Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 28 May 30 >

May 29[edit]

Category:Lapid family[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) 03:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As an Israeli, the Lapid family would be the family of Tomi Lapid and his son, Yair Lapid. Animal lover 666 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we need it, it needs a headnote defining the family more closely. Otherwise, this is liably to be categorising people by surname, which is not allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by lack of main article in combination with borderline WP:SMALLCAT. One of these two criteria would not be sufficient to have me vote delete, but the combination is. If kept, rename to Category:Lapid family (Philippines). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have no main article. We need to stop creating family articles that lack a main article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons. --Just N. (talk) 17:45, 3 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:Joseon Dynasty painters[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) 03:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Here, Joseon is the country, not the 20 rulers. This was already done for Goryeo.... and for the Joseon article itself. Pldx1 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 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:Culture in German occupied Belgium during World War II[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) 03:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, the category mostly contains biographies that do not belong in a topic category, plus a few Tintin albums that are unrelated to the German occupation. As far as I can see we do not have a category like this in other countries. The category is also nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Culture in German-occupied Belgium during World War II which by all means can go ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I disagree that "culture" is too vague a concept in history to sustain a category. The items in the category are books published in German-occupied Belgium and cultural figures active during the period. After all, we have Category:Cultural history of World War II. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Culture is not a vague concept, but occupied Belgium was still Belgium. All content is presumably already somewhere under Belgian culture, where it should be. Place Clichy (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was open minded about this before I clicked through the articles: Tintin comics published during the war and several writers who were active during this period. Doesn't seem to be an occupation theme here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The category has been in the meanwhile speedy moved to Category:Culture in German-occupied Belgium during World War II--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the heads up. I adapted the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:18, 2 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:Satellites 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: do not merge. If re-nominated (which should be allowed), a more detailed rationale explanation would be helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More precise scope. fgnievinski (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fgnievinski: I do not understand the nomination. The category sorts the satellites by type of satellite, doesn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the absence of a more detailed rationale, one seems to be the type and the other the purpose. I'm willing to reconsider though if form and function are the same in practice. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RevelationDirect. --Just N. (talk) 17:53, 3 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:Pumpkin Star[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) 16:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although "pumpkin stars" are a thing according to NASA, it's an informal designation referring to a distorted shape. There's no article pumpkin star (it redirects to Contact binary) so there shouldn't be a category. Le Deluge (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now No main article and currently only one entry, KSw 71. Not opposed to revisiting later but can't be supported with current content. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now per nom and RevelationDirect. --Just N. (talk) 17:55, 3 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:People of mixed Sinhala-Tamil 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Feels like a messy intersection category Le Deluge (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator comment I don't understand; what do you mean by "messy"? It is a relevant category given the ethnic tensions and conflict between the Sinhala and Tamil people of Sri Lanka and thus decrease in Sinhala-Tamil marriages.Yohan Antjont Sunanda (talk) 17:18, Sat 29 May 2021, GMT
    • @Yohan Anthony Sunanda: "Descent" categories are inherently a bit unsatisfactory as they're hard to get reliable WP:REFERENCEs for - and they tend to be a bit "fuzzy", editors start applying "descent" categories to someone on the basis of great-grandfathers and the like. That's one aspect of the "messiness", descent is not clear-cut and verifiable in the same way as holding a passport. Secondly, someone's descent is rarely relevant to their story. There are exceptions, eg someone like Michael Chopra who went through a saga of potentially playing football for India despite being a British citizen, by virtue of his Indian family heritage. But in general there's huge amounts of WP:OVERCATEGORISATION based on descent that is not appropriate relative to its importance for most people. Combine that with the sourcing problems and you can see why I'm not a fan in general of most descent categorisation.
      Moving on to this category in particular, if you read WP:OVERCATEGORISATION you'll see that intersecting categories are generally discouraged except for properly big categories, we have pretty good tools for finding intersections like between people of two different descents. Categories on Wikipedia are rather more sophisticated than simple metatags. And in this case Category:People of Sinhalese descent is not just small but non-existent, which hardly suggests we need an intersection category. One other thing - when creating categories, please make sure that they are categorised in turn, it's important that they're in the hierarchy so that humans and maintenance bots can find them. Le Deluge (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we categorize people by ethnicity, but as far as I know there is no separate Sinhala-Tamil ethnicity. If mixed marriages is a notable topic, by all means create an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Marcocapelle. We can classify by both but it's not clear the intersection is defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We categorize people by recognized ethnic gorup. Thus Metis, but Metis are an ethnic group, not just every person with both Native American and European ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous editors. Multiple ethnicity is not a defining ethnicity, though people who would self-identify as both Tamil and Sinhalese could in theory be parented to both categories. Note that a large purge will probably be necessary for Sri-Lankan categories, as some editors have apparently considered that every single category should be split along ethnic lines, and that ethnicity, or ethnicity-occupation intersection, is defining for everybody, in complete contradiction with our guidelines WP:EGRS, WP:OCEGRS and WP:CATDEF. Place Clichy (talk) 15:48, 7 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:Anthony family (Susan B. Anthony)[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. The entries are now listed in the infobox for Susan B. Anthony. – Fayenatic London 10:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A more natural disambiguation. (Category:Anthony family is open, but some of these family categories that lack articles need more information in the category name, in my opinion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, family without main article and borderline WP:SMALLCAT. One of these two criteria would not be sufficient to have me vote delete, but the combination is. If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Five members is the generally accepted cut-off number for WP:SMALLCAT, so I would like to see a stronger consensus to delete this category instead of the proposed renaming.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Rename if Kept Susan B. Anthony's siblings (Mary Stafford Anthony and Daniel Read Anthony) both seem defined by the relationship while nephew Daniel Read Anthony Jr. and great niece Susan B. Anthony II do not, despite the name. No objection to revisiting if a main article is created on this activist family, but this only aids navigation for 2 of the 5 articles in the category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack a topic article. With family categories we should always insist on a topic article. Otherwise we get true messes like we used to have with an article linking 7th or greater cousins together who had no concept themselves that they were in any way related.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:00, 3 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:Tunisian theologians[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) Rathfelder (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They are all Muslim Rathfelder (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create subcat. Tunisia had an early Christian history, and several noted Christian theologians were from that part of the world (albeit before it was known as Tunisia). I've added a couple to the category. Grutness...wha? 04:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They weren't Tunisian but Roman and should be removed from the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 30 May 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:Governing Council of the ECB[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 per ALT-1. – Fayenatic London 14:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pretty much all other mentions of this is not abbreviated so it would make more sense to do that here as well DemonStalker (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus to expand the abbreviation and add "members" to the name, but where in the title should the latter be placed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter not necessarily so. I would rather expect articles about actions of the council when the category name does not specify members. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:23, 2 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.

