Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

August 26[edit]

Footballers by city in Israel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 1#Footballers by city in Israel

Category:Sierra Nevada[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 11#Category:Sierra Nevada

Early Modern Aragonese and Castilian kings[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 11#Early Modern Aragonese and Castilian kings

Category:Art museums and galleries in the United States[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/rename all. bibliomaniac15 04:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inconsistent tree scheme when compared to Category:Art museums and galleries. Both Category:Art museums and Category:Art galleries redirect to Category:Art museums and galleries. Previous discussions resulted in this precedent. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the nom is correct. Category:Art museums and galleries in the United States is the container of all these, Category:Art museums in the United States and Category:Art galleries in the United States are not part of overall 'by country' trees. Oculi (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency across countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The reader interested in one state category would likely be interested in the other and this creates consistency. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency and inclusiveness. Grutness...wha? 04:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and other users above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Isn't this similar to the "squares and plazas" nomination? Why does one nom get to retain the synonyms but the other nom does not? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not really a fair comparison. A square and a plaza are essentially the same thing. An art museum is a public or private collection open to the public, whereas an art gallery is usually a commercial operation with art for sale (although it is still sometimes used to refer to an art museum). As such they are different things, but for the sake of categorisation it makes sense to group them together. Grutness...wha? 03:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- It looks to me as if there may almost be an ENGVAR issue here. In England many art galleries are museums, not art sales establsihments, though these are also called galleries. I would suggest merging all non-sales galleries in US into "art museums" and explicitly reserving "art galleries" for establishments selling art. This seems to reflect the majority of the content. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The renaming could have been speedied per C2C. MClay1 (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2021 (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:Shia Muslim scholars[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 option A, Category:Shia scholars of Islam. – Fayenatic London 16:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to avoid the misunderstanding that this might be for Muslim people who are scholars of in any kind of subject like chemistry or linguistics. It is intended for scholars in Islam only.
copy of earlier speedy discussion
@Place Clichy and AmirahBreen: pinging contributors to earlier speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B is IMHO a must. We can't set Shia scholars of Islam as the contrary of Muslim scholars of Islam; both Shia and Sunni are Muslims even if they fight/hate each other. (Europe hat the same in the 17th century: a war of 30 years devastating many lands.) --Just N. (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 13:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a category for scholars regardless their religious background. The nominated category is specifically for Shia Muslims. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2021 (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:Han dynasty people related to the Three Kingdoms[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 all. – Fayenatic London 14:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, the current category name is entirely unclear. The Three Kingdoms proper start in 220 after the formal fall of the Han dynasty. Historians sometimes also include the last decenniums of the Han dynasty in the "period of the Three Kingdoms" concept because the Han dynasty did not have much power in its end phase and China suffered from local warlords in that period too. That being said, "related to the Three Kingdoms" suggests related to those three states (emerging in 220), not to a period. People during the end of the Han dynasty is more simple and more accurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support. I am far from certain which decades can be defined as part of the dynasty's end. But extending the Three Kingdoms period to preceding events and people seems questionable. Dimadick (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: adding sub-cats
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 07:56, 26 August 2021 (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:Khakas people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 11#Category:Khakas people

Category:Khakas cuisine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 11#Category:Khakas cuisine

Category:Khakas musical instruments[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 11#Category:Khakas musical instruments

Category:Deaths in Cairo[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 19:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the nomination at a later date

Nominator's rationale: Per a similar recent example, we don't cat people based on where they died. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if you’re doing that Category, then you could include Category:Deaths in Baghdad and Category:Deaths in Greater London too. Thepharoah17 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and Category:Deaths in Damascus Thepharoah17 (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and you can also include Category:Deaths in Paris 156.204.234.84 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and Category:Deaths in Madrid Thepharoah17 (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and Category:Deaths in Rome Thepharoah17 (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - despite claims in the recent cfd, there are plenty of similar categories; see eg Category:Deaths in England by region. Oculi (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, if this is about where people lived, they are or should be in a "from" category; while if it is not where they lived, the location of death is trivial, e.g. a hospital or nursing home. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Obviously I also support deletion of those tagged categories. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relisting in light of other categories added/tagged at a later date. I've reformatted the nomination to more clearly state what is up for potential deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All We do categorize people by where they were killed (by murder or other violence), where were they executed (and by whose authority), and expatriates who were murdered abroad. The location of someone's death is more defining that where they lived or what their occupation was (I certainly don't care about the occupations or backgrounds of murder victims). The main problem is that the categories above should be container categories with more developed subcategories, rather than stand-alone categories. Dimadick (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominated categories are not about murders, executions and so on. They are about people who died a normal death. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2021 (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:Wikipedia variable-like templates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 11#Category:Wikipedia variable-like templates

Category:Segunda División RFEF players[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. bibliomaniac15 02:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Division changed name, main page was already renamed. BRDude70 (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you see LOL? Each time people look at it, they can take a different view on it. It's been brought up before here, I appreciate I kinda went against your advice there – which was that Segunda B and Segunda RFEF were a continuation – and made a new season cat tree, but the reason was that the existing Category:Segunda División B had Category:Third level football leagues in Europe which is no longer the case going forward (it has since been removed, nothing to do with me that one, will need to get looked at as part of this) so do we instead re-name that and have both 'third level' and 'fourth level' in its descriptive cats? If we continue that pattern, Tercera Division in its three eras will require 'third level', 'fourth level' and 'fifth level' for its overview. I'm not saying that shouldn't happen, but just something to take into consideration looking at the reorganisation overall and what we want the divisions to show. On a related note (although maybe this isn't the place – can just move it all to the FOOTBALL project page I suppose), why do we have separate player categories for all the Spanish divisions and also, for example, Category:Footballers in Germany by competition including 1. and 2. Bundesliga seprately, but English and Scottish football up to the 1990s is simply Football League/Scottish Football League players? A big task to split them up and probably unnecessary, but then why do we have them for different countries? I know for a fact that La Liga and Segunda Division in Spain are under the same umbrella, with lower levels under a different body, and pretty certain that is the same for Germany with the top two tiers (the 3rd seems to be separate). Shouldn't they all be under a common category? Crowsus (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As agreed, no need for this anymore, articles will remain separated. BRDude70 (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2021 (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:Tercera División RFEF players[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. bibliomaniac15 02:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Division changed name, main page was already renamed. BRDude70 (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as per below, articles/categories etc. should not be created or moved or anything until this is properly dealt with at WT:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: see Talk:Tercera División RFEF#Requested move 8 July 2021, which saw the old article about Tercera División moved to Tercera División RFEF. For some reason, rather than undoing the move and creating a new article about the new Tercera División RFEF, @BrazilianDude70: has simply created a new article about the old Tercera División. So the 'Tercera División' history is actually currently at Tercera División RFEF; this needs sorting by somebody not INVOLVED. GiantSnowman 18:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As agreed, no need for this anymore, articles will remain separated. BRDude70 (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2021 (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/2021_August_26&oldid=1138412433"