Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1 May 3 >

May 2[edit]

Categories for Nepalese film stubs[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories don't need to exist as Category:Nepalese film stubs doesn't need diffusion. There are stub templates for 1960s through 2010s that may not be needed either but limiting this nomination to the categories. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, plus these were created out of process. Her Pegship (speak) 23:51, 2 May 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.

Template:Nepal-album-stub[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, in conjunction with the closure above. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Did not go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Not enough Nepalese album articles to justify having this at this time. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:26, 2 May 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:Characters in legends[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, but rename Category:Characters in legends to Category:Legendary characters to match the sub-cats at May 3. – Fayenatic London 14:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very similar categories. The legendary people heirarchy is better populated. Of course not all the articles are, strictly speaking, about people, but most of them have some claim to be regarded as people. Not all of them really qualify as Literary characters either. Combining the two categories gets round that issue. Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Even if it is a matter of WP:ENGVAR (which I do not know) a merge at global level is still appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into people and characters per 3 May Nom and close to conform to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Characters in legends is part of the heirarchy of Literary characters. The problem comes when you get people like Dick Whittington, who clearly was a real person, but has also become a character in legends. And I'm puzzled as to why Characters in legends are only British or Indian. Is this a local linguistic issue? Rathfelder (talk) 11:19, 11 May 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 from the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao[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 10:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: See collapsed discussion below. Steel1943 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:People from the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao to Category:People from Bangsamoro –C2D/C2C Newly inaugurated region replaced defunct region RioHondo (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    • Category:Populated places in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao to Category:Populated places in Bangsamoro
    • Category:Cities in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao to Category:Cities in Bangsamoro
    • Category:Municipalities of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao to Category:Municipalities of Bangsamoro
    • Category:Provincial governors in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao to Category:Provincial governors in Bangsamoro
    • Category:Politics of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao to Category:Politics of Bangsamoro
      The defunct region still has it's own article (Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao) and own categorys (Category:Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao so oppose these moves. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I can create new subcats for the new region it was replaced with, sure. But the above permcats would be emptied as no region can co-exist with another in the same territorial jurisdiction. The defunct article and few subcategories are kept for historical purpose and only those that pertain to its defunct government structure and political history. But the above People, Populated places, Politics, they continue under the new region.--RioHondo (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The dead ARMM existed. Someone who was alive during the ARMM days and is now dead can claim not to be from the Bangsamoro Region, and categorizing someone who is from not "that place" is outright false. The geographical extend of the ARMM and Bangsamoro (and indeed the ARMM during its existence) wasn't coterminous, so it wasn't a simple renaming. This like saying Pocahontas is from the United States. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If ever this is sent to the usual CFD, I request the removal of the ARMM categories be reverted until there's consensus for renaming or deletion. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Howard the Duck Yup, we can continue discussing this in CFD. But a person born between 1989 and 2018 who is from that region will be a hard find. Remember this only existed for less than 20 years, and so those people categorized as from being the ARMM are actually inacurrate, as i said you have to be born from August 1989 and Feb 26 2019 to be accurately categorized as such (which luckily we don't have, as the people from region category is just a container category with links to people by individual component province as we do most other regional people categories). All of the above permcats were container categories, no article really fell under any of them as we do articles per province here really. We don't do people by historical entities here either, cos if we did, many of those BLPs should have been categorized as from being Category:People from Moro Province or Category:People from the Department of Mindanao and Sulu. :)--RioHondo (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        What are you talking about? People born between 1989 and 2018 in the ARMM number in the millions. People who satisfy the notability criteria reduces this, but there are still many people. This isn't reduced to people who were born in that time; you'd also include people who were living from 1989 to 2003. Now whether is this is a container or you'd actually categorize people in this category is another question, but that shouldn't be a factor on whether this should be renamed or not.
