Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 5

< January 4	January 6 >

January 5[edit]

Category:Depictions of Jesus[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: renamed to Category:Jesus in art (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Depictions of Jesus to Category:Depictions of Jesus in visual arts

Nominator's rationale: rename, disambiguate per actual content and per header of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Category:Jesus in art would be shorter and correspond to various others. I remember user:Johnbod favoured that naming format for depictions of another religious figure last year. – Fayenatic London 17:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Support Category:Jesus in art. much better! Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then Rename, but re-create the old name as a head category over Category:Jesus in art and Category:Cultural depictions of Jesus. – Fayenatic London 19:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2016 (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:Categories by geographical location[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) 06:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Categories by geographical location to Category:Categories by location

Nominator's rationale: rename, the adjective "geographical" seems redundant, most subcategories are simply "by location" or "by locality". The related article is Location (geography). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment geographic location versus building/structure versus natural geography versus geopolitical location. It would seem better to rename the subcategories to exclude buildings and structures instead. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Also, the structure can easily cope with different interpretations of "location", so further specifying "geographical locations" really isn't necessary. --PanchoS (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is unneeded disambiguation in a category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2016 (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 containing Simplified Chinese-language text[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 empty category. The discussion has now been open for such a long time, and the category has been empty for quite some time, so I hope nobody will mind that I close the discussion even while I participated in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Articles containing Simplified Chinese-language text to Category:Articles containing simplified Chinese-language text

Nominator's rationale: Upper/Lower case in word "Simplified". ValterVB (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Are you sure that "Simplified Chinese" is not correct? It looks like a compound proper noun to me, but I am no expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is Simplified Chinese characters in which mostly lowercase "s" is being used (which makes sense, in the context of "characters"). Per main article I would suggest merging and renaming to Category:Articles containing simplified Chinese characters. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the template which created the category with upper case. Now the category is empty. --ValterVB (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per Peterkingiron. Simplified Chinese is a proper compound. Lowercase "simplified" tends to be misleading, too: especially with the "-language" suffix, it reads like we'd be simplifying something, i.e. the compound is no more understood as being a compound. --PanchoS (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PanchoS: What do you think of the alternative rename proposal? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's a proper compound, so needs capitalization, but "characters" is much, much better. In the end, there is no "Simplified Chinese" language, just a "Simplified Chinese" script. --PanchoS (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let's take it as a merge and rename to Category:Articles containing Simplified Chinese characters then. Capitalization isn't my main expertise. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge one way or the other. I am not sure which way, but these are the same thing, so only one category is needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename both categories to Category:Articles containing Simplified Chinese characters. I agree with Johnpacklambert that they are the same, so there should only be one category. Since the Wikipedia article exists at Simplified Chinese characters, I recommend following the capitalization at that article. If that article is renamed to have lowercase characters, then this category can be renamed correspondingly to have lowercase characters. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I thought about closing this discussion (with a rename to the "characters" proposal but keeping "Simple" capitalized due to lack of consensus), but upon investigation, I don't know if it's even possible to rename the category to use "characters" instead of "-language text", given that it is applied by a template. (Well, of course it's possible—virtually anything is possible with templates if you know what you are doing, I just think it would be far too complex for me to figure out and implement.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Good Olfactory: Do you happen to know someone who is capable of implementing what you suggested? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't, but I'm not too familiar with the editors who are coding experts at all. One possibility is I could close it and then just put it in WP:CFDWM and hope that someone who looks at stuff there has a talent for coding that I don't know about. It might be more likely to be seen there than sitting here unclosed? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think neither will be effective. I've asked for help here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the surest bet. See what some of them think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic to change category title from text to characters. The templates that fill Category:Articles containing simplified Chinese-language text and Category:Articles containing Simplified Chinese-language text call another template used by (I'm guessing) all of the other language templates – I know that the German language template uses it. It is this common template ({{ISO 639 name conversion template doc}}) that does the categorization for all.

