Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 4 May 6 >

May 5[edit]

United States gubernatorial elections in the 1810s[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. – Fayenatic London 10:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories, each of which only has 1 or 2 pages, should be merged to Category:United States gubernatorial elections in the 1810s

I am tagging them now. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC) All have been tagged. These should be merged per WP:SMALLCAT, since they have little potential for growth. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be replacing the present well-considered scheme with a slightly different well-considered scheme, at considerable effort. Oculi (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi: respectfully, I disagree - it should be pretty easy to merge them all, and I'd be happy to do it myself. The issue shouldn't be the work, but rather if the result (by decade, rather than year) is desirable. I believe it is, given the currently miniscule sizes of the categories. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a larger scheme. All US states have governors, and my guess is that most elections always have been contrasted. Currently we only have articles on NY PA and Louisiana with one on Illinois. There should be plenty of scope for populating many of them better. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 6 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:Chinese-language Wikipedias[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: dual merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT - we don't need a separate category for the 3 chinese-language wikipedias DannyS712 (talk) 23:06, 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:People who are dead[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: speedy deleted. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Definitely a bypass of this category deletion,The category violates the existing structure of articles about dead people, explained here. Gangster8192 18:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as tagged, please. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already categorize dead people by their year of death, and do not need one mass category to directly contain every single person on Wikipedia who is dead — Category:Living people exists for technical reasons besides user browsing, and does not need to be paralleled with a giant unbrowsable megacategory for all dead people separately from the death year categories that already exist. Since every person who has ever lived at all is either already dead or eventually will be, this is a category scheme that would eventually include every single Wikipedia article we have about human beings. That said, this was listed for CFD concurrently with being tagged for speedy deletion, and does not need to be submitted to both processes simultaneously — it's speediable as a recreation of previously deleted content, so I'm just speedying it and closing this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 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:Sanskrit Band[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 10:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT, newly created to contain a band that bills itself as the world's first such thing. As always, every neologistic genre label that a band self-invents to communicate that they (usually incorrectly) think their music is so much more unique than everybody else's music is not automatically a basis for its own one-band category -- there would need to be several notable bands doing this, thereby creating a noteworthy musical genre that critics and arts journalists analyze as a reliably sourceable thing, before a category for it was warranted. And even if this were somehow to be kept, it would still have to be renamed somehow for proper conformity with Wikipedia's naming conventions for categories. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 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:Health and ward ministers of Ukraine[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. There is no consensus on whether the one article truly belongs in the target, this can be further discussed at the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, which doesn't mention ward ministers, whatever they are. Rathfelder (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The situation here is actually more complex than it looks, as the one person categorized here is not listed in Minister of Healthcare (Ukraine). Rather, per the source that's written in English, what I've gathered is that while he did hold the title "Minister of Health" for a while, he did so in one of the unofficial governments in exile that formed after the Russian Revolution, but never in any government that actually had effective political control of Ukraine on the ground. So obviously he should still be categorized as some form of Ukrainian politician, but the target category proposed here isn't the right place for him — he was only ever Minister of Health on paper, and never actually had real control of the actual government ministry itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It may be useful to have a category for Category:Ministers of Ukrainian People's Republic. This was a shortlived polity, existing 1918-21, but probably losing control of its territory during that time. The one article also has a category for Land Use ministers. Sampling that I found another minister of that or another shortlived polity. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 6 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:Singaporean people of mixed-Chinese 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: merge to Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent. MER-C 19:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created from thin air, no coverage in the academia or news for the term. Störm (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, shouldn't it be merged to Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The whole point of categories like Fooish people of Wooish descent is to permit people to have mixed descent. Rathfelder (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the majority of the population of Singapore are of Chinese descent. The original Chinese settlers married Malay women so that most of the Singapore Chinese fall into that category. They are just Category:Singaporean people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from the majority community there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent. This former category can than be deleted without a redirect. Outright deletion would have a lot of categories in the former category missing in the latter category where they belong. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inter&anthro: merging sounds right in principle, but there are currently no sub-categories. Have you moved them? If not, can you recall what was here?