Otolaryngologists[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, these are mostly one-article categories, some have two or three. This is not a case of the so-called smallcat exception rule, because it's not picking one subcategory from an otherwise well-populated tree, rather the entire tree consists of smallcats. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination, @Rathfelder, JoelleJay, RevelationDirect, Bigwig7, and Place Clichy: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right that there is nothing special about otolaryngologists, the nomination would have been the same for any other occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not an sttack on the system at all. For example Category:Poets by nationality is decently populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why exactly does WP:SMALLCAT not apply? Physicians is a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". There are about 160 articles about otolaryngologists and there is potential for growth. Rathfelder (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a discussion about physicians in general but about a subsubspeciaization of physicians. 160 Articles is a very low number considering there are some 200 nationalities. We don't diffuse Category:Romantic poets by nationality either. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not an issue of destroying, the usage of that word is completely inapplicable here. This is a merge proposal, not a deletion proposal. It is an issue of not diffusing by nationality. Categories low in the tree with a relatively low article count do not have to diffused by nationality. That does not just apply to physicians, it applies to every occupation, as I have showed before with Category:Romantic poets. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Romantic poets dont have much in common with surgeons. And there is no reason to think that romantic poets cant be divided by nationality. You are not answering my questions about WP:SMALLCAT. If it doesnt apply here, where does it apply? Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that both terms are being used. For what it is worth, "otolaryngologist" is used more often in the biography articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 1 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:Devotees of Paramahansa Yogananda[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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, president of the Self-Realization Fellowship is a defining characteristic, other than that just being a devotee is not. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If a person has a Wikipedia page in their name that is significance enough. There are tens of thousands of devotees worldwide but most do not have a Wikipedia page in their name.Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Devotees do not get a Wikipedia page because they are a devotee. For example, Luther Burbank is primarily known as a botanist. Being a devotee is non-defining for him. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:30, 2 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:Documentary films about the Armenian Genocide[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) 02:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: RM decided not to cap "genocide" in such contexts. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 29 May 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:Romanov Family Association 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT)
After the royal family was executed in 1918 during the Russian Revolution, the escaped and already overseas members remain defined as being the House of Romanov in exile which is why we already have Category:House of Romanov in exile. In 1979, the Romanov Family Association was created and its membership is limited to legitimate descendants, although there is some controversy over the lineage. Being a member of a family association isn't defining when we already have a category for that same family and the contents are listified in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, just membership of an organization is hardly ever defining and in this case there is also the overlap aspect. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:07, 3 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:Local units of the Boy Scouts of America[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCMISC)
WP:SCOUTSTYLE emphasizes how unlikely it is that local scouting groups are notable, which is likely why this 13-year-old cat still only contains 3 articles with little room for growth. When you put together the miscellaneous articles that don't belong in either the councils or camps categories, it's not a cohesive grouping that would aid navigation: an equestrian troop, a drum and bugle corps, and a dance troupe. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge local scout units, basically anything below the council level, are virtually never notable. Although with the way some interpret GNG, the fact that one could find 3 newspaper articles mentioning members of that troop doing things, would lead to some arguing they pass GNG. Which really tells us some misunderstand GNG, and we should be much more cautious about content from local papers running human interest stories on local events. I suspect my old troop 1973 of what was then the Detroit Area Council (I think that was the name, we were not in Clinton Valley Council because the church building was in the other council area, even though I myself lived in the Clinton Valley Area), got at least 2 articles mentioning it over the years, maybe more. We got heavy coverage when we had 7 boys get their eagles at once, so we may have had 2 papers publish articles then, and if so they would have had 2 different writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 6 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_May_29&oldid=1027512812"