Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 16 March 18 >

March 17[edit]

Category:Associate wardens of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have any associate-warden categories for other US prisons, and there are no associate- or assistant- or other less-than-full administrator categories for any country in the Category:Prison administrators tree. Moreover, Category:American prison wardens includes associate wardens and other less-than-full positions. With a few minutes of searching in the category's articles, I found Big Boss Man (wrestler), a former corrections officer in Georgia (more likely a guard than any kind of warden), Arthur M. Dollison (associate warden of Alcatraz), and One Man Gang (prison guard in Louisiana). Clearly the rest of this tree doesn't distinguish between full wardens and not-full wardens, so why should Alcatraz? A merged category wouldn't be too large — there are only ten articles between the two categories. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The headnote of the target should (if necessary) be amended to say that it includes associate wardens. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 24 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:Houses in San Clemente, California[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:Houses in San Clemente, California to Category:Buildings and structures in San Clemente, California and Category:Houses in Orange County, California. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. Also merge into Category:Houses in Orange County, California. TM 20:24, 17 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:Upcoming films by language[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 25#Category:Upcoming films by language

Category:Pages with graphs[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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current category names are inaccurate: Template:OSM Location map, for instance, populates Category:Pages with graphs despite producing a map rather than a graph, and Template:Graph:Map produces a map using the Graph extension, thereby populating Category:Pages with graphs but not Category:Pages with maps (and all of this is defined by the software, so it can't be changed). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The current names make it sound like the categories are meant to hold tens or hundreds of thousands of articles, including Cartesian coordinate system and Vienna, Illinois. If we're using a tracking category for a specific technical function, it needs to be named in such a way that people won't think that it belongs on articles where that technical function isn't occurring. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 17 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:Christchurch mosque shootings[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Other than the obvious main article for the category, the only article in the category has been nominated for deletion. Unnecessary category created because of WP:Recentism. wumbolo ^^^ 14:12, 17 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:Films produced by B. F. Zeidman[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 without prejudice against a fresh wider nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only in very rare cases (e.g. Val Lewton, David O. Selznick, Powell and Pressburger) do producers put their own distinctive mark on films. Moviegoers didn't go to see a movie because it was a Zeidman production, nor did critics pay much, if any, attention, so WP:NONDEFINING applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a test case. IMO, most of that category should be cleaned out. A filmography in each producer's article is quite sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nonsensical nomination. What do "critics" have to do with Wikipedia categories? Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that this is the only kind of criticism that should be given significant weight, and the only kind of criticism that belongs in "Criticism" sections. These are the professional reviewers, whose opinions matter much more than random individual fans or a bunch of them (if that were the case, how would we know when they stopped being random individuals and became a critical mass?), and articles should be written with their opinions in mind. Producers seem to be rather minor overall (unless they're putting on Springtime for Hitler), but I don't know a lot about this field, so I won't advocate keep or delete. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the only kind of criticism that belongs in "Criticism" sections" But criticism sections are largely irrelevant to the categorization of any film. Most film-related categories reflect either elements of a film's plot ("set in country X", "set in year X") or the film's production (Film shot in city/state/country X, "produced by company X", "distributed by company X). Critics neither offer the information needed, nor are reliable sources for it. The Aesthetics-related value of a film is their domain. Dimadick (talk) 07:30, 25 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.

People of the Umayyad Caliphate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 11#People of the Umayyad Caliphate