    • Whoever moved them: even if such moves are clearly justifiable in your opinion, and you document your rationale in the edit summaries – if you noticed the need because of a current CFD, please also leave a note in the CFD discussion, to enable other editors to make sense of what has changed. – Fayenatic London 22:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent. It appears that the members of this category are of mixed descent including Chinese and non-Chinese heritage. In that case, the category name is confusing, as I thought it meant people of multiple Chinese heritage, e.g. Hakka and Hokkien. Anyway, there is no need for a category of "Chinese and something else" descent; "Chinese descent" would be correct. I disagree with the arguments for deletion; not all Singaporeans have Chinese descent. – Fayenatic London 07:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent. If they are of mixed background which includes Chinese descent, then they are of Chinese descent. Chinese descent does not make any statement of racial of ethnic purity, it is precisely the opposite, as people can be rightfully included in several side-by-side descent categories if they have a mixed ancestry (as BTW we all have). Place Clichy (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent. Confusing and generally meaningless category. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 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:Former government officials[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. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We dont have any other categories for people who were formerly anything other than for former religious believers where their change of allegiance is what makes them notable. In the long run all the people categories would be populated by those who formerly qualified. Rathfelder (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per nom, though I guess that three of the four articles can be moved to Category:American civil servants rather than the more general Category:Government officials. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nominator is correct that we do not ordinarily use the category system to segregate former Xes from current Xes — except in rare specialized situations (as noted by Rathfelder) where the act of renouncing a former religious affiliation is more or less the entire basis for notability in the first place, we do not otherwise maintain a comprehensive scheme of categorizing people by whether their basis for notability is a current or a former characteristic. But Marcocapelle is also correct that three of the four articles here belong in the more specific Category:American civil servants rather than the parent Category:Government officials per se — and the only one that doesn't isn't actually a biographical article about a person, but a concept article about a discontinued job title, and thus doesn't really belong in the proposed target category either. I've already added the missing US-specific category to the people, so they can just be removed from this category rather than needing a new replacement for it, and Síndico Procurador doesn't need to be in the target category either — but there's no need to keep this category in place as a redirect, which would be the only other basis for a merge. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, in that case support delete per Bearcat. This replaces my earlier vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 9 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:Political analysts[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: split. MER-C 09:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ill defined collection of academics, journalists and activists. No article to define it. Rathfelder (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questionable, one would expect political analysts to be journalists/commentators (Pundits in US English) rather than scientists. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to try to sort them into more appropriate categories. Certainly quite a few of them are political scientists. Political analyst redirects to political scientist. Maybe merger into political journalists would be better.Rathfelder (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Sampling both categories suggested that "Political scientists" are academics (probably including thinktank members) investigating politics. In the analysts I found activists; jounrnalists; a historian who appeared in election programmes as a pundit. There seems to be a difference though it may be difficult to identify boundaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split. The commenters are correct that there's a fuzzy line here — some of these people are indeed notable as political scientists who give academic commentary or analysis, but others are notable more as political journalists (Robert Fisher, Kate O'Beirne, etc.) rather than as academics. So indeed we should sort them into the more appropriate categories accordingly, but because the term can cross that line we should either delete the category or maintain a category-disambiguation page, rather than trying to privilege scientists over journalists (or vice versa) as a redirect target for the name. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite happy to delete it. Give me a couple of days to make sure they are all in more appropriate categories.Rathfelder (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and disambiguate, i.e. change to a {{category disambiguation}} page for political commentators, journalists and scientists. – Fayenatic London 14:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm content with any of these options. I just dont like undefined categories. Rathfelder (talk) 19:00, 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:Sweden–Finland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 21#Category:Sweden–Finland

