Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 10 October 12 >

October 11[edit]

Category:Ocadia[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 08:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category as Ocadia synonymised to Mauremys. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 18:20, 11 October 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:Transylvanian sculptors[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 09:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no other categorisation of People from Transylvania by occupation. The single member page Izsák Márton is already also within the latter category via his county of birth, and "Romanian" is not anachronistic for him. – Fayenatic London 15:23, 11 October 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:Spouses of United States Cabinet 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: delete. MER-C 09:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Notability is not inherited. See this previous discussion. TM 14:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NONDEF, most of these biographies devote very little attention to the person's role as spouse of a cabinet minister. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:38, 12 October 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:Go-Bots[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 09:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorized minor trait related to a "short lived line of Transformers." There is no need to merge. TTN (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page Go-Bots has never been an article, but redirects to an article on an earlier line of toys, Gobots (which has a section on Transformers). Notability is clearly lacking. – Fayenatic London 11:48, 15 October 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.

Members of the Congress of Deputies[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 according to Place Clichy's proposal. MER-C 04:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To bring the categories in line with Congress of Deputies, the lower chamber of Spain's national legislature, which does not have any parenthetical disambiguation. This was opposed as speedy on the grounds that there are similar sounding legislatures. However, it should be noted that there are no other "Congress of Deputies" articles on English Wikipedia and even if there were it could be argued that the current Spanish Congress of Deputies is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Any remote possiblity of confusion amongst readers can be avoided by having a hat note at the top of the category. Also consistent ordinal numbering.Obi2canibe (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to numerals and rename the others listed above by Place Clichy. When I first looked, I thought it was unambiguous, and I renamed the lists, removing “(Spain)”. I will move them back to match the final categories when this closes. – Fayenatic London 12:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary - to make it clear, here is the list of actions which have, I believe, received the most support:
Place Clichy (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are planning on renaming all the articles named after the Congress of Deputies as well? Otherwise it seems we hold categories to a much higher standard than articles.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My main concern here is consistency, which would not only be affected by the category tree but also the main article currently located at Congress of Deputies. My suggestion then would be Place Clichy starting a RM to determine if it's the primary topic and then let us return here to decide on the category names with that in mind. As it stands now I would support the original proposal over Place Clichy's, but would prefer Place Clichy if the main article was moved. --Trialpears (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we need consistency between main space and categories.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is not an overriding need for consistency between main space and categories. There are many instances where articles are named as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but the related category has a longer name including a location, gender or other disambiguating qualifier. This is partly because editors do not actually look at the category pages if they add categories using WP:HOTCAT. Note Anthony Appleyard's comments at Talk:Congress of Deputies: he moved the page because without other evidence it seemed at that time to be the primary topic. Place Clichy has since created a page Congress of Deputies (disambiguation) as was suggested by Anthony.
If I had not participated, I would close this CFD according to Place Clichy's revised listing above. – Fayenatic London 12:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are usually not ambiguous for readers since they have plenty of context to determine whether it's the Russian Congress of People's Deputies or the Spanish Congress of Deputies, which is our main concern here. While the hotcat argument may be valid, it just isn't that important in my opinion. If you have a problem with the articles title just start a RM, which will probably help us reach a conclusion in this discussion. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Place Clichy's recommendations of 18 October 2019 above. Of course category names should be held to a higher standard than articles. Oculi (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2020 (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:Soca and calypso radio stations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 25#Category:Soca and calypso radio stations

Category:Saint Ann's School (New York City) alumni[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 09:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for alumni to match article name for school. Also, to avoid possible confusion with alumni who attended other schools in New York City with the name St. Ann's. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 11 October 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:Companies of the United States by location by type[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 to Category:Companies of the United States by industry and location. MER-C 09:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to match Companies of the United States by industry. Rathfelder (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, shouldn't this also be merged like in the discussion above? If kept, rename to Category:Companies of the United States by location and industry (2nd "by" replaced by "and", per usual convention). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the contents are categorised by what is usually called industry, which is a well established heirarchy. For the USA, given the very large number of articles, I think this is a helpful intermediate category. But you are right about the proper wording.Rathfelder (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:26, 11 October 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:Seekers (Transformers)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 25#Category:Seekers (Transformers)

