Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 2 December 4 >

December 3[edit]

Category:Fictional beaches[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 22#Category:Fictional beaches

Category:Fictional baronies[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:Fictional countries manually. MER-C 07:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redirect-only category TTN (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2019 (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:Blogs about Christians and Christianity[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 17#Category:Blogs about Christians and Christianity

Category:Deryni series locations[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. MER-C 19:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just a single file, no articles. TTN (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2019 (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:Prison escapes in fiction[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. MER-C 19:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per other renames of this nature, make it more clear that the category should be used when the element is a primary aspect of the fiction, not merely incidental. DonIago (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2019 (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:Prison escapes in films[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. MER-C 19:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per other renames of this nature, make it more clear that the category should be used when the element is a primary aspect of the film, not merely incidental. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2019 (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:Invertebrates of Kazakhstan[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. MER-C 19:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Attempting to categorize species by individual countries (in which the species is found) tends to lead to both overcategorization (e.g . Aelurillus dubatolovi is categorized for several countries that are not mentioned in the text) and to incomplete categories (e.g. Category:Insects of Tajikistan contains just 8 articles). Example previous CFD. DexDor (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - these look like Notwith or Look2See creations (but don't seem to be). As others have observed, insects tend not to respect national boundaries. Oculi (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2019 (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 !Xóõ-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: redirect. MER-C 19:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrectly named: uses exclamation point (!) instead of alveolar click symbol (ǃ); see correct Category:Articles containing ǃXóõ-language text. Julia ☺ 16:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Julia: I suggest redirecting this, as it would help to identify cases where the incorrect character had been typed. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • REdirect -- It is a plausible search term. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2019 (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:Tributaries of the Prut River[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. MER-C 19:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is already the Category:Prut basin, which contains all the articles that were added to the new category "Tributaries of the Prut River". Markussep Talk 13:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:Prut basin and similar categories (see Category:Danube basin, Category:Rhine basin, Category:Rhône basin) are not meant as container categories. Markussep Talk 20:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They do not need to be a container category by all means, but in some cases they may naturally become a container category. Like here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Prut basin may contain other types of body of waters within the Prut drainage area i.e. water reservoirs. At the same time tributaries specify category related to tributary rivers. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a discussion that should have a wider scope. There are two competing river categorizing systems: the "Tributaries of" system and the "basin" system (which was based on a similar system in German wikipedia). Most river systems are only categorized in one way ("tributaries" or "basin"), not both, with some exceptions (e.g. Prut and Po). It may be a good idea to merge these two systems, and the method Aleksandr proposes here makes sense, but it's a lot of work. The "basin" system was proposed and has been discussed in WP Rivers in 2016, I suppose we should take this discussion there. Markussep Talk 08:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They do not compete, one should be a parent of the other. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's one option, the other is to convert the "tributaries" categories to "basin" categories. Markussep Talk 08:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet seen a good reason for such a conversion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems superfluous to me to have two categories for every major river, when there are probably not many basin features apart from tributaries for most of these rivers. Markussep Talk 20:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should the latter be the case, then the basin category can be upmerged. We can check that on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the first point, if tributaries categories are parented by a basin category then the tributaries articles only need to be in the tributaries category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against your idea, I just need to get used to it. It wasn't what I had in mind when I nominated this category for deletion. You should realize that if we're going to do this consistently, it will affect hundreds of categories and thousands of articles. I started a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rivers#Discussion_about_tributary_and_basin_categories. Pending the discussion, I think this CfD can be closed as "keep" for now. Markussep Talk 08:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although basin categories may be most readily associated with hydrographic features like rivers and their tributaries, they also encompass (and in many cases are significant to the definition of) other features, such as cities and historic or geologic sites. Basins and political subdivisions are equally suitable container categories. Basin boundaries may be less well known, but tend to be more stable than political boundaries. Thewellman (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing to delete the "basin" categories, on the contrary. I proposed to delete/merge the "tributaries" category into the "basin" category. Markussep Talk 08:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I perceive tributary subcategories as useful for very large river systems or endorheic basins. Thewellman (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2019 (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:2019-2020 Broadway musicals[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. MER-C 20:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a WP:PERFCAT-like daughter of the existing Category:Musicals by year series. If you want a list of "musicals eligible for the 2019-20 Tony Awards, then that might perhaps be best done within the Tony articles or something? Le Deluge (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2019 (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:Populist leaders[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. MER-C 20:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As noted on the talk page, this sounds like a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT with no clear inclusion criteria, which is a problem especially as a) some of these people are alive, b) their "populism" controversial and c) many of the biographies here do not mention "populism" or "populist" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Whehter the person qualifies depends on the editor's POV, which cannot be allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2019 (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:Native American blogs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 17#Category:Native American blogs

Category:Books by Tom O'Carroll[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. MER-C 19:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT applies. There is currently no need for this category, since there is now only a single article about a book by Tom O'Carroll. Little reason to think the category will be needed in future, since it does not concern works by a prolific author. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2019 (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.

