Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 28 March 30 >

March 29[edit]

Category:League of Ireland U19 Division[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) 22:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Basically empty since it only contains the main article. No similar categories exist (i.e. U19 leagues in other countries). Pichpich (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think the article is categorised well enough for no upmerge to be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 30 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.

Death customs 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: merge all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, Indian category contains 1 cat + 1 article, Pakistan category contains only the same article. I noticed only two more pages in Category:Death customs that could be added into the India category, which IMHO is insufficient to make it useful. If those two country categories are merged, then the parent will contain only Category:Burial monuments and structures by country and Category:Cemeteries by country, making it an unnecessary layer. – Fayenatic London 13:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There is a problem with the principle of this merger. Hindus are not buried: they are cremated. The Parsees (and some Buddhists) practice excarnation as a means of disposing of human remains. If anything reverse merge, but I am not suggesting that burial categories should be renamed; certainly not for countries where that is the norm. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. While Peterkingiron is right on the principle, it is not a problem in this particular nomination. Death customs in India and Pakistan are not proposed to be merged to a Burials category, so the only things that are proposed to be merged to Category:Burials by country are the two subcategories Category:Burial monuments and structures by country‎ and Category:Cemeteries by country‎, and for these two subcategories the merge is perfectly alright. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support most death customs aren't specific to a country (rather than to a religion), but what's mostly here are cemetery categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:13, 5 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:Death customs in Latin America[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) 00:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only Category:Day of the Dead food, which is in the sibling Category:Day of the Dead. – Fayenatic London 13:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No objection to re-creation if the need arises. Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:18, 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.

St. Gallen[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 per option B. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
OPTION A: use "town"
9 subcats: "St. Gallen" → " St. Gallen (town)"
OPTION B: use "city"
9 subcats "St. Gallen" → " St. Gallen (city)"
Nominator's rationale: to remove ambiguity.
The Swiss city/town of St. Gallen appear to be the primary topic over the eponymous Canton of St. Gallen. However, the ambiguity should not be replicated in the cateory names, because ambiguous category titles cause miscategorisation which is hard to detect. The undisambiguated title should be converted to {{Category disambiguation}} pages.
Note that the lede of the head article describes St. Gallen as a town, but it is categorised in Category:Cities in Switzerland. I currently have no preference between the two disambiguators, so long as some disambiguator is used, so I have listed both options: OPTION A and OPTION B.
Examples of similar disambiguation of city categories include:
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Support rename with a preference for option B. The article St. Gallen uses both "town" and "city" but in German it is clearly a "Stadt" (while a "Markt" would be more comparable to a "town"). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B I remain unconvinced by the argument that a category needs disambiguation but an article does not. If "common name" is the key, then it should be key for both entities, not just one alone. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per option B. Agree that "Stadt" more clearly corresponds to "city". Sandstein 09:36, 2 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:People's Republic of China articles missing geocoordinate data[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) DannyS712 (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per China/category:China, as established at Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26#Requested_move_August_2011 which decided that "China" would refer to the People's Republic of China.
We already have a separate Category:Taiwan articles missing geocoordinate data. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 29 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.

Pharaohs by millenium[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By century

Category:32nd-century BC Pharaohs Category:31st-century BC Pharaohs Category:30th-century BC Pharaohs Category:29th-century BC Pharaohs Category:28th-century BC Pharaohs Category:27th-century BC Pharaohs Category:26th-century BC Pharaohs Category:25th-century BC Pharaohs Category:24th-century BC Pharaohs Category:23rd-century BC Pharaohs Category:22nd-century BC Pharaohs Category:21st-century BC Pharaohs Category:20th-century BC Pharaohs Category:19th-century BC Pharaohs Category:18th-century BC Pharaohs Category:17th-century BC Pharaohs Category:16th-century BC Pharaohs Category:15th-century BC Pharaohs Category:14th-century BC Pharaohs Category:12th-century BC Pharaohs Category:11th-century BC Pharaohs Category:10th-century BC Pharaohs Category:9th-century BC Pharaohs Category:8th-century BC Pharaohs Category:7th-century BC Pharaohs Category:5th-century BC Pharaohs Category:4th-century BC Pharaohs