        "We don't do people by historical entities", but we can. It'll be interesting who were people who were living at the time Ambos Camarines was a thing. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's see...Do those young ISIL-linked combatants have WP articles? Of course, there are millions but we know regional BLPs are scarce around here, and especially from that troubled southern region. It will just be another unnecesarry layer in our already underpopulated people categories which we do by current provincial setup. Sure, we get one from Ambos Camarines, one for Sultanate of Maguindanao, a couple from Moro Province, and maybe nil for Lepanto-Bontoc and Kedatuan of Dapitan. These cats would just merged and/or deleted given the scarcity. I am also merely following what is already there, and your proposal will be just as bizarre as having a Category:People from Manila (province) and a Category:People from Bulacan (1578-1901) that includes people from Valenzuela at the time when Valenzuela was still not part of Metro Manila LOL. Again, Bangsamoro is basically still ARMM except that it added Cotabato City and a few other barangays like Metro Manila did with Valenzuela. And can you imagine having a Category:Populated places in Bulacan (1578-1901) that includes Valenzuela? That's messed up IMHO.--RioHondo (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        See WP:SMALLCAT. Millions of people lived at the old ARMM, not just ISIL combatants. Even those rebels should be plentiful. The political dynasts are plentiful. Who knows we might even see sportspeople and celebrities. ISIL combatants are an infinitesimal percentage of the people who lived in the ARMM. We can have a category for Representatives from Lanao del Sur, categorized in both ARMM and BARMM. You could do the same for Ambos Camarines, Lepanto-Bontoc, Kedatuan of Dapitan, Maynila (province), which are all dissolved entities. We can even do a category of Kingdom of Maynila officeholders. Dunno about Bulacan as it's still existing. Several provinces annexed and lost tows in history, dunno how that compares to already dissolved entities such as the ARMM, as long categorization is concerned, which is what not I'm saying. Dunno how that bizarrely got into the conversation.
        • What is now Myanmar was once named Burma, and the majority of WP categories having to do with Burma were redirected to those encompassing Myanmar. While "Burma" is still used colloquially in some cases, the current, official name of the country is Republic of the Union of Myanmar. It seems to me that "people from ARRM" can just as easily be sorted as "people from [any province within the former ARMM]", thus avoiding any need for a category like "people from Bangsomoro". Just saying. Her Pegship (speak) 01:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          Actually, Bangsamoro being the successor region is the one that has to have all these subcats whereas the ARMM should be treated from a historical perspective from this point. If the plebiscite didn't involve a somewhat different government structure and a little enlargement, this could have easily just been renamed or moved to the current name. But we are keeping the ARMM as a distinct historical entity but all the rest that does not pertain to its former political structure and history should fall under the new region. See this: https://armm.gov.ph--RioHondo (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this merely concerns a name change of the region, that does not make the region entirely different. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geographic extent is sorta different, as it includes several new settlements from Cotabato, including the dismemberment of Pikit, Cotabato, that were previously not a part of the old ARMM. (The rump Pikit that's staying in Cotabato doesn't even possess the city town hall.) Politically, it's different, as it would totally be distinct from other locally governed places in the Philippines, as it's the first time since 1986 that the parliamentary system is being used in the country. Now, whether or not this is different in practice is a question that can only be answered in time. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is appropriate even if there have been slight boundary changes. Historical categories relating to the former ARRM should retain their name, but be parented by categories relating to the present name. This is standard practice for renamed polities. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The category rename for Category:Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao geography stubs is also long overdue.--RioHondo (talk) 03:23, 11 May 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:Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in Australia[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: supserseded by wider nomination at CFD May 23. – Fayenatic London 12:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See collapsed discussion below. Steel1943 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
Don't you think the speedy could proceed as normal now again? PPEMES (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not as nominated, since we have moved away from "sex abuse cases". Is it sufficiently clear what the new names should be? e.g. Category:Catholic Church child sexual abuse scandals in Australia? – Fayenatic London 11:31, 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:Foxbridge[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems odd to have a category for horses sired (or "grandsired") by a stallion. Man o' War doesn't have one. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, Northern Dancer has one - Category:Northern Dancer bloodline - though that looks a lot more impressive. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary (family relationships should be covered in article text). See similar current CFD. Note: The category currently has just one member. If not deleted then rename to "Horses descended from ..." or similar. DexDor (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- We do not usually allow such categories for humans. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 5 May 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:Samsung Gear games[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 as nominated. One of the discussants suggested creating one or more parent categories on top of this category, but did not object against Category:Samsung Gear VR games as such. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Samsung Gear" is not a single software platform (there are Gear VR, Gear S3, Gear Sport, Gear Fit, etc.); the only common feature of "Samsung Gear games" might be that they are games for a mobile Samsung device whose name includes the words "Samsung Gear". All the current pages in the category are actually games for Samsung Gear VR. The name "Samsung Gear VR games" would be consistent with categories for games for other VR headset, e.g. HTC Vive games, Oculus Rift games, PlayStation VR games, etc. Martin Kraus (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
