Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 23 June 25 >

June 24[edit]

Category:Wendy (singer)[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. Note that Category:Wendy (singer) songs is not being deleted; I have ensured that it is linked to and from the other current contents of the nominated category. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only 5 related articles all already in their own songs subcategory, this is overcategorization per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm surely not a fan of Korean pop and I'm even a little bit suspicious about the pushing of those pop biz products into Wikipedia (Are there strategically paid editors? Maybe even some hired freelancers outside South Korea? Lack of any proof.). But I'm a fan of logic (if not too formalistic) and I actually count 10(!) articles (two subcategories) and not only 5 related articles. This is not a SMALLCAT and surely no overcategorization. --Just N. (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OCEPON. The song articles are already sufficiently categorized in their own category; audio and image files are not articles. There doesn't need to be a top level eponymous category for every music artist, so yes it is overcategorization and there is numerous precedent to support this. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:41, 30 June 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:DYK/Pages/Documentation[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. – Fayenatic London 14:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the templates in this category are also in the Administration one. The scope is much more clearer in that they belong to the administration side, as some of these have nothing to do with "documentation". Gonnym (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Duplicate as it seems. --Just N. (talk) 14:39, 30 June 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:DYK/Pages[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 14:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category which has no real scope. All templates/pages in the category are already placed in one or more other Did you know categories so no need to upmerge anything. Gonnym (talk) 20:30, 24 June 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:Medieval Flemish nobility[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. – Fayenatic London 14:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split, in the middle ages "Flemish" simply meant "from the county of Flanders" which did not include the duchy of Brabant. Align with Category:People from the county of Flanders and Category:People from the Duchy of Brabant. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 24 June 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.

Shia–Sunni secterian violence by country[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 as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 16:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layers, the categories are largely empty except for having Category:Violence against Shia Muslims in Afghanistan‎ etc. as a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 24 June 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.