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT, Category:Pharaohs is already grouped by dynasty which provides relevant timeframe. Also, Category:Rulers by millennium already contains subcats for relevant times. Brandmeistertalk 09:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is unclear why only the millennium categories have been nominated but not the Century categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Several of the dynasties are overlapping, and the placement of a number of Pharaohs in specific dynasties is unclear. A chronological list is much clearer. Dimadick (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For such cases we have foo-century BC rulers, like Category:31st-century BC rulers. They could be added separately from dynasties. Brandmeistertalk 09:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • So that means you are proposing a merger rather than deletion? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The foo-century rulers categories already contain the Pharaohs of the relevant dynasty subcats (e.g., Category:31st-century BC rulers has the subcat Category:Pharaohs of the First Dynasty of Egypt). So merging into foo-century rulers would be redundant in my opinion. Brandmeistertalk 12:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • That only works well when every dynasty lasts one whole century. Since in general that is not the case, I would instead suggest a merge of the articles to the rulers by century categories and simultaneously removing the Egyptian dynasty subcats from the rulers by century categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • That would remove them from the Category:Egyptian people by century category tree, without having any benefits for locating specific individuals in regional history. Dimadick (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fair point, so then it should be a dual merge to a rulers/monarchs by century category and an Egyptian people by century category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pharohs were not aware that they were living in millenia.Rathfelder (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were they aware they were of a certain dynasty number? Neither is very relevant anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- 32nd century is being used for predynastic rulers, all of whom are undated. It should become a redirect to a category for pre-dynastic rulers. I do not favour millennium categories as there have not been enough centuries for them to need to be split. However, chronology in Egypt is normally done by dynasty, not by absolute dates. I would this suggest that the century categories should be containers for the dynasties that ruled in the period. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not undated, they belong to the Naqada III period, which starts in the 32nd century BC. And every placement of a person in the categories is based on his/her known or estimated dates in the List of pharaohs. Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose deleting the century categories, especially those from 9th century BC - 1st century BC when the chronology is basically sound and scholarship does operate in absolute dates. Dynasties and centuries are not the same thing. For example, the 23rd dynasty lasted from 837 - 728 BC: so it makes sense for some of its Pharaohs to go in the 9th century category and some in the 8th century category. In the other direction, too, the 4th century contains six different dynasties - the first and last of which extend into the centuries before and after. It is useful to be able to go to a category that has, at a glance, all the 4th century BC Pharaohs, rather than having to go through six dynasty categories. For earlier times, this is less relevant and the 32nd century cat certainly should be deleted - that's spurious accuracy. Furius (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again no. These are people from the Naqada III period which has specific time estimates. Dimadick (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to our article on Naqada III though, the period runs from c.3200 to ca. 3000. That's not a 'specific time estimate' and radiocarbon dates of objects from this period are +-100 years. Moreover, several of the Pharaohs in this category are referred to as ruling in "late Naqada III" which would be 31st century according to our own article on Naqada III. Finally, most of these articles provide no citation for the date of their subject (nor even mention a date in the main text), so the categorisation is, in effect, being used to introduce an unreferenced fact into the article. Furius (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose deleting the century categories per Furius. Would like to see a more developed proposal along the lines indicated by Marco. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. That would remove them from the Category:Egyptian people by century category tree is the problem; either they'd be left out, or you'd have to put them back individually. What's the point of merging them into the category when you could reduce the size of the category by creating a logical subcategory for pharaohs in that century? Moreover, note that we don't have a lot of by-century biographies of ancient Egyptians. Category:17th-century BC Egyptian people, for example, has a pharaohs subcategory with 55 entries and all of 2 other articles. Separating the pharaohs from the others of their century makes it easier to find the non-pharaohs. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:59, 1 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:Buildings and structures in Gustavia, Saint Barthélemy[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) 20:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there is just one article about a building in this category. For reference Gustavia, Saint Barthélemy is a village on the island of Saint Barthélemy on which some 10.000 people are living. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 29 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:Religion in Poland by city[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 21#Category:Religion in Poland by city

Category:Christianity in St. Gallen[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) 13:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant container category as it contains only one subcategory. There is no need to merge because the subcategory is already part of Category:Buildings and structures in St. Gallen. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:03, 29 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:National 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. MER-C 14:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME
This groups awards together based on whether the name of the award has "National Heroes" in the title when translated into English. National Heroines and Heroes of Nicaragua, Category:Ancient Greek heroes, and National Heroes of Sri Lanka all have different inclusion criteria, different cultural contexts and different native languages. The proper place for similar names is in this disambiguation page. (There are several communist era awards related to Hero of the Soviet Union so no objection if someone wants to work on a more narrow main article and category.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We deleted a similar category for awards with "Gold Medal" in the title here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question "National Hero" sounds like a country's greatest award for something or another, like the Victoria Cross or the (US) Medal of Honor. What if we renamed it and converted it into the top-level category of a tree for highest-national-award recipients? I can't say whether it would be true in all countries (e.g. would the Pour le Mérite count for Prussians?), but in some countries, this alone is enough for notability; look at the Medal of Honor recipients who had normal, non-notable lives except for the actions that warranted the medal and the significant coverage resulting from that honor. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend backup: A Hero of the Soviet Union was the top award for the USSR and was absolutely defining so a lof of Eastern Bloc countries during the Cold War as well as former Soviet countries in the present immitated that by creating similarly named awards. (How defining those namesake award are varies a lot.) My guess is that was the intent of this category was to group those together which is potentially reasonable and the category just got filled with similarly sounding junk since there was no main article to define the inclusion criteria. As far as your broader suggestion, I'm open to creating a top award per country award but I think we would need separate ones for military/civilian. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my native language but the article is not sourced. As far as the category is concerned, I am not convinced of keeping, it is a borderline sharedname issue, even more after it appears not to be an exclusive Eastern Bloc thing. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 16 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:Danish Sports 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 both. For editors interested in creating a list, the current articles in the inductees category are listed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 29. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:DEFINING) and, for the parent category, WP:C1
Wikipedia doesn't have a main article for the Danish Sports Hall of Fame. The awkward Google translation of their web site describes itself as a "gallery" but I'm not sure if that means a physical museum or a web gallery. I clicked through many of the articles and didn't see any that even mention the award. This award doesn't seem defining but it could work as a list. Normally I listify the winners in the main article but, since there isn't one, I put them here on the creator's talk page so no work is lost. (There are no other contents in the parent category but no objection to recreating Category:Halls of fame in Denmark if that list article or other content is created.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 29 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_29&oldid=902804485"