I guess an alternative might be to rename the category to "Games on Samsung Gear platforms" and make a subcategory "Samsung Gear VR games" and a supercategory "Games on Samsung platforms". But that appears to be unnecessary deep. A more reasonable alternative might be to rename this category to "Games on Samsung platforms" and make "Samsung Gear VR games" a subcategory. Martin Kraus (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support the initial proposal, to specify Samsung Gear VR. Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:24, 2 May 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:Images of history maps[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:Wikipedia images of maps, as there is no common factor among these 12 images. This close is no bar to creating a category of history maps, or of historical maps, if someone wants to populate such a thing properly. – Fayenatic London 14:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All maps show history. So do all images. It's parent Category:History images is a very bad idea (all images are images of history a second after they are created). Redundant to Category:History maps. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: On second reading, I do not understand the rationale. All maps show history? No, only history maps show history. Besides, if there is a problem with history maps, then why only nominate the images category and not the root Category:History maps? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historical maps are a specific type of map IMO - for instance, if I publish an atlas in 1919, that atlas doesn't contain "historical maps" even though it's 2019, it contains maps meant to show what the world is like in 1919, whereas a "historical map" is a map created after-the-fact to show what the world was like at a certain time, often simplifying features in order to demonstrate a point. SportingFlyer T·C 20:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Images of historical maps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). However, this category is currently a hotchpotch of random examples. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:24, 2 May 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.

Church buildings, inconsistent categories[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 15#Church buildings, inconsistent categories

Category:Danish airline chief executives[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 10:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge into parent categories (except Category:Airlines of Denmark), per WP:SMALLCAT. feminist (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added "and Category:Danish chief executives" in the nomination, as apparently intended by nominator. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, in addition I wonder if the airline CEO parent needs a split by nationality at all, the total number of airline CEOs remains well under 200. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 2 May 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:Hong Kong Government biography stubs[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. – Fayenatic London 16:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consensus at WPSS is to re-scope the stub type to include people from all branches of the government of Hong Kong; Hong Kong Government (caps) refers only to the executive branch. Her Pegship (speak) 20:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 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:Hong Kong Government stubs[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. – Fayenatic London 18:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consensus at WPSS is to re-scope the stub type to include all branches of the government of Hong Kong; Hong Kong Government (caps) refers only to the executive branch. Her Pegship (speak) 20:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 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:File deletion 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 10:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To follow the same format as Category:Categories for discussion templates, Category:Templates for discussion templates, and Category:Redirects for discussion templates. DannyS712 (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist - no discussion at all
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 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:Boat racing people by Canadian province or territory[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 11:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only used as a holder for one category, that category being listed below. See explanation there for proposal. Grutness...wha? 03:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:42, 2 May 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:Boat racing people from Ontario[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 11:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently only contains a handful of articles, which are a peculiar mishmash of sport sailors and canoeists. No other country, territory, state, province, city, or town has a "Boat racing people" category. The current oddity should be deleted, with no prejudice against creating Category:Canoeists from Ontario and Category:Sailors (sport) from Ontario and the equivalent "by province" categories, which would very likely be populable. See also above nomination. Grutness...wha? 03:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:42, 2 May 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.

Music festivals[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 11:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, until 1921 the tree of Category:Music festivals by year is just a duplicate of its subcategory Category:Music festivals by year of establishment. The 'oldest' article in the tree about a music festival of a particular year is Salzburg Festival: history and repertoire, 1922–1926. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Please tell me that the Rolling Stones headlined the festival from 1520! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy somehow -- Most of the content is actually inaccurate: the content of 18xx music festivals is generally music festivals established in 18xx, which probably means that item ought also to be in the 18xx +1 category. There is thus a case for TNT against the whole tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or "destroy"? Given the number of categories, this would benefit from further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I have tweaked[1][2]{{Music festivals by year of establishment cat}} to populate Category:{{Title year}} music festivals if that exists, otherwise use Category:{{Title year}} in music.