Political party leadership elections[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
35 more cateories by country or by state/province
Nominator's rationale: to clarify that the scope is limited to political parties, and excludes both election to public office and elections to other types of non-governmental organisations such as trade unions, campaign groups and sporting organisations.
Note that the head article is at Leadership election. I believe that the categories need greater precision to avoid good faith miscategorisation errors such as this[1] mistaken addition of 1897 Philippine Supreme Council elections to Category:Leadership elections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion and survey of Political party leadership elections[edit]
add your comments and !votes here
  • Support, on the basis the categories I've looked at have been in the "Political parties" parent categories for a long time, indicating the original intention was to categorise political party leadership elections. I'm assuming the number of articles for other leadership elections are minimal and that the current categories haven't been emptied of significant number of non-political party election articles. Sionk (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's my reading of it too: that these cats were intended for political party leadership elections.
I have not done any removals, but I haven't checked for any other removals.
As to their leadership elections, I doubt we have any articles on trade union elections etc, and I reckon that the most likely errors would be with articles on elections to public office such as the example I posted above of 1897 Philippine Supreme Council elections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 24 June 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:Persons charged under the Hong Kong national security law[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:People convicted under the Hong Kong national security law and purge – Fayenatic London 14:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category names usually use "people" rather than "persons". Category:Persons redirects to Category:People. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:36, 24 June 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:Eldest sons of barons[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:Eldest sons of British hereditary barons and purge. bibliomaniac15 21:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The significance of this category is that a hereditary baronage is usually inherited by the eldest son. However, the British peerage system no longer creates new hereditary peerages, but does create new life peers. Those life peerages are by definition not hereditary, so the sons of those peers have no expectation of inheritance and so should not be included in his category.
I encountered this category on Paul Martin (Scottish politician), who is the son of a life peer. That article is one of those which should be purged from the category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This really should be renamed "Eldest sons of British hereditary barons" or something. Also, I'm concerned at how this category is basically impossible to define properly. Most hereditary barons are the sons of barons, and should, say, sons of earls who are also barons qualify? Atchom (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I looked into a few articles and those were all about people who have become a baron. This was contrary to my expectation, I had expected to find people in this category who had died before they had the chance to succeed their father. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMO we should not categorize by eldest sons of barons but by those who actually succeed (i.e. Category:Barons). In most cases a son who died first would not be notable, or would be notable for other things. (t · c) buidhe 20:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Atchom, Marcocapelle, and Buidhe: thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think that the category currently contains 4 types of article:
  1. Elder son of dead hereditary barons, who inherited their father's title (and hence are already categorised as Barons)
  2. Elder sons of dead hereditary barons, who did NOT inherit their father's title
  3. Elder sons of living hereditary barons, who expect to inherit their father's title
  4. Elder sons of life peers, who by definition have no prospect of inheritance
If this category is kept, then types 1 & 4 should be excluded, leaving us with types 2&3. But as I noted in the nomination, that would require a rename to clarify the scope, and regular purging. And as Atchom notes, many higher titles (earldoms, viscountcies, dukedoms) come with an attached subsidary baronage. So there is a further fuzziness of scope.
However, I think that Buidhe makes a good case for deletion. Inheriting the title was defining in previous times when the barons were powerful, but non-inheritance is rarely defining. So I am leaning towards deletion ... but if we delete this one, should we also delete the rest of the subcats of Category:Children of peers and peeresses? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think deletion would not be appropriate because it does meet the requirement that a category is "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define". As to the point about power of barons etc, I think it's a red herring. What matters is distinctiveness as a class, not whether we think they matter socially. In any case, I don't see why they would be less defining than getting an OBE (category) or going to a minor public school (category). I still think that clarifying the scope of the category and splitting out the life peers is the most reasonable course. Atchom (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Buidhe and BHG, preferably together with the rest of the subcats of Category:Children of peers and peeresses. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but re-organise I am against deletion, as there is an obvious usefulness in having categories for people who do not succeed but are nevertheless prominent enough to have Wikipedia pages (the British equivalent of lesser nobility, which obviously constitute a distinct class which cannot be otherwise be captured on Wikipedia). But some of the category could be usefully merged, especially the eldest/youngest ones. I would propose the following system:
    • Children of British [dukes]
    • ...
    • Children of British hereditary barons
    • Children of British life peers
In other words, the focus of these categories should not be about succession, which will be addressed on articles dealing with individual peerages, but on their class status, which in the UK context is of some importance. Relatedly and to illustrate my point, to the objection that children of life peers don't succeed to anything and should not have their own categories, I know of research under way which uses these categories to scrape for children of life peers to assess class mobility in the UK (based on the observation that children of life peers are vastly over-represented in British public life. This is not something that can be made into a Wikipedia list, but is obviously useful. Atchom (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't they simply belong in the tree of Category:Nobility of the United Kingdom? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that they don't. In the UK, the nobility, in the legal sense, only extends to the actual holder of a title, but their children hold special styles and are traditionally treated as a distinct social class. This is what would be lost if these categories were entirely nuked. Atchom (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept (which I am still not in favour of, see below) then the category should at least be heavily purged, to remove all the barons, and ultimately merged to a single Category:Children of British nobles. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my understanding, the social class you are referring to is called the gentry, for which we have Category:Gentry. There could be room for a category for British gentry, similar to what is called nobility in other countries. Place Clichy (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is defining when it leads the son to be a Baron. If that doesn't happen for whatever reason, it's not a defining relationship. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's really too narrow. Being the child of a peer is a defining relationship in the British context. Atchom (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the very few articles in this category that is not about a baron is Chris Cowdrey. I can't see how relevant it has been for him that he is the son of a baron. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CATDEF says a defining characteristic for people is "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define". In the UK context, being the child of a peer clearly meets that definition. Atchom (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet in the context of why people are notable and what sort of content their biographies mainly consist of, being the child of a peer has become a triviality. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's no more trivial than most of the biographical categories, such as OBE recipients, attendees of X or Y school, or children of PMs. It meets all the requirements for categorization. Atchom (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per RevelationDirect's rationale. Not all eldest sons inherit hereditary titles e.g. if they die before their parent. The sons we're interested in will inherit the title and be categorised as barons in their own right. Sionk (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge and restructure. The child of a hereditary baron has the title Hon. It should be limited to hereditaries, but that can be explained in a headnote, to avoid clutter. The category should not be applied to children of members of the higher British peerage, even if they have a barony as a subsidiary title: they should be categorised according to the parent's title. Younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses have the title Lord John Smith and daughters Lady Jane Smith (also earl's daughters). Having a category is useful for explaining their title. Eldest sons of the higher peerage take their father's second title as a courtesy title. This needs a separate category. Such categories should be removed if they succeed to the peerage itself. And we may need a special category for holders of courtesy titles who die without inheriting. I suspect we have some of these already, but have not checked. I do not think we need categories for children of life peers. If we do, it should be a separate one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the children of life peers have the title of Honourable as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clear support to do something with this category, but the discussion lacks a clear consensus for which action in particular. I will be notifying WikiProject England and WikiProject Royalty and Nobility shortly to facilitate additional discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a possible compromise if at least we purge articles about people who actually have become a baron. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a first step I think this will have broad consensus. Atchom (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Baroncruft. Probably a lot of the articles in the category need to be deleted too, e.g. Rupert Law, 9th Baron Ellenborough who isn't known for anything else than the fact that an ancestor received the title baron. --Tataral (talk) 00:39, 23 July 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:Music audio[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: upmerge - note that the category only contains subCategory:MIDI files at this moment (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just this category level, upmerge Category:MIDI files to Category:Wikipedia audio files. This a redundant category level. Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think that all audio recordings are inherently always music. There's music that's not audio, and there's audio that isn't music. Hyacinth (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, considering that midi files are musical by definition, the "Music audio" category is pointless. Aza24 (talk) 04:15, 28 June 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:Heterocyclic compounds (1 ring)[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 16:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misuse of parentheses in page title, more natural this way. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, the number of rings defines the categories, that should not be in brackets. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Each is an intersection-cat of two topics that are quite different and each a notable categorizion in their own right, not a strict subcat or disamgibuation. DMacks (talk) 23:52, 14 July 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:Royal Institution Christmas Lectures[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 14:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is categorizing people who delivered Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. It is analogous to a performer by performance or award category. A complete list of lecturers is present in the article. If kept, it should be renamed to something like Category:Royal Institution Christmas Lectures lecturers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 24 June 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:Missing in action[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:Military personnel missing in action. – Fayenatic London 16:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With the exception of the subcategory Category:Vietnam War POW/MIA issues, the nominated category contains only articles about people who were missing in action. Compare to Category:People killed in action, not Category:Killed in action. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 24 June 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:Articles created by Dhaneesh[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) 07:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are articles created by User:தனீஷ். Wikipedia does not categorize articles by which user created them. In part, this is to avoid implications of content ownership. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 24 June 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.

Works about Interpol[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have never heard the usage of "the Interpol" before. It's always just "Interpol". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 24 June 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:Taos Institute[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT
The Taos Institute is a think tank in the United States and this 6 article category consists mostly of co-founders. Even that close association gets a passing mention in the body of 4 of those articles. (The other two, Sheila McNamee and Diana Whitney, do mention it in the intros but both those articles could use some editor attention.) The main article was deleted by consensus for being non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taos Institute. We have different standards for articles versus categories, but I don't see any evidence this is defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 24 June 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:Members of The Club[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT)
The The Club (dining club) is a gentlemen's supper club in London that is probably most famous for declining Winston Churchill as a member. The association is likely defining for club organizer Joshua Reynolds but things drop off from there. The club generally gets a passing reference for founding members like essayist essayist Samuel Johnson, financier Anthony Chamier, and Oliver Goldsmith. For the many later members, "The Club" is usually not mentioned at all like with lawyer Charles Austin, Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone, and painter Charles Lock Eastlake. There is already a chronological list of member right here in the main article but I copied the alphabetical list from the category right here in case another editor wants to start a stand-alone list. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 24 June 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_June_24&oldid=1036332334"