Category:Recipients of the Order of Bernardo O'Higgins[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 both. The contents of each category is listed on the talk page: at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Category:Recipients_of_the_Order_of_Bernardo_O'Higgins and WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Category:Grand_Crosses_of_the_Order_of_Bernardo_O'Higgins--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
When foreign leaders or even diplomats visit Chile, or vice versa, one of these awards is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. First Lady Maria Cavaco Silva of Portugal and Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands are not defined by this award. If you want to see the clutter these categories create at the article level, just look at the train wreck at the bottom of this article. I listified the contents of the category here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yes and yes again - I've seen all too many hyper-cluttered articles like the one you linked. Kudos for taking on this thankless job! Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:17, 17 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:Artsakh[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: convert to disambiguation page. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The page Artsakh itself is a dab, with two primary meanings - the republic and the Armenian name of the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. For the republic we have Category:Republic of Artsakh, while this particular category is actually about the region under its Armenian name which violates WP:NPOV. For the name of the region there's already neutral Category:Nagorno-Karabakh. Brandmeistertalk 18:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while Artsakh has been a province, a kingdom and a republic in the course of times (and thus has three wp articles rather than one), it has always been roughly the same region. The province and the kingdom existed long before the (Russian) name Nagorno-Karabakh was invented. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marco but remove the Republic article from the scope definition. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it should essentially be a container, with subcats and their main articles only. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename or convert to a category dab page. We normally try to make category names at least as unambiguous as article titles so it doesn't make sense to have a category with the same name as an (article space) dab page. DexDor (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be an index page rather than a dab page. This is not about different regions using the same name, but about one region with different articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The maps on the articles show they are about different geographical areas (albeit in the same region of the world). Artsakh currently is a dab - and if it was changed to a SIA (especially a dab-like SIA) (assuming that's what you mean by "an index page") then that would still indicate that it's an ambiguous name (no primary topic) and an hence unsuitable name for a category. DexDor (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The republic consists of a much smaller area, true, but the same applies to Hungary and Austria which are much smaller than before 1918 while we still have categories for Hungary and Austria including their history before 1918. It would have been more convincing if we would have had an overview article about the geographic history of Artsakh in the course of ages, but having a main article is not a mandatory requirement for having a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't really a matter of geography/history; it's a matter of wp categorization - it doesn't make sense for Category:Foobar to be a category (not a redirect) whilst Foobar is a dab page (or dab-like SIA). Either "Artsakh" is ambiguous (in which case it shouldn't be the title of a category) or it has a primary meaning (in which case there shouldn't be a dab page at that location). Are there any other such cases? DexDor (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 9 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:26, 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:Indo-Pacific fauna[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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In enwp we normally categorize things in the  seas/oceans using non-overlapping categories for the Indian Ocean, Pacific etc (see Category:Biota by sea or ocean, Category:Volcanism by ocean and many others).  These categories nominated for deletion are for animals found in a region that overlaps part of the Indian Ocean and part of the Pacific (which is an unnecessary complication to the category structure). How is a person creating a new article about, for example, a fish species found off Madagascar, supposed to know that it should go in this category (as well as the Indian Ocean category)? Note: Until recently these categories were putting a Hawaii category under an Indian Ocean category .
If not deleted then these categories should be renamed because in enwp fauna-by-location categories are normally named "Fauna of Foo" (e.g. "Fauna of Africa" not "African Fauna"). DexDor (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Every species listed in the category has a range of presence +/- equivalent to the Indo-Pacific natural region... therefore what is the advantage in splitting it into two separate categories. (i.e. "Indian" & "Pacific")?
- The "Fauna of the Indian Ocean" cat. not being eligible as a sub-category of the "Indo-Pacific fauna" cat. has nothing to do with whether or not the latter should be maintained, either. --Couiros22 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 10 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we should keep to one regional classification. The current classification separates the Indian Ocean from the Pacific. If another type of classification (e.g. including Indo-Pacific) would become more common, we should abandon the whole current classification and implement the new classification. But I do not think that we are in that stage yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:07, 23 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:Caucasian muhajirs[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: foo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic, in many articles the term "muhajir" is not even mentioned. Note that Muhajir (Caucasus) is a redirect to Circassian genocide but it is also not very clear how the articles in this category are related to the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 17 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 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:Medieval Persia[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. Not many sources cited either — just one, which isn't enough evidence of a pattern of usage in reliable sources to override the numerical tie between editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, there was no medieval kingdom or empire called Persia. Various dynasties ruled various parts of what currently is Iran. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Persia was the English name for the area. This is probably ultimately a reflection of the English having studied ancient Greek. The country was also not called Iran at the time, so that the use of that name is anachronistic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Name of Iran, the terms Iran and Persia describe the same geographic area. Persia is attested since the 5th century BC, and Iran since the 3rd century AD. However, "Persia" is mostly an exonym, while Iran is an endonym. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting article. I'd always assumed - incorrectly, it seems - that the name Persia came from a Hellenisation of the word Parthian. Grutness...wha? 11:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Peterkingiron said, "Persia" is just the English term for the area. The only thing that needs to be looked at here is English usage. A quick glance at google books establishes that "Medieval Persia" is perfectly common. Nor is it outdated, being the title of a 2105 monograph published with Routledge. "Medieval Iran" is a valid synonym, but apparently a slightly less common one. There is no reason to use the deletion process to go out of our way and replace a mainstream term with a slightly less common but acceptable synonym. --dab (𒁳) 06:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 17 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per nomination, Persia is not the medieval English term for the area. Instead, Iranian intermezzo, Samanid Empire and dynasties ruling various parts of Iran (see e.g. Saffarid dynasty) are the English terms. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Please use the standard English term used for this time period. Otherwise we'd be forced to abandon the use of "Danzig" for all of history, rather than just post-1945, or we'd have to rename Category:Zaire to something like "Congo under Mobuto". Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that there has never been a medieval kingdom or empire that was called Persia or Iran in any language including English, nor was there a medieval kingdom or empire of which the area slightly resembled what we later have been calling Persia or Iran. Some of them (e.g. Ak Koyunlu) were not even ruled by Iranian people, but by Turkic people. Persia or Iran as a country by itself did not emerge any earlier than in the Early Modern period under the Safavid dynasty. Not surprisingly the source mentioned by User:Dbachmann covers the whole Early Modern period as well. Both Persia and Iran are anachronistic in the Middle Ages, and the only reason for renaming the category is the fact that we allow current (anachronistic) country names in the tree of Category:Middle Ages by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For one thing, it depends how you define "medieval". Can it include as early as 636, or are you restricting it to the time period after the death of the last Zoroastrian king in 651? Unless "medieval" only includes the Islamic period, you have to account for the concept of Sassanid Persia. Also, if you're only looking at the Islamic period, it's important to explain why "Persia" is appropriate for classical times and late antiquity, and why it's appropriate for the early twentieth century, but not for a significant time period in the middle. And finally, as noted above, this need not be linked to 21st-century political boundaries or the late antique "ancestors" of those boundaries; the point is that the region is known as "Persia", regardless of who controlled what countryside. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Persia not Iran pre-1935, when the Shah said use "Iran". That is the term used in English, regardless of what was used in the country. We don't use "Deutschland", "España", "Italia", etc. just because the people of Germany, Spain, and Italy call their countries by those names. This is an English language site and in times before 1935, in English, the country is called Persia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:34, 22 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:Weekly events[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. At first glance, this was a close call with no consensus ... but the existence of Category:Recurring events with subcats for other time periods including the recently kept Category:Daily events (see CFD 2019 February 17) means that there would need to be some persuasive reason to make weekly events an exception, and those arguments were not clearly made, let alone clearly endorsed. So the result has to be keep.
However, there is some dispute about what the scope of the category should be, and that may need further discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia has literally thousands of articles about things that happen weekly, but only a few things have actually been filed here at all: a subcategory for club nights, a protest, a public ceremony and a political debating process. This is not a useful or defining point of commonality between these four things, but populating it out would make it indiscriminate and unmaintainable as Wikipedia has literally thousands of articles about things that occur weekly. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the parent is Category:Recurring events which is broken down by periodicity i.e. daily, weekly, monthly, annually, biennial etc. I actually don't think there are thousands of articles about weekly events, most just wouldn't warrant an article, more likely just a section of another article. Tim! (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have re-added weekly newspapers and magazines which were removed by the nominator prior to the nomination. Tim! (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers and magazines are not "events", and have exactly zero business being in a category with the word "events" in its name. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having thousands of articles in a category (and its subcategories) is certainly not a reason for deletion. Unlike the daily events category (which has issues I'm not sure are solvable - is Breakfast a daily event?), this one certainly seems reasonable to maintain. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:TRIVIALCAT. None of the subcategories belong here: Category:Club nights and Category:Observances by weekday do not belong here because they are not weekly (e.g. Bang Face is monthly), Category:Weekly journals‎, Category:Weekly magazines and Category:Weekly newspapers do not belong here because they are not events. Also article Church service does not belong here, there are more than enough churches where you have daily services. So that leaves three articles with virtually no commonality with each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's reasonable to include content closely related to weekly events in a category of this sort; it's for concepts related to weekly events, not a closed list of specific events. That being resolved, the category becomes appropriate, even if it weren't appropriate before. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 17 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_17&oldid=1147383734"