Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 9
April 11 >

April 10[edit]

Category:Loriciel games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 17#Category:Loriciel games

Category:Planned communities[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. Disputes about the title of New towns in the United Kingdom and similar articles should be addressed separately at RM, after which the moves of associated categories can be revisited. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more nominations
Nominator's rationale: Fallout from discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_6#Category:New_towns_in_Egypt. There is no defined difference between New town, Planned city, and Planned community (Planned community is the accepted name for the article). Merge the split trees to a common branch. WP:OVERLAPCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: per discussion below, the categories of Hong Kong, Singapore and the UK may well be kept, as a local variation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support all except we should rename the Egyptian ones to Egyptian New Cities. The cities in that category are specifically the NUCA ones and they are official called “New Cities”. The website for them is newcities.gov.eg. PalauanReich 20:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with thanks for the effort — contra Marcocapelle and PalauanReich, I'm less open to local variations especially poor official translations.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Wow, great work! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most/Oppose UK & HK Ones For Now Support per WP:C2D to match the main article. There are two specific main articles though (New towns in the United Kingdom & New towns of Hong Kong so we should not rename UK (including England, Whales, Scotland & Northern Ireland) and Hong Kong subcats. Not sure if this is a true WP:ENGVAR or just non-standard naming but either way those should go through an WP:RM on those articles not CFD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not merely WP:ENGVAR, it is "London"-var. It was based on the name of a specific parliamentary act, and only used in London.
    1. When I was studying urban planning in the 1970s in the US, the London term had fallen out of favor.
    2. When I visited Scotland in 1993, the locals were nearly up in arms about the "London parliament" (or "English parliament" with English dripping with scorn) taking over housing control from local councils; that and independence was all anybody talked (to me) about on trains and busses. (Then my relatives had me visit Culloden. Nobody had taught me about the Battle of Culloden, even though our house had a Fraser coat of arms at the front door.)
    3. Hong Kong planning didn't start as "New towns"; the article says that term was only used "In the late 1960s and the 1970s". It was different earlier and is different currently. So planned communities is a better fit.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are all potential arguments for renaming the articles in an WP:RM, after which these categories could be speedily renamed per WP:C2D. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure for most. Oppose for Singapore. There is New towns of Singapore article, and it is known as 'new town' rather than 'planned communities' in Singapore. – robertsky (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Singapore article is badly named. "New town" is a retronym based on the London planning term, was not originally applied to the first (Queenstown), and not applied to the latest (translated "forest" town). Stop trying to make all english translation into London jargon.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever happened in London is something that is beyond Singapore. Within Singapore, all planned urban areas are called known as towns [1], even the latest urbanisation that was started from 2020ish at Tegnah [2]. – robertsky (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed. Thank you Aidan721 for following up on this.--User:Namiba 11:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I would prefer Category:Planned settlements to avoid the complication of what is a city/town/village. The UK (and some others) should not be renamed at all. They were created under the New Towns Act and so should remain "towns". I would be guided by those with local knowledge as to HK and Singapore. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Amusing, as Planned settlement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created as a redirect since 2007. The chosen term has been "planned community" since 2012.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2023 (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.

Heat waves by year[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/delete. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more nominations
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. 1-2 articles per year does not suffice this tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A whole tree of nearly empty categories is not part of "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2023 (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:Charles Chinedu Ndukauba[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. G5. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The actor is not notable enough to merit an article, so does not require a category. Certes (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed WP:Articles for deletion/Charles Chinedu Ndukauba for the matching article (now salted following repeated deletion). Certes (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2023 (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:1666 fires[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. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated 1- or 2-item categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2023 (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:1681 disasters in Europe[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. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2023 (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:Fusion night vision devices[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. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have as much experience in this realm (category maintenance) so I'm not sure. I have a few articles on fusion night vision devices partly written that I mean to publish including the envg-b and the E-COTI. Fusion is kinda the next step forward for night vision but it's still in its infancy. Looking at WP:SMALLCAT, I think this category has potential for growth as the technology progresses but I understand if it's best to merge it back in for now. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated. The only entry is not a fusion device. It is 2 technologies. "Fusion" is not mentioned in the article.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2023 (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:Cold War conflicts[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: No Consensus - As this has been open almost a month, I don't see a point in relisting for more comment at this stage. Feel free to (re-)nominate one or both of these categories at editorial discretion. - jc37 09:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost all Cold War conflicts were either rebellions or began as rebellions. Unless a clear criteria can be established I think we should merge this category into Category:Cold War conflicts. Charles Essie (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2023 (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.

