Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 20 May 22 >

May 21[edit]

Societies[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 17:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of about 40 scientific and engineering societies
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:Abortion survivors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#Category:Abortion survivors

Category:University and college chancellors by country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 28#Category:University and college chancellors by country

Category:Uninhabited villages[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: nominated action impossible per Peterkingiron. MER-C 09:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure how to handle this and am open to whatever the consensus might figure out but certainly in the case of India it is not true that all uninhabited villages are former villages. For the purposes of administration - census, local government, water etc - there are plenty of uninhabited villages that still exist and have a defined area; that is, they may be "former" in the populated sense but not in any other. Am I being specious? Sitush (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give an example of a village (about which we have an article) for which the current category structure doesn't work well? DexDor (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nandgaon, Mawal. Only created it this afternoon and it is a minimal stub at present. There are at least another five villages in the same administrative area that will have the same issue. I've recently posted a query here regarding whether such articles are likely to withstand deletion. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify things, it might help if we consider this example with, say, that of a village that has been submerged due to construction of a dam. The latter is a former village; the Nandgaon one is just an uninhabited village. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I thought about the "houses must still exist" thing a couple of hours ago. Alas, even the houses of submerged villages in my theoretical example exist for a substantial time after the dam is filled - they're just incapable of being used. As I suggested in the nom, perhaps I am being specious. - Sitush (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A village is a clustered human settlement or community ... with a population ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand. Putting an article in a villages category places it in Category:Populated places. If a village was temporarily empty on the day/night of a census in a particular year (perhaps because of some seasonal effect or a disaster) then that isn't a characteristic that needs categorization. DexDor (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DexDor, as I tried to say in the nomination, I'm really more interested in seeing if we can find a way round the issue. I'm not unduly fussed how we do it but the way this place seems to work demands that a proposal names other categories, so I did. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many online lists only state 181 villages in that taluka because 6 others are uninhabited, of which Nandgaon was my test case for this discussion and the one I linked above. The census source cited, plus one or two others, clearly indicate that it is still a recognised village and this means our figure for the taluka is 187, not the 181 that sometimes appears elsewhere and, indeed, appeared at List of villages in Mawal taluka and/or Mawal taluka until I spotted the issue.
    As I am obviously failing to get across, it is categorised in Former villages because the cat for Uninhabited villages redirects to it. But it is 'not a former village - it still exists for administrative purposes, forms a part of the area recognised as a gram panchayat and has even appeared in court cases relating to land/property assignment. At some point in the past, which I now know to be before 2001, the thing was populated. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not a gram panchayat - it forms part of an area recognised as one (a gram panchayat is a council for one or more villages, and in this case Nandgaon is one of several). p 1298 of this lists it, along with the other constituent villages of Varsoli gram panchayat. - Sitush (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Then I would just leave it in former villages. The difference is too subtle to distinguish in categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "it is categorised in Former villages because the cat for Uninhabited villages redirects to it." - I don't understand the logic of that. If the article doesn't belong in the Former villages category then it shouldn't be in that category (the existence of a redirect doesn't change that). DexDor (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I made a mistake? FFS, this is ridiculous. I don't understand the logic of having a category for uninhabited villages redirecting to one for former villages.
    I used Hotcat, found Cat:Uninhabited villages, clicked it, it returned Cat:Former villages. I then looked at that category, thought "that's odd" and came here because it doesn't seem right to me. I left the categorisation in the hope that it would prove the point. I am on record as really disliking coming to CfD - too many regulars who think they know what they're talking about and even when I try to soften things - eg on this occasion by suggesting that perhaps I am being specious in my concern - I feel like you're still intent on finding problems because the query comes from an interloper.
    Nandgaon is an uninhabited but still extant village; it is not a populated place. There are a thousand or more of these in India and Pakistan. What is so difficult to understand? I can't think of any other ways to explain it, sorry. I'm going to sit back and re-read "The Deserted Village" by Oliver Goldsmith. - Sitush (talk)