Christian civil wars and Muslim civil wars[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. MER-C 08:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The problem of these two categories is semantic: it is impossible to combine the terms 'Christian' and 'civil war' or 'Muslim' and 'civil war', because neither 'Christian' nor 'Muslim' is an adjective referring to a state (historic or present, e.g. 'British' refers to the United Kingdom), nor is it a demonym nor a nationality (e.g. 'Briton' refers to a citizen or inhabitant of the United Kingdom, or a person who has a British passport, or is a subject to the British crown), and thus does not refer to (all) the inhabitants, subjects, nationals or citizens of a state between whom this 'civil war' is said to have taken place. Both terms are either nouns referring to adherents of the religions of Christianity and Islam respectively, or adjectives referring to those religions, and these do not coincide with state borders or the entire populations of a state. Moreover, there is virtually no time and place in history where all inhabitants of only one single state are adherents to the same religion, and none outside it. As such, terms like 'Christian civil wars' and 'Muslim civil wars' are always factually incorrect generalisations. Some other categories in which these are grouped reveal more generalisations that attempt to equate religion and geography in irresponsible ways: Christian civil wars is placed in 'Civil wars involving the states and peoples of Europe' (as if 'Christian peoples' or 'Christian states' are somehow by definition located in Europe), and 'Muslim civil wars' is placed in 'Civil wars involving the states and peoples of Asia' and 'Civil wars involving the states and peoples of Africa' (as if 'Muslim peoples' or 'Muslim states' are somehow by definition located in Africa or Asia). Aside from their semantic incoherence, these generalising categories are not used by scholars anyway, and have no place on Wikipedia. They should be deleted immediately. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS:To pre-empt potential arguments in favour of labelling or categorising the First, Second, Third and Fourth Fitna as 'Muslim civil wars': note that the states in which (or the dynasties during which) these wars took place were called the Rashidun Caliphate, the Ummayad Caliphate and the Abbasid Caliphate, not the 'Muslim'/'Islamic' 'Caliphate'/'Empire' etc. (all caliphates are by definition Islamic; 'Islamic Caliphate' is a pleonasm, and doesn't indicate any particular state/dynasty; there have been many caliphates, and even simultaneously competing caliphates throughout history, not just one). If these wars (and other wars in early Islamic history) must for whatever reason be grouped, we should follow the example of Template:Campaignbox Civil Wars of the Early Caliphates, and label them 'Civil wars of the early Caliphates' (i.e. grouped by states), or alternatively '(early) Inter-Islamic' or 'Inter-Muslim wars/conflicts' (i.e. grouped by religious factors), as long as adherents and states are not equated in inappropriate ways. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally support, per nom. Though the first category may better be merged to Category:Civil wars involving the states and peoples of Europe and the second category to Category:Civil wars involving the states and peoples of Asia (or purged and renamed to Category:Civil wars involving the early caliphates as nom says). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support generally -- Civil war normally means a war within a country. Caliphates were sovereign states, so that they were not civil wars but international ones. Similarly most European wars have been between Christian states or alliances of such; again not civil. There have been wars of religion, usually between Catholic and Protestant, some of which were civil wars (e.g. in France and arguably Thirty Years War in Germany and elsewhere). However, I do not consider this a useful category scheme, unless limited to a few specific cases. This scheme was probably started by someone who wanted to push a popular (but inaccurate) POV that religion is a cause of war. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support generally -- In the case of Islam there's something academically refer as Muslim civil wars or fitna, generally related to the wars inside the Caliphates (which gave birth to the current shia-sunni division), but a lot of the articles in the category do not apply. How is, for example, the Libyan civil war a "muslim" civil war if some of the sides are secular? thus a better category would be "fitna" as it is more specific. Similarly although internal conficts between Christians of a same country exists (i.e. France) the term is also subjective. Again, how is "the Troubles" a Christian civil war? For startes is a war between the British government and a rebel group and despite having the Church of England as somehow official, the British government is not really "Christian", and although the inner conflict was between Catholics and Prostestants mostly, some Catholics were unionist and some Protestants were republicans, is more a political-ethnic conflict. In general, is a hard category to swallow. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2019 (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:Dynastic 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: merge. MER-C 19:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As with the previous discussion, there appears to be no clear distinction between the definition of a 'dynastic conflict' and a 'war of succession'. A war of succession is by definition a dynastic conflict, though the latter doesn't necessarily have to mean the former, since not all 'conflicts' are necessarily wars. Yet, all examples currently in this category are indeed wars, so there appears to be no added value or usefulness in having this extra category. The description provided also doesn't help very much: "This category includes conflicts where both parties belong to the same ruling dynasty." Aside from the fact that there can be more than two parties, almost all wars of succession are between claimants who are either closely or distantly related nobility (except when an unrelated claimant has been promised the inheritance by sale, treaty, testament etc. by a previous ruler, or when the claimant is a usurper, e.g. a barracks emperor, though such cases are rare), and thus this doesn't distinguish it from other wars of succession. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2019 (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:Veritas (political party) members of the London Assembly[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 22#Category:Veritas (political party) members of the London Assembly

Category:Kurdish settlements[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. MER-C 19:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories. --Semsurî (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I fail to understand why they would be redundant. The fact that Category:Turkish Kurdistan, Category:Iraqi Kurdistan etc exist does not prove anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- (1) Not every settlement in the respective Kurdistans is necessarily occupied by Kurds. (2) plain deletion would destroy useful data. If it is to be deleted, its contents need to be distributed into the 4 national categories, before deletion. This kind of split is best done when a consensus has been reached here: this is done by adding the relevant category to each article and then stating so here. It is not reasonable to expect the closing admin to do this. My personal preference might be for Category:Kurdish settlements to become a container for the 4 Kurdish communities categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Settlements translates to cities, villages, etc. It does not overlap with the other categories. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 20:06, 2 December 2019 (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/2019_December_3&oldid=1073192016"