explain exactly how the purpose of helping readers navigate between articles would be improved by removing that category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that Ireland navigates better than many other countries in the same period did. Nevertheless three categories per century (the century itself with ~10 articles, the establishment subcat with ~15 articles and the years of century subcat with ~100 articles) navigate far easier than a hundred different categories per century. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Petscan shows 374 articles in Category:15th century in Ireland+subcats, or 363 if we exclude establishments and disestablishments. If we exclude establishments and disestablishments and YYYY-in-Ireland, there are 300 pages.
If you are that far out on the numbers, little wonder you have a different perspective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: Petscan also shows 15th-century people which are not part of the nomination. The counts of about 10/15/100 are directly based on the nomination, see above. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all Am satisfied with the nominator's explanations to my questions. The proposals are an improvement on the situation. Multiple categories may be painful for editors to create but are better for overall navigation instead of a multiplicity of categories that will usually only contain 1 article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: That assumes that editors will know which 3 categories to use in each case, instead of the one category they need to use now. If editors consistent;y understood these things, we wouldn't have 50–100 article per day triggering an entry in Special:WantedCategories.
If editors don't place each article in the complex set of categories which this merger will require for each article, then many readers simply won't find the articles. Making articles simple to categorise assists readers, because it increases the chances that article will be correctly categorised.
What methodology do you and/or @Marcocapelle propose to ensure that new articles are properly categorised in the new multi-cats-on-each-article structure which you propose? And can you point to some record of how this strategy is being consistently and effectively applied across the other sets of categories which have been merged.
Are you running bots, or some set of AWB runs with custom modules? Or armies of volunteers manually checking?
So far as I can see, there is no such scheme in operation to monitor any of the previous merges ... and this merger proposal is based on the demonstrably false assumption that most editors have a perfect knowledge of the latest quirks of the category system, and limitless time to monitor it. The reality of a wiki is very different. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When editors categorize articles, they always have to look first which categories currently exist because nobody will know the whole category structure by heart and besides the category structure is not static: new categories are being created all the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I note you chose not to address my question about what methodology you use to check that new articles are correctly categorised in all 3 categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did implicitly. For existing articles, the CfD bot will do its work. For new articles, I'm assuming that all categorization is manual work. Best case, editors take a similar existing article as an example, including its categories, but there is no way we can control that. Of course, if you know of any more consistent methodology that ensures that articles are in all appropriate categories (in general), I'd be glad to know. Not only the history tree would benefit from that, but the entire categorization system would. Sidenote: occasionally I have seen instances of (suspected) automated categorization based on a rule: if word "X" occurs in an article, put the article in category "Y"; however I noticed this in cases where the result was obviously very wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, no methodology. Just hope for the best and leave others to devise ways of cleaning up the mess :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- One solution to BHG's complaint might be to leave cat-redirects, to tell editors what the correct categories for "1494 in Ireland" would be. I still think we should initially merge to "1490s in Ireland". I am not sure how useful "1494 in Europe" will be, rather than the simple "1494". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree on the latter. Once I've nominated the period up to 500 and later on also the period 500-999 for removing the continent layer in years and decades. It may become time to add the period 1000-1499 as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: redirects wouldn't help much, because they would lead to population of only one the multiple categories which replaces them after merger. They may even be worse than nothing, because editors would be misled into thinking that applying "1494 in Ireland" would be sufficient. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this achieves nothing apart from hindering navigation. Tim! (talk) 16:35, 15 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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 19#Category:Winter Olympic venues by year. – Fayenatic London 15:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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:Prayers in the Catholic 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: rename to Category:Roman Catholic prayers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was originally called Category:Roman Catholic prayers, and it was requested to be speedily moved to Category:Catholic prayers. This was objected to, and with just one commenter and the nominator it was moved to its present title. But it should not have been a speedy nomination in the first place, even though the original proposal is the best option. It was argued that the main article is Prayer in the Catholic Church, but that is about prayer in general, whereas this is a category of specific prayers. Also, the prayers are not "in the Catholic Church" (whatever that means) but said by Catholics - hence, using "Catholic" as an adjective is the best option here. StAnselm (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, in general, but I am inclined to make an exception for matters concerning liturgy, because that is where you find the one key difference between western and eastern Catholics. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment On one level I support the rename, but it's unclear to me what the scope of this is. If it's prayers used in the RC Church, then it's too small and would overlap with other church's categories; if it's prayers of RC origin, well, I think that's better but this would need to be made clear. Mangoe (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert move to original name Category:Roman Catholic prayers, to avoid ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's kind of an archaic assertion on Wikipedia these days. The main conflict now seems to be when "Latin Church" categorisation is actually relevant and when it's not, whereas some propose the adjective "Latin Church" is "Roman Catholic". Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The partial success of your attrition strategy does not alter in either direction the ambiguity of the unqualified term "Cathoic". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:28, 10 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) 11:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming back to the issue of ambiguity, the alternative proposal Category:Prayers in the Latin Church or Category:Prayers of the Latin Church certainly does not lead to ambiguous names. Just generally, I think we should avoid "Roman Catholic" anyhow (as too ambiguous), and we should avoid "Catholic" and "Catholicism" unless we mean that it includes independent Catholic churches. In many cases we should use "of the Catholic Church" instead of "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" and in rare instances a "Latin Church" subcategory may be created (while this nomination is imho such a rare instance). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely need to avoid "in the Church". "Of the Church" is a bit better, but it implies an official, authorised prayer, which many of these are not. Reading through the discussion, I'm inclined to go back to the stable, consensus version of Category:Roman Catholic prayers. StAnselm (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: The point is that this spirituality is not essentially a product of the Church or organised by the Church, but a matter of individual believers, writers or clerics. The believers pray, not the Church. Place Clichy (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Praying definitely is a matter of sprirituality, but these prayers are part of the liturgical tradition of the Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm, Chicbyaccident, Place Clichy, Mangoe, and BrownHairedGirl: trying to revive this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to move quite clearly towards a consensus for a revert move to Category:Roman Catholic prayers, especially since nominator ​ seems to condone this result ([1]). StAnselm, I suggest you make this change of position even clearer by mentioning it in the lead. Place Clichy (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert move to original name Category:Roman Catholic prayers, to reduce ambiguity. Chicbyaccident's repeated assertions that Roman Catholic is archaic do not make it so. (A Google search on "Roman Catholic" 2018 gets 34 million hits, with 140,000 in en.wikipedia.) Oculi (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    None has said it is archaic from a statistical approach outside of Wikipedia. Neither is "papist". A search on the Internet for "papist" will render 100,000s and 100,000s of hits. However, none of these desginations are applied on Wikipedia as an accepted WP:COMMONNAME for the whole Catholic Church. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it is archaic on Wikipedia despite the endless submissions to cfd on the topic and the presence of the term throughout articles (as many articles have been renamed but include 'Roman Catholic' throughout the text, eg Catholic Church includes the phrase "Roman Catholic" 21 times, archaically), but not archaic outside Wikipedia? (A search on "papist" 2018 gives 27,000 ghits. Note the 2018.) Oculi (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Submissions recent years seem to contradict your assertion, don't they? "Roman Catholic" for the whole church is archaic also in terms of article text content it seems, yes, although some users have made some contributions of maintaince on that. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chicbyaccident's obsession with elininating the term "Roman Catholic" by endless salmai slicing is not eveidence of archaism. It is evidenve of an attrition strategy to push a POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Articles, categories and text content that didn't pertain to the Latin Church but to Catholic Church leaned heavily towards "Catholic" rather "Roman Catholic" long before the proposals of more consistency of me and others. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't seen any evidence to support that. And sorry, @Chicbyaccident, but given your repeated misrepresentation of much simpler and narrower issues at CFD and CFDS, I attach zero weight to your unevidenced assertion of staistics.
The usage in individual articles may be such that the greater specificity of "Roman" is not needed. Or it may be that the editor(s) involved were like you on a mission to eliminate the qualifier.
However, categories appear at the bottom of an article without qualification or explanation, and when editors add categories to an anrticle, no explanation or clarification appears. So in category titles the extra clarity of "Roman" is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the arguments have been repeated ad nauseam. Let's just conclude that your position reflects a minority view. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course free to conclude whatever you like, but I decline your invitation to follow. I suggest instead: let's conclude that you are confusing the partial success of your attrition strategy with a consensus in favour of your preferred position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "minority view" comment is clearly a joke, or, at the very least, wishful thinking. Place Clichy (talk) 00:07, 15 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 Roman Catholic families[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) 23:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Don't really understand. Doesn't the destination category suffice? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. There is no reason to have two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wikipedia one is a tracking category used for maintenance purposes, and as such it is hidden from the category list. It provides a flat list of all such categories, whereas Category:Roman Catholic families is hierarchical.
    All the info in my previous para was available to the nominator, who should have done a little checking before nominating. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 22 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) 11:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these are completely different as the first is a category of categories and the 2nd one is, or should be, a set category. Per BHG, the former yields a flat list of all such categories, whereas Category:Roman Catholic families is a standard hierarchical category of articles. Oculi (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is obvious how the two categories differ, but it is still not clear (to me) why we need both of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have many thousands of other such maintenance cats, so I am v surprised that this one should raise objections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good arguments by BrownHairedGirl. I agree with the user on this. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct that the objection does not apply to this category specifically. Also in previous discussions about maintenance categories, there is seldom a specific answer on the question what maintenance takes place. It is well possible that many maintenance categories exist just because, while nobody knows if any kind of maintenance really takes place. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 11 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.