Category:Second Swedish Crusade[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 21#Category:Second Swedish Crusade

Category:1958 FIFA World 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: speedy delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was a misspelling on my part as it was meant to be FIFA World Cup, not FIFA World. Matt294069 (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should be even speedy delete.--Darwinek (talk) 12:36, 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:South Korea at the 2019 AFC Asian Cup[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 for now, should be empty if Wikipedia:Categorization#Template_categorization is followed. – Fayenatic London 18:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category Matt294069 (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is not entirely empty, there is a template in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 17 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.

The entire Category:Minor planets by source of name tree[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) 18:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
15 more mythology subcategories
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME and WP:NONDEFINING in general
There are no casinos to gamble at on 82332 Las Vegas, no wombats running around on 6827 Wombat, no rivers on 13096 Tigris, no fans of Big Bang Theory on 246247 Sheldoncooper, no eggs on 17627 Humptydumpty and Apollo is the freakin' god of the Sun not some minor planet like 1862 Apollo. Grouping together asteroids or other minor planets after how people on Earth named them isn't defining and we don't do this on with mountains and islands closer to home.
This is a large category tree with hundreds of articles and tens of thousands of redirects. All of the 200 or so minor planet articles I clicked on are well categorized elsewhere in the minor planets tree and List of minor planets named after animals and plants and similar lists are already grouped in Category:Lists of meanings of minor planet names. (No objection if anyone wants to convert any of these categories to hidden/admin categories for redirects.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I came into this tree through Category:Minor planets named from San mythology which was created after that nomination, and I missed that background. Thank you for the context. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn While I respectfully disagree with the outcome of the last nomination, it was less than a year ago and decisive so I don't want to waste other editor's time. Given that minor planet names are defining, I think there is some smaller cleanup potential like the earlier nominations with specific categories so I'll come back with more modest proposals. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Note to Closer: I didn't want to foist the cleanup of this nomination on another editor, so the category tags are already removed and category pages updated. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:25, 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:Northern Dancer bloodline[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 10:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nearly every notable Thoroughbred born within the past decade or two will fall into this category to the point that being a descendant of Northern Dancer is not a defining characteristic. I think WP:TRIVIALCAT also applies here, because being a descendant of Northern Dancer is unrelated to the subject's notability due to how common descendants of Northern Dancer are. Aspening (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't normally categorize humans by their lines of descent from other notable people — if we had categories like this for humans, then virtually everybody with any European or Asian descent at all would be in one or both of "Charlemagne bloodline" and "Genghis Khan bloodline" — so I really can't think of a compelling reason why we would need to categorize horses more genealogically than we do people. The whole thing about Northern Dancer's bloodline is that his achievements in horseracing were so remarkable for their time that basically every racehorse breeder on the planet sought out his spunk to sire new super horses, so for all intents and purposes he's father, grandfather or some ordinal value of great-grandfather to practically every single racehorse born after he retired from racing and became a sperm bank. A distinction isn't defining anymore if everybody in the entire class of topic shares the same characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Pedigrees are a defining characteristic of horses. The Thoroughbred horse is largely defined by bloodline groups of various sort. Other horse breeds perhaps not so much, but for sure Thoroughbred Northern Dancer is a very significant bloodline. He is not, however, say the Darley Arabian (which IS a bloodline in 90+% of all modern racehorses). This is an appropriate and defining category.Montanabw(talk) 02:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first article in this category I looked at (Champs Elysees (horse)) doesn't even mention Northern Dancer in the article text. DexDor (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you click the link below References "Champs Elysees' pedigree and partial racing stats" it takes you to his pedigree where Northern Dancer is listed as his great-grandfather. Agreed that the pedigree needs added to the article.dawnleelynn(talk) 16:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not challenging that CE is descended from ND. That the authors of the article have written 5 paragraphs of text about CE without mentioning ND indicates that it fails WP:CATDEF (as well as WP:CATV). DexDor (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: You'd have to go a long way in European flat racing to find a major winner who doesn't have the old Canadian champion somewhere in his or her bloodline these days. I agree that the pedigree is a defining characteristic and crucial to the bloodstock industry, so the comparison above with human descent isn't valid for me, but I am persuaded by the nominator's view that descent from Northern Dancer is not a defining characteristic (compared to, say, being a Derby winner, or a Cartier / Eclipse Award winner) in terms of a category. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wp categorization is for categorizing articles (is the article about a horse, a lion, a planet ...?), not to be a database of pedigrees (after how many generations would you stop?). Try WikiData perhaps? DexDor (talk) 17:20, 10 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_5&oldid=899781288"