Category:Turkish Neoclassical architecture[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 09:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split and disambiguate. Turkey's First national architectural movement began c.1905 until the 1930s. It is also known as Turkish Neoclassical architecture but this is ambiguous; Karaağaç railway station built 1890 predates First National. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose @Fayenatic london: The term Turkish Neoclassical Architecture is another name for the First National Architectural Movement. Also Karaagac station was originally opened on 4 April 1873, not 1890, however the large station building of Karaagac station wasn't built until 1914, during the movement. Perhaps a distinguish tag can be placed on the article to not get it mixed up with Neoclassical Architecture in Turkey. Cheers. (Central Data Bank (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:25, 11 October 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:Schedule II banks in Canada[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: Double upmerge to Category:Banks of Canada and Category:Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With nearly all of the tagged foreign-owned banks in Canada consisting of re-directs to foreign-owned banks, not to mention the fact this is a small category, I recommend either (a) merging it with Category:Banks of Canada or (b) simply deleting it. As well, some companies are listed in this category that aren't even banks (i.e., Walmart Canada Bank is a redirect to Walmart Canada following the sale of all banking operations in Canada). Similarly, I'd also recommend seeing if there's a Category:Schedule I banks in Canada and merging it with Category:Banks of Canada. The resulting category would not be inordinately large. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, well, some of the articles are currently working their way through AfD due to lack of notability, specifically a lack of significant coverage that would necessitate or even warrant articles/standalone articles. Also, there's no Schedule I banks category, and you may be right on WP:TRIVIALCAT, but I'd argue it's actually a WP:NARROWCAT issue. I'm also wondering if we could unlink, somehow, the Canadian foreign subsidiaries category from this one so that non-banks aren't listed (i.e., Walmart Canada). --Doug Mehus (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-Doug Mehus (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's how you do a wikilink for a category in-text, you precede by a colon. I only figured out the {{lc}} tags. Did someone modify my original proposal to correct those wikilinks? If so, (1) thanks and (2) I guess it's fine if we edit other peoples' comments for such minor syntax formatting issues, as I've done that a couple times or so. Anyway, to your reply Marco, I'd have no problem with Category:Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies becoming also a sub-category of Category:Banks of Canada (it's currently a sub-category of Category:Schedule II banks in Canada. It just makes sense to merge them since we haven't even bothered to create Schedule I and III categories).
Marcocapelle, well, that's true actually. I'm less concerned with the Category:Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies category, so then we should just merge Category:Schedule II banks in Canada with Category:Banks of Canada and also tag/list the foreign banks in the Canadian subbies category (whether articles or redirects), which we're already doing.Doug Mehus (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose merge - I looked at the list and see that there are several redirects, but my preferred approach would be to add a short section about the Canadian subsidiaries to their parent article, preserving the info, and then make a more targeted redirect to that subsection. For the merge proposals you submitted, if successful, you'll need a redirect anyway, and the task will be easier with those you have content for to merge. Once the redirects are improved, I think it's worthwhile to keep the category. Schedule II banks, which honestly I'd never heard of until summoned by a bot to another discussion, seem to be a big deal in aggregate. Merging the category will make it harder for someone to add these subsections. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton, how so? Arguably, some Wikipedia editor created Category:Schedule II banks in Canada on the fly, thinking it'd be helpful to follow OSFI's classification. However, since most foreign-owned banks are non-notable on a standalone basis, it ends up being nearly an entire category of redirects. I can see keeping Category:Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies now that I've untagged Walmart Canada Bank, per our discussion, but I really think this amounts to WP:TRIVIALCAT if not WP:SMALLCAT when you strip out the redirects tagged, no? Plus, we don't have a Schedule I, or Schedule III, bank category. Most people would just search by Category:Banks of Canada, I think. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: your points are well taken, but I'm not familiar enough with the category to know if none of the Schedule II banks are nor will they ever be notable. If Schedule I is the default, you wouldn't expect there to be a separate category anyway, like notable people who stand on two legs, but it's also WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm just thinking in the interest of preserving knowledge, each Schedule II bank should be mentioned somewhere in an article, ideally in the parent's article if it's not notable on its own, and so this list will help guide that process. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton: essentially there's very little difference in a Schedule I and II bank except where its sole, or majority-controlling, shareholder is based geographically. Schedule III banks are actually Canadian branches of foreign banks and the difference there is that they cannot accept deposits, or if they do, they cannot be for less than $150,000 per deposit and depositor. To be clear, I'm not suggesting removing references to Schedule I and II banks from the articles...this is more about deleting a trivial and unnecessary category given its relative under-population. Any Wikipedia editor can create categories, and I think that's what happened here. But really, we need to consider the likelihood someone is to search or browse by "Schedule II banks in Canada" in our deletion and upmerging deletions. One possibility is to simply rename this category "Foreign-controlled banks in Canada", but given it's occupied almost entirely by redirects, is that even necessary? Doug Mehus (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck vote. Not worth keeping category to add info that may never get added. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:10, 23 October 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_October_11&oldid=1150301658"