  • Sorry about the above. I am frustrated with my own inability to explain things in a way that other people can understand. - Sitush (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this discussion as pointless" -- The category is a cat-redirect to the second target. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 25 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:Sweden–Finland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 09:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sweden–Finland is a controversial historiographic term, there has never been an actual country of that name. The proposed name more neutrally describes the content of the category, and is in accordance with article name Finland under Swedish rule. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 18:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename I don't see much use for the category. I see use for categories about Finland under Swedish rule, but not a main "Sweden-Finland" one due to it being just a historiographical term. --Pudeo (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Supernatural science fiction films[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. The opposition was mainly directed against nominator's initial rationale (Supernatural=Science Fiction), while there was too little support for the later argument that the intersection of the two genres may not be a clear genre on its own. If desired, a fresh nomination with a new rationale is probably more effective than relisting. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't Supernatural=Science Fiction? This seems like a redundant name and the 2 articles in the category (Pokémon: The Movie 2000 and Scary Movie 3) are already in a few science fiction or supernatural categories without this one. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because Supernatural ≠ Science fiction. The lede of Science fiction says "It typically deals with imaginative and futuristic concepts such as advanced science and technology, time travel, parallel universes, fictional worlds, space exploration, and extraterrestrial life. Science fiction often explores the potential consequences of scientific innovations." I think that's a pretty good definition, and it does not include "supernatural" themes. Novel compound (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the above that supernatural isn't the same as scifi (see supernatural). Horror, fantasy, etc. are just as likely to be "supernatural". That we don't have a clear main article for the category is a little troubling, though. I suppose it comes down to whether reliable sources call categorized articles "supernatural science fiction" or some other formulation that makes it clear that this is a form/subgenre of scifi rather than just a science fiction film with supernatural elements (which would make such a categorization OR). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term supernatural refers to "anything that is inexplicable by scientific understanding of the laws of nature but nevertheless argued by believers to exist. Examples include immaterial beings such as angels, gods and spirits, and claimed human abilities like magic, telekinesis and extrasensory perception." Magic is an essential element in the fantasy genre, but rather rare in science fiction. Though there are many science fantasy stories which combine the tropes of both genres. "Where science fiction does not permit the existence of fantasy or supernatural elements, science fantasy explicitly relies upon them." Dimadick (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just wanted to say that it looks likely this will close as keep, which I'm fine with. I just have issues with film categories that seem specific but are actually dependent on each editor to decide whether or not individual films fit in the category. There may be "supernatural science fiction films" but I think if we all sought to categorize existing films, there would be major disagreements about which films to put in this category. And that seems like a reason to delete or replace this category with something that isn't so subjective. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 28 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:Genocides and ethnic violence perpetrated by fascist regimes[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 18:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This newly created category title is quite long and we don't already have categories with this type of name. The closest I could find was Category:Persecution of ethnic groups by communist regimes so I propose renaming this category to match that one. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+ 1. I support the proposal of Liz. Lean Anael (talk) 04:52, 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:Second Swedish Crusade[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 17:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there are only a main article and a subcategory, which are already interlinked in the header of the subcategory page. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The main article is unclear as to whether it happened: apparently there is a single source whose reliability is questioned. There is certainly no scope for expansion. Both the main article and the one sub-cat are already well-categorised, so that there is no need to merge. The main article will make a good main article for the sub-cat. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 25 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.

People of medieval Finland[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 17:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge. One would expect ethnic Finnish people in these categories (because there was no country Finland), but instead many of them are Swedish (or occasionally German) colonists in what is currently Finland. Category:People of medieval Finland is still appropriate for them, but "Finnish people" is not. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. No such state existed in the periods nominated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:51, 21 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:Buildings and structures in Calabozo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 26#Category:Buildings and structures in Calabozo

Category:Buildings and structures in Carora[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 27#Category:Buildings and structures in Carora

Category:Theatres in Chattogram[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 17:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and WP:BDPLACE. Even though the official name of Chittagong has been changed to 'Chattogram' recently, the earlier name is still most commonly used.

Also proposing similar changes for, Category:Churches in Chattogram Category:Music in Chattogram Category:Musical groups from Chattogram Category:Culture in Chattogram Category:Museums in Chattogram Zayeem (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:58, 21 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:Blackpink 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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only four members to list AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:57, 21 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_21&oldid=908740319"