Hope this helps --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 13 May 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:Swedish-speaking Finns[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) 12:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containerize (keep the subcategories and the List article in the category): Swedish-speaking is not a defining characteristic of people with an article directly in this category. A large amount of the articles do not even mention the fact. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't see a rational reason why this category should be emptied.--Darwinek (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn, it is not meaningful to keep this discussion open with no further comments after 10 days of relisting. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 12 May 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:XYZ (English band) members[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. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 00:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This band, XYZ, never recorded or played live. It's an interesting footnote in the history of Yes and Led Zeppelin, but I can't see how membership of it is ever a defining category. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's similar to categorising footballers by each team they played for. (The 4 people are clearly defining for XYZ (English band) but that is the wrong way round.) Thanks for the nom - hadn't heard of this venture. Oculi (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as creator. I'm not sure there's a notability test for categorizable bands, or what we would use to create it. At the moment, I think it's "Does the band have an article that lists at least three members with articles?" As far as I know, we've removed only one other category like this before, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 2#Category:Million Dollar Quartet members, and that was because Presley, Cash, Perkins, and Lewis didn't actually call themselves by that name. In this case, the participants called themselves XYZ when they recorded their songs together (see [3]), so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯? Anyway, willing to go whichever way as long as we have a clear rationale that can be applied to the creation of other categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They recorded some demos together. We don't know what name would have been used if they had actually gone public and released something or played live. Categories do not exist to be an exhaustive ontology: we only use them for defining characteristics, and being an XYZ member is never going to be a defining characteristic. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do know that, though. Jimmy Page said, "Chris (Squire) had this wonderful name for it: XYZ, because it was ex-Yes and ex-Zeppelin."[4] If Jimmy Page says that's what the band's name was, I feel that's good enough for me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The name is not the issue. That the band had no substantive existence is. It was an aborted project: how is it ever going to be a defining characteristic? Bondegezou (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, in the absence of definable notability tests other than "having an article which lists its members, enough of which have articles of their own," I see no reason that this is any different than any other band. They formed a unit, they gave themselves a name, they recorded music, it's been released and is available on the internet. All seems fine to me. YMMV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They recorded some demos. The demos leaked without permission: they have never been officially released. (This is all described in the article.)
We have a test and that's WP:DEFCAT. None of the four people in this category are "commonly and consistently define[d]" by reliable sources with respect to their membership of this aborted project. Bondegezou (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point of Category:Musicians by band is "Musicians by their bands, whether previous or current members." It is a defining element of these musicians that they are in bands, and the goal of the category scheme is to categorize those. I get that you think the band itself is not notable enough. That's an issue for the article, and you should feel free to nominate it for deletion. While the article exists, these are the members of the band that the article describes, so the category scheme covers it. I can see we're not going to agree on this, and that's okay.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you are stretching the definition of a "band" to include an aborted project. It is different to "any other band" because they never played live, and they never released anything. I'm perfectly happy with the article existing, as it is a notable aborted project, but this makes a mockery of the purpose of categorisation, as clearly laid out in WP:DEFCAT.
The goal of categories is not to provide a comprehensive ontology of every project everyone has been in. It is WP:DEFCAT. No-one ever talks about Chris Squire as "XYZ member Chris Squire", or Jimmy Page as "XYZ member Jimmy Page", ergo this category has no purpose. Bondegezou (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever talks about Sidney Crosby as a Rimouski Océanic player either, yet there he is in Category:Rimouski Océanic players, because the purpose of the hockey category system is to categorize players by their teams, whatever they are. This category system uses the same approach. Anyway, I understand your position, Bondegezou, and I'm pretty sure you understand mine. I am fine with whatever happens. Let's see what others say.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For that analogy to work, Rimouski Océanic would have to be an idea for a team who never actually played a match. XYZ was a short-lived attempt towards a band, that folded before any public activity.
If no-one ever talks about Sidney Crosby as a Rimouski Océanic player, then that category should be removed from his article, as per WP:DEFCAT. That, however, does not mean that Category:Rimouski Océanic players should be deleted as long as it is a defining characteristic for some other players. I'm saying being an XYZ member is never a defining characteristic for these four musicians because XYZ, as an aborted project, is only notable because of them.
