Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 17 July 19 >

July 18[edit]

Category:Trade associations based in the Philippines[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 Category:Industry trade groups based in the Philippines‎ to Category:Trade associations based in the Philippines. MER-C 08:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only country with categories for both trade associations and industry trade groups. Industry trade groups is more common. Rathfelder (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge, the terms trade association and industry trade group are clearly synonymous. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to standardise on one or the other. I dont know if there are local usage issues, but there isnt anything obvious. A Trade group sounds a bit less well organised and less permanent than a trade association. Rathfelder (talk) 15:19, 19 July 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:Furniture manufacturers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 2#Category:Furniture manufacturers

Category:Prince primates[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: empty and disambiguate. All current members of the category are in one of the two targets already. – Fayenatic London 21:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NONDEF. In contrast to prince-bishops who were the actual rulers of their own territory, prince-primate was merely a secondary title of the archbishops of Esztergom. They did not rule their own territory. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the leaders of the Confederation of the Rhine now have their own subcategory, the issue with the Hungarian prince-primates has remained unchanged. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- With the possible exception of the Rhenish rulers, there should be no articles in this category, merely an Esztergom subcat. Alternatively, this should be a cat-redirect to Esztergom with an otheruses template for the Rhenish rulers. No decided view. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 25 July 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:The Wack Pack[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. MER-C 08:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Little more than a WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 13:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, most of these people seem to be uniquely tied to one particular show. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These people are (strongly) associated with Wack Pack and as such are linked in both directions in a way that is much better (e.g. with an explanation and references) than category links. Categorization is for grouping similar articles (e.g. in Category:American female bodybuilders), but is not necessary to link together associated articles. DexDor (talk) 18:29, 19 July 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.

Yearly college football standings 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. MER-C 09:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bring categories in line with yearly parents categories, which don't specify "NCAA", per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 22#Proposal to regionalize the pre-1956 NCAA football independents templates and elsewhere. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Many major football programs listed in these templates were not NCAA members in the early days. "College football" is more accurate. Ostealthy (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Ostealthy. Cbl62 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above Corky 13:31, 23 July 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:Mayors of Lodi[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. MER-C 12:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguating; clarifying from mayors of Lodi, California or Lodi, New Jersey – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 16:22, 18 July 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:Freedmen[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. There is definitely scope for clarification of these categories per the comments below, but this nomination is not it, and a new proposal should be bought accordingly. MER-C 10:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unclear distinction fgnievinski (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge either way and leave a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Freedmen is the historical terms for slaves who were subjects of manumission. Merge "former slaves" to that one. Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, the article Freedman suggests that freedmen are merely a subset of former slaves:
In the United States, the terms "freedmen" and "freedwomen" refer chiefly to former slaves emancipated during and after the American Civil War by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. Slaves freed before the war (usually by individual manumissions, often in wills) were generally referred to as "Free Negroes" or free blacks. In addition, there was a population of black Americans born free.
Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The term is also used in relation to Ancient Rome, where governmental officers of the Emperor Claudius (for example were Freedmen. There will also be equivalent categories to free negroes in the British West Indies. Whatever the outcome (and I have no view what it should be), it needs to take account of all these. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A "former" slave may also have escaped, not necessarily have been legally freed, which is technically what a freedman is. Although most people in Category:Former slaves probably need to be moved to Category:Freedmen. Category:Freed slaves would be a better name for the latter in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 29 July 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:Grawemeyer Award winners[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. MER-C 12:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, the award is not comparable to e.g. the Nobel prize, for most recipients it is just one of many prizes they got. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- yet another NN OCAWARD case. No need to listify as the main article has one. Four to five such awards are given by Uninversity of Louisiana annually. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 25 July 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_July_18&oldid=916425635"