Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 19 February 21 >

February 20[edit]

Category:Ecclesiastical basilicas[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:Basilica churches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to reduce ambiguity. Ecclesiastical basilicas is a rare term, perhaps even a made-up term. The main article is at Basilica and this category apparently refers to the third meaning of Basilica according to the numbering in the lead of the article. So Category:Basilicas (disambiguator) is the clearest form. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2019 (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:Municipalities of the Republic of Macedonia[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: speedy close, the nomination was clearly a mistake as recognized by nominator. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Content has been moved to Category:Municipalities of the Republic of North Macedonia Johndavies837 (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the contents should be moved back as this is already at cfd. Moreover Johndavies837 should be rebuked for emptying a category undergoing cfd. Oculi (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake. I saw the cfd for Republic of Macedonia and didn't realize it included subcategories.Johndavies837 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted the out-of-process emptying of the category by @Johndavies837.
Sadly, @Johndavies837's claim that they didn't realise the category was at CFD is a completely implausible. John could not have selected the category's contents for editing without visiting the category page, where there was a prominent CFD notice saying "This category is being considered for renaming to Category:Municipalities of North Macedonia". That same notice will have been visible to John when he made several edits to the category page, which I have also reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting my changes, BrownHairedGirl. I had a bunch of Macedonia tabs open and, while switching through them, I saw a list that needed to be updated and went to work. I saw the CfD notice while doing that but it confused me because the nomination is for "Category:Republic of Macedonia", not "Category:Municipalities of the Republic of Macedonia". I thought the nomination was for a different category. I should have been more careful before making a large number of changes. Apologies. I haven't done a lot of editing yet. I realized my error when I was finished. But I have no stake in what the name ends up being and the CfD is overwhelmingly in favor of a name change.Johndavies837 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2019 (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.

Association football in 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: Rename all. Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
70 more YYYY–YY in Republic of Ireland football
Nominator's rationale: per Category:Association football in Ireland.
"Football" is an ambiguous term Ireland, because Gaelic football is also a popular sport here; by some measures, Gaelic football is twice as popular as association football in Ireland . (See e.g. Fig 5.4 on page 45 of the 2003 ESRI report: "The Social Significance of Sport" 34% of people had attended attend a Gaelic football matches in the previous 12 months, vs 16% attending a soccer match). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, to match parent article and unambiguous/standard naming conventions. GiantSnowman 15:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gaelic football is organised on an All-Ireland basis while association football is divided into two jurisdictions (RoI and NI). Very few Gaelic football articles/categories would even use the term "Republic of Ireland" because of this. Gaelic football is played only in Ireland at a serious level and is virtually unknown about even in neighbouring England. There is no serious need to disambiguate here. In over 15 years editing Wikipedia, I've never found a single Gaelic football article/category mistakenly place in a "Republic of Ireland football" category or vice versa. Their is now accurate way to determine which code is more popular. The report BHG cites is over a decade old and does not take into account the massive TV audience in Ireland that watches the Premier League. Djln Djln (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The head category is Category:Association football in Ireland, and it is a long-standing principle of en.wp categories that the category names should be consistent.
It doesn't matter which type of football is more popular. What does matter is both variants of football are very popular, and that creates the ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: I would support amending the names of some of these categories. Basically the ones without a year or season in their title. There is no need to disambiguate a category when there is no other similar named category in existence. Seasonal and yearly categories for Gaelic football do not have "Irish", "Republic of Ireland" or "Northern Ireland" in their titles because Gaelic football is only played in Ireland and on All Ireland basis. Changing all these category names is a bit pointless. Many of the alternative titles you propose are long winded, add a layer of confusion and are completely unnecessary. Djln Djln (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Djln, the names used for association football are a WP:ENGVAR issue.
But within each country, the same considerations apply, so the policy is that we apply the principle of WP:CONSISTENCY.
I am not aware of any other country where this policy is breached by using one name is used for the national parent categories, and a different name for the subcats. Are you?
We can have separate discussion about inconsistencies in the Gaelic football categories, if you or anyone else wants to nominate them. But this discusison is about the association football categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: No thanks, I've offered my opinion and cast my vote. We need to wait a week or so and see what other editors. Djln Djln (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:NOTVOTE.
  2. WP:Consensus#Determining_consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.".
Saying no thanks to policy and guidelines simply means that closing admin is obliged to give little weight to that editor's recommendation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 25 February 2019 (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.