Floods by year[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/delete. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more nominations
Nominator's rationale: Continued proposal of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_26#Floods_by_year. Not enough floods per year prior to 1990s to warrant these categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2023 (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:Germanic tribes[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:Early Germanic peoples without rename as resolved during discussion. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D List of Germanic tribes redirects to List of ancient Germanic peoples List of early Germanic peoples. (Category:Ancient Germanic peoples currently redirects to Category:Germanic tribes.)
Alt 1 rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT: they cover the same subject + WP:C2D: List of ancient Germanic peoples List of early Germanic peoples is the main article of Category:Early Germanic peoples.
Alt 2 rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT: they cover the same subject. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: My argument is purely technical, but there are also some semantics involved that could lead to still other alternative proposals.
  • Per nom's rationale there is a third alternative: just merge Category:Germanic tribes to Category:Early Germanic peoples, this is alt1 without renaming. I agree that in this case "early" is better than "ancient". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be in favour of that, but for that, we should probably rename the main article List of ancient Germanic peoples to List of early Germanic peoples first. As far as I can tell from the templates, talk page and edit history, it's a somewhat contentious article, and they don't like undiscussed moves. What we could do is put this nom on hold, and go to the talk page there to propose this, and once we succeed resume this CfR? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Best to proceed with WP:RM for the article. But even if it does not succeed we can still have the category renamed that way. It is unusual to have different names for article and category, but not strictly forbidden. A well-known example is the usage of disambiguators which is more common in category names than in article names. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Good idea. I posted it at Talk:List of ancient Germanic peoples#Requested move 10 April 2023. This is probably the first time I've done an RM, but there's a first for everything. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If there is consensus to anyway 1°) merge tribes and early peoples and 1°) move away from tribes, I suggest to implement that without holding, knowing that the merged category may later be itself renamed following the result of the RM. Place Clichy (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd rather do things right. If you participated in the RM, it might help us establish that consensus within the standard 7 days, and that should be unambiguous justification for merging tribes and early peoples, and moving away from tribes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt 1. No need to differentiate between early and Ancient. 'Historical' is too ambiguous, and Germanic categories have been plagued by wrong conceptions such as considering any polity loosely associated with a Germanic-family language up to the 20th century as a historical Germanic people, such as e.g. the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg or the Thirteen Colonies. Place Clichy (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, which is why I'm trying to fix some of this stuff and bring it back to what is relevant. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update List of ancient Germanic peoples has been moved to List of early Germanic peoples per RM. This essentially eliminates the rationale of the main proposal, and strongly suggests Alt 1 (without renaming) is now the preferred outcome. So far, nobody seems to be in favour of Alt 2, and Place Clinchy and myself have stated objections against it. It seems the conclusion is now obvious. Thanks everyone (including at the RM and the Early Slav CfRs) for your feedback, this was a difficult one. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2023 (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.

Fires in Europe by year[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. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the categories in the 19th and 20th century mostly consist of 1 or 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2023 (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:Cold waves by period[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. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more nominations
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Most have 1-2 entries per year. Not enough content on a yearly basis to warrant this tree. Merge to either decade or century cold waves as specified above and appropriate parent cats. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2023 (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:Slavic tribes[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:Ancient Slavic peoples, matching the RM. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D: main article is List of ancient Slavic peoples. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rename rationale WP:C2C: parent Category:Early Slavs, whose main article is Early Slavs. Similar CfR plus requested move going on for ancient Germanic peoples to early Germanic peoples.
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:A2Z (Philippine TV channel) original programming[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 per WP:SMALLCAT. If the category is expandable, it should be recreated as Category:A2Z (TV channel). bibliomaniac15 06:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main page moved to A2Z (TV channel) as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/rename and recategorize. The current category has 2 entries. None are actual programs but lists so don't belong in an "original programming" category. A category for Category:A2Z (TV channel) can be used for that. Gonnym (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2023 (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:2010 Claxton Shield[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. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated category with only two member pages. Siblings that held only 1 page have already been upmerged speedily (WP:C2F). – Fayenatic London 08:29, 10 April 2023 (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:Country subdivision 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: rename. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C Category:Administrative divisions, and WP:C2D main {{Lists of administrative divisions}} and {{Types of administrative division}}, and content such as {{Articles on fourth-level administrative divisions of countries}}.
This a compound neologism by banned User:Tobias Conradi, who used 150+ sockpuppets over 5+ years to spam this all over wikipedia, one of the worst cases ever seen. One of the sockpuppets was User:Country subdivision. Before coming here, he'd been banned at the German wikipedia. These were all supposed to be fixed (and many articles were simply deleted), but sadly others linger a decade later. It is so easy to mass create categories, and so much harder to fix them.
Precedent:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kestenbaum, Laurel Lodged, Marcocapelle, Oculi, Place Clichy, and RevelationDirect:: currently active participants in previous discussion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2023 (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/2023_April_10&oldid=1158420739"