Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 22 March 24 >

March 23[edit]

Category:Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OCAWARD. Bondegezou (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the key recognition in this genre, and honors historic contributions. Dimadick (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:OCAWARD is against awards leading to categories except for the most notable, those that become defining categories. The text doesn't give any examples, but I presume things like a Nobel prize or an Oscar would count. Once someone wins a Nobel, they get talked about as "Nobel laureate so-and-so". Once someone wins an Oscar, they are forever "Oscar winner so-and-so" (as you see on posters for their new films). I.e., they are defining categories. I'm not certain any award in popular music has quite the same impact. Maybe the Grammies? But it's not induction in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It's a bigger thing in the US, but given much less notice in the rest of the world. But even in the US, it's not a defining category.
Does being a RnRHoF inductee become a defining category? Let's take an example. I looked at Phil Collins, as a musician I like. He's a RnRHoF inductee; he's in the category. I looked at the 10 most recent news items about him on Google News. Not one mentioned his inductee status. One mentioned he was a Grammy winner, although that was a news piece at grammy.com! Phrases that were used about Collins include, "drummer/singer/legend", "“In the Air Tonight” singer/songwriter", "English musician", "musician", "Legendary performer", "Genesis legend", "Genesis drummer and vocalist", and "pop icon". Those are, therefore, defining categories: he's an English singer, drummer and songwriter who used to be in Genesis. RnRHoF induction, is not something "that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" (to quote WP:CATDEF). I didn't see a single mention.
Maybe Phil Collins is just odd. So, I looked in the category at the next name listed. That's Tom Constanten, who I've not heard of before today. Again, I looked at the 10 most recent news items about him on Google News. Again, not one mentioned his inductee status. Phrases used were, "keyboardist", "the only living ex-Grateful Dead-member keyboardist", "avant-garde musician", "original Grateful Dead pianist", "Grateful Dead alum", and "Grateful Dead's". Those are, therefore, defining categories: he's an avant-garde keyboardist who used to be in The Grateful Dead. RnRHoF induction, is not something "that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having".
Next on the list is Paul Cook, who I have heard of! Turns out there's a lot of Paul Cooks, so it took longer to go through a Google News search, but terms I got were "drummer", "surviving member of the Sex Pistols", "of the Sex Pistols" and "Sex Pistols drummer".
Being a RnRHoF inductee is a nice award, a big award, but it doesn't become a defining category that reliable sources commonly and consistently define subjects as having. Ergo, it fails WP:OCAWARD. Bondegezou (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This appears to be another category where there is a physical museum. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Listify per WP:DEFINING etc. DexDor (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This HOF is certainly a more prominent as an attraction in Cleveland and with their annual award show. Looking through the actual articles though, this award mentioned but it's generally given decades after the groups Rock and Roll hits and seems to more reflect the fame of the winners than to produce it. Although performers do cross genres, there's also a decent amount winners I don't consider to be defined by Rock and Roll : N.W.A and Run-DMC are hip hop, Neil Diamond is adult contemporary, Bonnie Raitt is more blues/country. This is certainly a closer call than many other nominations I've made for Halls of Fame, but it still doesn't seem defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:44, 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.