Secretaries of State (UK)[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 Category:Secretaries of State for War and the Colonies (UK) to Category:Secretaries of State for War and the Colonies; no consensus about the others (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main proposal ALT-1:
Nominator's rationale: expanding "UK" to "United Kingdom" could have been eligible for speedy renaming under WP:C2B, see Wikipedia:Category names#How_to_name_the_country. However, one of them was opposed on the Speedy page by user:Le Deluge and user:Armbrust, on the basis that the current designation should be used. Against that argument, the convention within Category:British Secretaries of State is to use the formal historical title. @BrownHairedGirl and Rathfelder: pinging you as the other participants.[2] In the case of Secretary of State for Air, Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, there is no need for the qualifier, as these have only been used as British ministerial titles.
I would definitely oppose ALT-3, since British is a POV demonym for the UK, and there is no need to bring it in here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not then rename Category:British Secretaries of State and the 7 sibling subcats which use 'British' (such as Category:British Secretaries of State for Dominion Affairs) in this cfd? The general rule is that subcats should follow the head category. Oculi (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This said, a higher category is Category:Government ministers of the United Kingdom, different again. Oculi (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- There is a lot of advantage in keeping category names short. UK is a well understood abbreviation. I suspect there are only a few countries which use this title for ministers. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: UK is the internationally recognised 2-letter code for Ukraine. As such it's definitely ambiguous. As such, I'd say the current name definitely needs to change, though I've no opinion as to which of the options given above is the best. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT-2. Unambiguous and it's always best to avoid abbreviations in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the first 5, including all ALTs". The current titles are concise and precise.
ALT1 adds un-needed verbosity.
ALT2 reduces precision, and risks confusion with similarly-named categories for other countries
ALT2 adds verbosity, and significantly differentiates the category titles from the articles.
So for the first 5 cats, this is a solution in search of a problem.
However I do support Category:Secretaries of State for War and the Colonies (UK) to Category:Secretaries of State for War and the Colonies. That is such a uniquely British title that it needs no disambiguation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 15 March 2019 (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:Regions of West Africa by country[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no reason for this category to exist. It has exactly ONE subcat, Category:Regions of Ghana (which I've already added to Category:Regions of Africa by country). I was hoping there were some other "Regions of" categories that could be added, but I checked out every country in West Africa, and NONE of them have such categories. (And surprise, surprise - this was created by a banned editor, User:Stanleytux. "The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts." <sigh>) Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double merge to Category:Regions of West Africa and Category:Regions of Africa by country. This category contains one subcat and two lists; the lists would belong in a category like this, but that's still only three members which is too small to justify this category. @Anomalous+0: please do not nominate categories for deletion when they could usefully be merged; deletion is different, it removes all the members from the parent hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 09:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I was mindful of that issue, which is why I added Category:Regions of Africa by country as a parent for Category:Regions of Ghana. However, I've just discovered that there actually ARE more "Regions of" categories -- they just weren't properly situated in the "Geography of" categories for their respective countries. I've already found and added two more subcats to Category:Regions of West Africa by country. I am therefore Withdrawing this nomination entirely, so feel free to close it out. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2019 (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.