WP:DEFCAT is an editing guideline. It trumps other stuff existing. Bondegezou (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we disagree on this, and I think we've covered the ground enough for a closer to decide.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless if they did or did not play or record together, this band existed in some form, and you can say that each of them was a member of it at some stage in their career. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is notable as a failed project rather than as a band. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Million Dollar Quartet CFD is not a precedent for this, as that one was simply WP:OC#PERF. However, I find myself in full agreement with the rationales stated by the nominator and Marcocapelle. All four member pages should be removed from the category as WP:OC#NONDEF, so the category should be deleted. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nom and Marcocapelle. Never got off the ground and actually performed, so what's the point of having a category? Newshunter12 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 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:History of philosophy images[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 10:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-image category related to problematic Category:History images (all images are images of history...). Category:Philosophy images is totally sufficient. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category on Wikipedia, move image to Commons (it's already tagged for that move). I have made several diagrams illustrating the History and philosophy of science, but they are on Commons not Wikipedia, and I didn't create any categories for them... this image should certainly be moved to Commons also, in which case the category is even more clearly redundant than it now is. And perhaps we should do some categorising over on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 2 May 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:Songs written by Aphex Twin[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary when we also have Category:Aphex Twin songs. Aphex Twin is not a singer so it's not like he's sung on tracks written by other people. (And since he's not a singer I also think "songs" is not strictly correct in either case - there's no singing - and would prefer "tracks", but whatever.) Popcornduff (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye, but in this case all songs written by Aphex Twin are also performed by Aphex Twin. Popcornduff (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:28, 2 May 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:Texas A&M MSC Student Conference on National Affairs Former Speakers[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 10:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC for the Alumni category and WP:PERFCAT for the Speakers subcategory
The MSC Student Conference on National Affairs is an annual military and civilian conference at Texas A&M University. The "Alumni" category mostly contains articles on prominent politicians who, in their youth, helped coordinate or volunteer for the conference as college students. The "Speakers" category articles generally doesn't mention the conference at all but I assume it's for individual presenters. Neither category seems defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 2 May 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:Esperanto speakers of Jewish descent[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. In case there is scope to write an encyclopedic article or section about this intersection, the current members are L. L. Zamenhof, Leopold Einstein, Petr Ginz, Reinhard Selten & Tibor Sekelj. – Fayenatic London 21:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS
I assumed this category would have people that began speaking Esperanto at least partly because of their Jewish background. However, every single article is someone who is Jewish (or from a Jewish background) who happens to speak Esperanto. Not a single one of the current article tie the two topics together. (No merge is needed because I added some categories so that all the articles are in both the Jewish and Esperanto category trees. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This category is created in fact because probably a lot of people of Jewish descent learned Esperanto also or even mainly because of the Jewish link to Esperanto. (The causes and motivation why someone learned Esperanto are usually not mentioned in the wikipedia. Reinhard Selten somewhere said, he learned Esperanto because he knew that his father spoke Esperanto; he did not mention in this sentence that his father was Jewish.) It is known that the first Esperanto speakers came mainly from three backgrounds, former speakers of Volapük, adepts of Lew Tolstoy and Jewish people (or of Jewish descent). Ludwik Zamenhof, who was Jewish himself, sent his first book to Jewish communities in many countries and the percentage of Jewish people between the first speakers of Esperanto is remarkable (although for obvious reasons this fact is not always spoken about). Zamenhof also at some time had the idea of creating Esperanto just to give Jews a common international language. I came to the idea of creating the category just because of this link. I speak Esperanto for more than fourty years now and some day I realised that a lot of my Esperanto friends are of Jewish descent; they do not say, hello, I am of Jewish descent, but after some while you realise it. So I think this category expresses this link. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a mention of a publication about the subject (not yet published), "The Heritage and Legacy of Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof between Judaism and Esperanto. Proceedings of the GEOP Workshop at Polin Museum Warsaw, December 2017 (In Vorbereitung, mit Federico Gobbo)". I tried to find another article about this link I know of, but didn't succeed :-( --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there is the tree of Category:Esperantists_by_nationality. It seems to me that being of Jewish descent is somehow similar. Maybe the Category:Esperanto speakers of Jewish descent should be a subcategory there. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think, we should consider that the situation of Jews and people of Jewish descent living in a diaspora is not always the same as that of general English or US people. So sometimes it is similar, but a bit different. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is clear that Jewish descent plays some or even a major role in the decision to learn and practise Esperanto, also for the history of Esperanto and for the fact that Zamenhof, the creator of Esperanto, was Jewish and linked the creation of the language to his own history. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe one of the three most known letters of Zamenhof makes clear how intensely Esperanto is linked to judaism and that therefore people of Jewish descent have a special motivation to learn and practice the language. Ludwik Zamenhof wrote in 1905: "If I was not a ghetto Jew, the idea of unifying all humanity would not have occurred to me or it would have never so stubbornly accompanied me throughout my whole life. Nobody can feel the misery of human divisions as much as a Jew from a ghetto. No one can feel as strongly about the need for a non-national but a neutral human language as a Jew who has to pray to God in a long-dead tongue, who receives education and studies in the language of the nation that drives him out, who has scattered all over the world suffering kinsmen with whom he cannot communicate." I do hope that this makes things a bit clearer. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article about Zamenhof as a Jew which mentions the letter to Michaux. Esperanto texts can be translated by Google Translate. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that is a matter of personal motivation of the creator, it is not a reason to create a category for other people of Jewish descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The motivation of the creator of Esperanto just makes clear how much Esperanto and the fact being Jew or of Jewish descent are linked. This is true for Jews and those of Jewish descent up to now. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can buy that if reliable sources exist regarding an exceptionally high percentage Esperantists among people of Jewish descent. Otherwise it remains a matter of WP:OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no conceptual problem with this category. Maybe there are notable people we don't have articles on yet whose religion and language were intertwined (or maybe there are reliable source that connects the two dots for existing biography articles). But, for right now it's really a truth in advertising issue because a reader would click on the category looking for the intersection between Judaism and Esperanto and wouldn't find it in any of the articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the language was created by a Jew seeking a language that could reach across political and linguistic boundaries, it is significant that many Jews have adopted it. This is salient. However, it would not be useful to create categories such as "Esperanto speakers of Norwegian descent" or "Esperanto speakers who are Christian". The link between Esperanto and being Jewish, however, is significant.
  • It may be significant that many Jews have adopted Esperanto, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good way to categorize articles. DexDor (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is being used to categorize people such as Reinhard Selten (for whom neither Judaism nor Esperanto is defining) and for consistency of categorization. See also WP:DNWAUC. DexDor (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Jewish esperantism may be the topic of an article, I do not see the value of the category in its current form, especially if of Jewish descent is meant as a proxy for Jew. An intersection between language spoken and religion or ethnicity seems unlikely. We do not have Catholic speakers of Latin or Swedish speakers of Finnish descent. Place Clichy (talk) 17:03, 22 May 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:Translators of the Bible into English who were not native speakers[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 11:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT
The category contains this header in way of an explanation: "A surprising number of people who translated the Bible (or portions) into English grew up speaking other languages before thyhey learned English." I'm actually not that surprised. If a work is being translated between two languages, it seems likekly that half might have grown up speaking the language of the original document and half the language of the newly translated one. (Probably less, since polyglots might have grown up speaking neither language.) I can't find any similar "not native speakers" subcategories in the Category:Translators by destination language tree. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:TRIVIALCAT, no need for this to be a seperate category. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion The nominator is "not that surprised" that non-native speakers of English have translated (portions of) the Bible into English. Actually, it is quite unusual. I know of nobody translating the Bible into any other European language who was not a native speaker. Though there are not comparable categories for translators into other languages, I feel that a category that captures over a dozen articles is worth something. I do not share the urge to eliminate categories. If there is a consensus of at least eight editors who vote to remove it, I will not object.Pete unseth (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly all of them were migrants to an English-speaking country, there is nothing remarkable about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. While translating into a foreign language is more rare than the opposite, it is still one of the most common acts in translation. The French have a word for it that I do not think the English language has an equivalent for. Therefore, I see no value in keeping these categories separate. Place Clichy (talk) 17:03, 22 May 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_May_2&oldid=1073192208"