Conflicts by millennium, century and decade up to 1000 AD[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 OCT 15 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Nominator's rationale: rename/merge as follow-up on this previous discussion. In Antiquity and Middle Ages "conflicts" and "military history" nearly coincide in terms of Wikipedia content. In the previous discussion there was a preference to use the somewhat broader term "military history". This nomination only considers the period up to 1000 AD, because from there on the conflicts tree starts diffusing by year, so for the period of 1000-1499 there will be another follow-up nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim!, Oculi, Icewhiz, and Peterkingiron: pinging discussants in the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support -- This implements my vote for reverse merge on the previous discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and create all the targets as parent categories. There will be articles on military history in the XXXs which are not conflicts. Oculi (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and create all the targets as parent categories. I agree with Oculi's reasoning. Dimadick (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not whether there will be articles on military history in the XXXs which are not conflicts, the question is whether in these distant periods we may expect a reasonable number of articles per category (i.e. per century or per decade) that are not conflicts. Currently that is not the case at all, for example we only have 11 articles about military alliances in the entire antiquity. WP:OVERLAPCAT does not require that categories are 100% overlapping, it just requires a large overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are treaties as well. Look at Category:1957 in military history: there are many items which are neither conflicts nor alliances nor treaties. It is not 'overlapcat' at all - any subcat always overlaps completely with a parent cat. A conflict is best categorised as a conflict. Oculi (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of content in 1957 is entirely incomparable with ancient and medieval times. We have about 60 articles about treaties from the 5th century BC up to the 10th century AD, that is on average 0.3 articles on treaties per decade category. Of course any subcat always overlaps completely with a parent cat but here we have a case that the amount of content of the parent cat almost completely overlaps with one subcat, and this is what WP:OVERLAPCAT is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 24 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) 11:31, 7 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.

Years in Mexico[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 as below and to Category:Aztec Empire. – Fayenatic London 16:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article per category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Aztec Empire - at the time Mexico was referring to the Aztec Empire, not the modern Republic of Mexico.GreyShark (dibra) 06:47, 10 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:Uttar Pradesh Wikipedians[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 action required (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The subcategories of this category have two different naming styles - which one is preferred? This category is for people from a specific state in India. The subcategories take that further down to specific cities within the state. Do we have a need to categorise people this closely, or should we stop at the state level? – numbermaniac 07:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Numbermaniac: I don't think it matters at all what these categories are called.
Even the most populous subcat (Category:Wikipedians in Lucknow) had only 11 pageviews in the last 90 days.
Category:Uttar Pradesh Wikipedians itself has had only 19 pageviews in 90 days, 6 of them since this nom was opened.
So whatever the hopes of the editors who categorise themselves in this way, the reality is that these categories are almost unused. They are simply a byproduct of the prolific work of one editor who has been busy adding categories to userboxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 11 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.

Years and decades in the Maya 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, nearly every category contains only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Marcocapelle you constantly nominate categories for merger under the SMALLCAT criteria. Do you understand that SMALLCAT is NOT referring to a small number of articles within a category right now, but that the category cannot reasonably contain a sufficient number of articles ever? Do you believe that century level for Maya civilization is sufficient? maybe decades level categorization could be well populated as well?GreyShark (dibra) 06:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course by the time the amount of articles on this topic becomes a tenfold of what we have now it will make perfect sense to create decade categories as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments above on #Medieval Ireland. I suggest an RFC on country-by-years categories, where we can consider how dfferent aproaches work in arange of scenarios, rather than tackling individual instances piecemeal. --06:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
  • The navigational situation here is a lot worse than in Ireland above. Navigating from 1507 to 1538 disestablishments is a real pain in the ass. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- These are overly specific categorisations, and an appropriate appeal to WP:SMALLCAT. I think it's unlikely that, say, further Mayan chiefdoms abolished by the Conquistadores in 1547 will be discovered. Reyk YO! 06:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The proposal is an improvement to navigation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Recent consensus is that categories should have at least 5 items in them. The 15th C disest will still only have twoabout three. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this nomination achieves nothing and hinders navigation. Tim! (talk) 16:38, 15 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:Superhero films featuring Anti-Heroes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the entries I reviewed in this category had any discussion of the subjects of the respective films being "anti-heroes", and even if they did, it's unclear that in general the characters being "anti-heroes" rather than superheroes is a defining characteristic. It may be possible to salvage this category with more care, or a list may be more appropriate. I'm happy to entertain better suggestions. Not suggesting an upmerge as I believe all of the films here are already in Category:Superhero films by virtue of other cats. DonIago (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Personally, I think this is too vague and non-defining. What is an anti-hero may be debated by different commentators—it's more of a spectrum than a binary. Wouldn't oppose a list, though. Catrìona (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I agree with Catriona. The criterion is too vague and insufficiently defining. I'm also not sold on the idea of numerous subcats each containing just a handful of articles. Reyk YO! 06:28, 10 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_7&oldid=1073191841"