Association football in Northern 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
72 more "YYYY–YY in Northern Ireland football" cats
Nominator's rationale: per Association football in Northern Ireland/Category:Association football in Northern Ireland. "Football" is an ambiguous term in Northern Ireland, because Gaelic football is also a popular sport there.
Note that in a few cases, the renaming includes a change from "Northern Irish" to "Northern Ireland", because only a minority of people in Northern Ireland identify as "Northern Irish" (see Northern Ireland#Citizenship_and_identity and its use for Category:People from Northern Ireland per WP:CFD 2009 January 7). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 10:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, to match parent article/category names and reflect standard naming for Northern Irish/Ireland pages. GiantSnowman 10:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gaelic football is organised on an All-Ireland basis while association football is divided into two jurisdictions (RoI and NI). Very few Gaelic football articles/categories would even use the term "Northern Ireland" because of this. Gaelic football is played only in Ireland at a serious level and is virtually unknown about even in neighbouring England. There is no serious need to disambiguate here. In over 15 years editing Wikipedia, I've never found a single Gaelic football article/category mistakenly place in a "Northern Ireland football" category or vice versa. That said articles using "Northern Irish" should use "Northern Ireland" Djln Djln (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The head category is Category:Association football in Northern Ireland, and it is a long-standing principle of en.wp categories that the category names should be consistent.
It doesn't matter which type of football is more popular. What does matter is both variants of football are very popular, and that creates the ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, in accordance with parent article/category names and convention for Northern Irish/Ireland pages. Oculi (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2019 (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:Pornographic film actors with HIV/AIDS[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. Closing statement added later If the category is deleted, the parent category can be deleted per C1, meaning that DexDor's weak opposition can either be discounted or used as a weak support, since they clearly agreed to delete both. This weighing, combined with the different references to policies and guidelines, leads me to finding consensus to delete Category:Pornographic film actors with HIV/AIDS. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC) 07:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an odd category intersection; aside from this category and one of its parents, Category:Sex workers with HIV/AIDS, I'm not aware of any other "<People in occupation> with <health condition>" categories Trivialist (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The people in that mesothelioma category are notable for a variety of occupations. Also, that's less likely to affect how the person does the job. DexDor (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have Cat:PFA under Cat:SW so if we have Cat:SWwH/A it makes sense to also have Cat:PFAwH/A (unless you can show it's not relevant for the actors). DexDor (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. We have Cat:PFA under Cat:SW so if we have Cat:SWwH/A it makes sense to also have Cat:PFAwH/A (unless you can show it's not relevant for the actors). Or delete both this and Cat:SWwH/A. DexDor (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is an odd category nomination, not "an odd category intersection". Seriously, the health (i.e. STDs) of Pornographic film actors is a longstanding issue, for fairly obvious reasons. Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being an issue doesn't necessarily mean it's a defining characteristic. DexDor (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If the person gets coverage, they'd get coverage for this as well. It is something people may search for. Dream Focus 00:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coverage and something that people may search for are weak criteria for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the only reason people would use them. Dream Focus 20:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We require categories to be based on defining characteristics per WP:DEFINING, in order to avoid that articles are being categorized by an endless list of minor characteristics that 'people may search for'. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2019 (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:Luxdorph family[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 9#Category:Luxdorph family

Category:USAAF Second Air Force Group Training Stations[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 with parent and siblings at CFD 2019 February 27. – Fayenatic London 14:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A now departed, banned user, Bwmoll3, set up a this category with a reference. The reference was R. Frank Futrell, “The Development of Base Facilities,” in The Army Air Forces in World War II, vol. 6, Men and Planes, ed. Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate, 142 (Washington, D.C., Office of Air Force History, new imprint, 1983). There are six pages in the category. I do not believe that whether these bases were Second Air Force group training installations is a defining characteristic of their existence, in line with WP:CATDEF. I asked Lineagegeek to comment, and he said "It sounds more like a subject for a list to me than a category. Just trying out brackets: Category:First Air Force Group Training Stations, Category:Third Air Force Group Training Stations. Category:Fourth Air Force Group Training Stations, Category:I Troop Carrier Command Group Training Stations would be direct equivalents in mission and time, but don't exist. Of the few bases put in this category two are listed under names they never had (common problem Nowadays the US Army has Army Airfields: during WW II it had Army Air Fields), and two more are listed under more recent civilian names (which in itself tells me that support for a "defining characteristic" is weak). The use of the term "group training station" also implies some sort of defining characteristic between group training stations and squadron or wing training stations (which I doubt exists). I see no reason for the category. If this were to appear on a delete category page, I'd support". Thus I've listed this category for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although Buckshot has listed my comment already, I support the upmerge to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces Second Air Force. As far as a further upmerge, I'd like to see more discussion before adding my thoughts, but I'm nclined to think that would go too far. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DexDor thankyou; given Lineagegeek's comments re listification above, I now propose all three categories be deleted and turned into a proper list article, with the associated reference. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2019 (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/2019_February_20&oldid=891640702"