Skateboarders[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 all per nom to sportspeople-from-FooCity, and also to Category:American skateboarders . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: It is consensus per multiple CFD here[1], here[2], here[3], here[4], and here[5] that we don't subcategorize sportspeople by the type of sport they perform. William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep Thank you, William, for the heads up. I did not know about the subcategorization. My one questions is whether skateboarding differs because it is very much a geographic dependent sport? Skaters from NY perform on different terrain than skaters from LA or SF. Thoughts?--Wil540 art (talk) 00:41, 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:Princely 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split/merge, the princely families tree is a very small tree probably because only few princely families consistently remain princely families, as titles may change in the course of centuries. Dynasties and noble families are more general, and equally applicable to the families in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are not many differences between princes and other noble rulers. Dimadick (talk) 15:26, 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:Primates of Eastern Orthodox uncanonical churches[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, uncanonical is not a neutral term, it is from the point of view of the Eastern Orthodox Church. A more neutral term is independent, similar to its parent category and to e.g. List of Christian denominations#Independent Eastern Orthodoxy. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Greenshed (talk) 11:55, 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:Populated places established in 1118[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Populated places established in the 1110s. There is a clear consensus to upmerge, but no consensus on where. Since no reason was offered why an event in 1118 doesn't belong in an extant 1110s category, I am closing as a merge to the 1110s without prejudice to any followup nomination to upmerge the decade categories to the century. Pinging the participants: @Greenshed and Marcocapelle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with the category guidelines, where reliable foundation dates exist, populated place articles should be categorised by year for 1500 and later, by decade from the 1200s to the 1490s, by century from the 10th century BC to the 13th century and by millennium for the 2nd millennium BC and earlier. . Greenshed (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. There is no need for a second merge target because the article is already in Category:1118 establishments in Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Populated places established in the 1110s. There seems to be enough content in the 12th century category to merit a split back to 1100. However the whole tree is somewhat problematic. I found in the 12th century category articles on places founded after 1200 - perhaps due to mistranslation of a foreign article: in Swedish "1200-talet" is 13th century - perhaps similarly in German. The first mention of a place does not support its date of "foundation": it may be much older. In England, several 1000 places are first mentioned in 1086, but most will be centuries older. In this particular case an Abbey was allowed to found a town at its door, so that the date 1118 for the town is correct, though the abbey is apparently older. Douglas, Isle of Man appears in the basis of two passing mentions in chronicles: it may be older, but perhaps only a village, not a town.
    • Comment Fair point but that's more of a problem with how some editors are using the category tree rather than the tree itself. Comments on the most appropriate cut offs are welcome at Category talk:Populated places by period of establishment. When I recently split out the 13th century into decades I found that there were fewer properly categorized articles than a brief inspection of the century category had suggested. If anything that suggests that splitting by decade as far back as the 12th century is unwise but as I say comments are welcome. Greenshed (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since the decade categories of the 13th century are so poorly populated it does not make sense to make the decade split for the 12th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:50, 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.

Category:Biota[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. MER-C 10:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories appear to cover the same topic and hence this is an unnecessary complication in the category structure. Note: Most of the subcats in the Biota category are already in Category:Organisms by location. DexDor (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. Not sure about the substantive merits, but there are plenty of subcats e.g. Category:Biota by continent‎, Category:Biota by country‎. I just checked: 682 subcats used the term "biota. I don't see the sense in renaming the parent category while keeping the rest unchanged.
@DexDor, I suggest that you start a discussion at WT:BIOLOGY or at the village pump, and see if there is a broad consensus for doing this ... and then if there is, doing a mass nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This CFD doesn't propose renaming any categories; it proposes a merge of two categories that have the same scope (nothing more). The convention generally followed in en wp is to use the more scientific terminology ("biota", "fauna" etc) in Foos-of-Foobar (and Endemic-foos-of-Foobar etc) categories and use the less scientific terminology ("organisms", "animals" etc) in other categories (although there are inconsistencies and Foos-of-era categories are currently a mixture) (Example earlier CFD for background) - we don't usually have both (e.g. we have Category:Biota of Africa; we don't also have an "Organisms of Africa" category). A combined biota/organisms category could be at Category:Biota, but that would be less consistent with categories such as Category:Individual organisms. DexDor (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: fair enough. I have struck my oppose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomalous+0, are you ready to commit? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 8 April 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:Anti-Christian sentiment[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 WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 3#Category:Anti-Christian_sentiment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per other subcategories of Category:Antireligion which do not use the word "sentiment". feminist (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sentiment is more accurate title than just anti-X. Also per Dimadick. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:55, 31 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.

1 and 2 article Greek Orthodox church categories[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 all per nominator. @RevelationDirect, please would you be kind enough to implement this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All articles moved, and empty categories tagged for speedy deletion. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION, WP:NARROWCAT, and WP:SMALLCAT
These intersection by denomination/location categories are all 1 or 2 article (or create such with their parent category) and tend to hinder navigation since they break up small groups of articles and none of the target/merge categories are overly large. As far as growth potential, there are some other churches we don't have articles on in most of the categories but too few are notable to foreseeably get to 5 or so articles. With the cathedral categories, there likely is no room for growth outside of Greece. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch; nomination updated. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more, Category:Greek Orthodox cathedrals in Italy does not have to be merged to Category:Greek Orthodox cathedrals when it is already merged to Category:Greek Orthodox cathedrals in Europe.Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also updated! RevelationDirect (talk) 17:27, 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:Recipients of the Order of Zayed[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
When foreign leaders visit the United Arab Emirates, or vice versa, one of these awards is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Naruhito, Crown Prince of Japan and Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani of Qatar 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. The recipients are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 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:Volleyball Hall of Fame inductees[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:DEFINING)
The Volleyball Hall of Fame article lists 140 recipients only a minority of which are redlinks but the category currently just has 2 of them. Clicking through the articles, the award is typically mentioned in a list with other awards and doesn't seem defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Another case where there is a physical museum. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply on yesterday's nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_23&oldid=1073192183"