I would note, for your capitalization discussion, the template outputs:

{{ISO 639 name zh-Hans-CN}} → {{ISO 639 name|zh-Hans-CN}}

{{ISO 639 name zh-Hans}} → {{ISO 639 name|zh-Hans}}

{{ISO 639 name zh-s}} → {{ISO 639 name|zh-Hans}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination, which is now equivalent to "delete". IMHO simplified Chinese is not a compound proper noun. Moreover, I do not think it is worth extra work to use the word "characters" for this category alone out of all Category:Articles containing non-English-language text and Category:Articles containing Chinese-language text. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for solving the issue. @Good Olfactory: Category is now empty and can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2016 (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:Aircraft with four ejection seats[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Aircraft with four ejection seats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We do not categorise aircraft by the number of seats they have, ejection or otherwise - calling a spade a spade, this is non-defining catcruft at its highest level. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic case of non-defining. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TRIVIALCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TRIVIALCAT.--Petebutt (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sorry my late answer. Many laymen don't realize that aircraft can have more than two ejection seats. The choreography to avoid seat collisions takes precious time. My intention with this category is to let readers find other aircraft with several ejection seats. I couldn't come up with a proper name for "Category:Aircraft with more than two or three ejection seats", but aircraft with more than four ejection seats would also be interesting. I do realize that this category could lead to trivial categories like Category:Aircraft with one ejection seat, and Category:Aircraft with two ejection seats which I don’t find useful. But Category:Carrier-based aircraft isn't followed by Category:Land-based aircraft just as Category:People who have walked on the Moon isn't followed by Category:People who haven't walked on the Moon. The reason is the same, the red categories are too trivial. But in my opinion, aircraft with four or more ejection seats are non-trivial enough to have a category. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Carrier-based aircraft' is WP:DEFINING to the aircraft type; however, the intersection of "X number of seats" and "X type of seats" is only interesting trivia and, therefore, overcategorisation. Now, adding a bit to Ejection seat noting how multiple seat firings require timing and such may be useful, however. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:TRIVIALCAT. - BilCat (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and broaden to Category:Aircraft with ejection seats. I suspect this is common, but not universal amongst military aircraft. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is all-but universal and utterly undefining. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some users are hiding behind WP:TRIVIALCAT, as if it has written: "Thou shalt not have Category:Aircraft with four ejection seats!". However TRIVIALCAT is not as rock-solid in this matter - it is more an assessment.

@The Bushranger: Thank you for writing a proper text. But what is the real issue here - will Category:Aircraft with four ejection seats create precedent for Category:Aircraft with one ejection seat or Category:Aircraft with two ejection seats, which I believe are trivial (Many fighters would belong to both categories). --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You're right, WP:TRIVIALCAT is a judgment call this seems to be "modern military jets with room for four people so there's also four ejection seats" and the Ejection seat article doesn't lead me to a different view. I would have no objection to a list article though. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect: Well it's not all military jets with room for X people that have X ejection seats on board because of weight and structural issues - e.g. Vickers Valiant, Handley Page Victor and Avro Vulcan; only the pilots had ejection seats while the other three crew members had to bail out via the entrance door. But your list article suggestion sounds interesting. How about List of multi-crew aircraft with ejection seats? I'm not interested in one or two-seater aircraft, they're too trivial regarding launch sequence. And I'm not interested in multi-crew military aircraft, like C-130 Hercules without ejection seats. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NON-DEFINING, WP:DNWAUC. DexDor^(talk) 06:20, 12 January 2016 (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:State Prize laureates (Polish People's Republic)[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 SQL ^{Query me!}

Propose deleting Category:State Prize laureates (Polish People's Republic) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We do not have an article about this particular prize. It is probably a notable prize, but I think the first step would be to create an article about the prize, possibly including a list of recipients, before attempting to categorize bio articles by it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listify then delete -- We do not normally allow award categories except for the most notable. Lists doe the job much better. The contents can be in date order with information on the citation. As a national award, this may be approaching the level at which we would allow it, but we should have the list first. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not appear to be a top national/industry/field award. No objection to listifying. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-defining award category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Listify then~~ delete per Peterkingiron so that the information grouping the laureates together is not lost. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regarding listifying: I don't normally object to listifying, but in this case, the award is not even mentioned in the article text for the vast majority of those included in this category, and it is cited information in exactly one of the 48 articles. Hence, it is virutally all uncited information. Do we really want to create a list of recipients where there are no citations? Do we really need to retain an uncited grouping? I say get an article for the award first—then, a list can be included in the article that is properly cited, if users are so inclined to do the work for that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a good point. I've created a list of people in the category below so the information is not lost as it might be helpful to a future editor who wants to create a sourced list of recipients. But since the material is currently uncited, I agree that it should not be listified. Cunard (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of the people in the category:

Cunard (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2016 (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:Alim Qasimov[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Alim Qasimov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem to be enough content to warrant an eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. A couple of albums and the person's daughter and that's it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. No objection to recreating an eponymous category or a Qasimov family category later if either can get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (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.