Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 8 January 10 >

January 9[edit]

Norniron pre-Norniron[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 per nom. Under the protection policy, we cannot creation-protect pages for this reason, but future creations could be deleted per this CfD result without need for an additional nomination. ~ Rob13Talk 02:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Propose deleting:
Propose WP:SALTing
Nominator's rationale. These categories are anachronisms. Northern Ireland was creaed in 1921. The concept of Northern Ireland as a defined area distinct from Ulster dates only from the period after the introduction in 1912 of the Third Home Rule Bill. The precise shape of its extent as the six counties emerged only later in that decade, and was not formally defined until 1920.
Pre-1921 by-year categories for Northern Ireland were deleted at CFD 2017 July 11 and CFD 2017 July 21.
I propose WP:SALTing the pre-20th-century categories to prevent any further creations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nominator - Northern Ireland didn't exist until 1921, it's not possible for anything 19th century or before to deal with a country that didn't exist then, they're all covered by the relevant from/in Ireland categories. Canterbury Tail talk 01:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom; these are all fairly empty already and there's no need to mess around with Ulster-based categories as replacements. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Anachronistic. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Silly to have "17th century in Northern Ireland" when there was no Northern Ireland in the 17th century. Scolaire (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Anachronism. No real distinction prior to 1921, the Partition of Ireland started with the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and the Irish War of Independence (which caused this mess) had started in 1919. Dimadick (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. What about Category:19th century in Poland ? What's the nominator's views on it? Did Poland exist in the 19th century? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poland existed from the 10th century. It became independent again in 1918, which means that it hadn't ceased to exist after the partition of 1795. The parallel with Northern Ireland is... nonexistent, really. Scolaire (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Countries like Poland, which have existed with various names and with various geographical boundaries over centuries, are a much more difficult problem. Northern Ireland is relatively easy to define in both time and space. Rathfelder (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laurel Lodged: as others have noted, Poland existed in various forms the 10th century onwards. However, Northern Ireland was not even a concept before partition was added to the political menu in the 1910s.
    So the analogy is pointless. Let's discuss Poland in a discussion about Poland, and consider this very different case on its own merits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, you want to delete the Northern Ireland categories because they are stupid, so you are going to make a mistake for the rest of us. Ireland existed before it had a name and Wikipedia has supported that position. Now be kind. You are talking about removing links, not enhancing the distribution of information. Not even a bit. You are talking about what is stupid and who is to blame from the wider world. Talk about what is clever and how the world is going to fix it. What is important first is not the title. ~ R.T.G 13:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we need to stop retroacitvely applying a concept. Especially since Northern Ireland is not Ulster, the only concept that existed in most of this time. For the same reason we do not have Category:19th-century Pakistanis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Unlike Poland, Northern Ireland wasn't a specific concept until the last 100 years, as the nominator notes. It's perhaps reasonable to have a category for 19th-century Ulstermen, since Ulster existed then and had definable boundaries, but far northeastern Monaghan and far southwestern Armagh shared a regional/provincial identity. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:25, 1 March 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:17th-century academics[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the other xx-century academics categories either don't exist or are redirects to the corresponding xx-century scholar category (which has a full tree); the parent category was deleted a while back: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_12#Academics_by_century. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Redundant category, which fails to inform us what was the area of expertise for this people. Dimadick (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 6 February 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:Scandals in Northern Ireland[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This falls under WP:SMALLCAT. This category only contains a link to the category scandals in Northern Ireland. The controversies in the United Kingdom is quite small already, so it doesn't need to be split into more categories. CircleGirl (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "only contains a link to the category Political scandals in Northern Ireland! Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 10 January 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:Catholic Church in Rodrigues[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 per nom. ~ Rob13Talk 02:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, per WP:SMALLCAT, these are 4 categories for only 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I'll strike that from the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This is part of a set of micro-categories appearing in by country categories for small dependent islands that have never been a country in any way. More to clean... Place Clichy (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge not every island needs distinct categories of these kinds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 6 February 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:Buddhism in Seoul[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, not only is this category sparsely populated, also the both merge targets are small categories.Note that the subcategory does not need to be merged, it is already included in Category:Places of worship in Seoul and Category:Buddhist temples in South Korea. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. WP:SMALLCAT is for small categories that have no likelihood of expansion. With a quick search I found two more articles which belonged in this category, and more are likely. Also it has a fairly substantial subcategory for which this would be a more appropriate parent than either of its other parent categories. Grutness...wha? 12:15, 11 January 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:Jewish Roman Empire politicians[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. ~ Rob13Talk 03:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Textbook SMALLCAT. Category contains one member. The subject relates to a defunct country. Needless to say, the number of notable Jewish Roman Empire politicians is not expected to increase anytime soon.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least until better reasons are given. The fact that the Roman Empire no longer exists may mean that there won't be any new Jewish politicians, but it doesn't follow from that that the category is incapable of expansion. It's not clear from the nomination, or the article, that Ti. Julius Alexander was the only Jew to enter the Roman political hierarchy, who would be deserving of an article on Wikipedia. All we know is that he's the only one who's been included in this category to date. I'm not saying that there were others; in fact I wasn't aware of him. But until someone has undertaken reasonable efforts to ascertain if this category is incapable of expansion—for example, by investigating whether any scholarly literature reveals other Roman politicians of Jewish descent—this nomination seems to be ill-considered. Small categories should be deleted if they have little utility, not because they haven't been used much yet. After all, it's not like we desperately need to clear away unused data in order to make room for something else. P Aculeius (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deleting as has potential to be populated. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, (a) the category does not contribute to easy navigation to similar articles, because there aren't any similar articles; (b) no evidence is given why this category has serious potential for growth (and it is up to the opposers to provide this evidence); (c) it is not reasonable to expect many articles in this category since the Romans were the occupiers of the Jewish home country; (d) when the category is growing to more than a handful articles after all, the category can easily be reinstated; (e) it is very questionable whether the one article in this category belongs in this category as a "politician", he was the governor of a Roman province but Roman provinces did not have any political institutions. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This appears to misunderstand both the deletion process and the topic of Roman politicians. The burden is not on those who oppose a nomination to prove that the category should exist. It's on the nominator to prove that it should not. More precisely, you need to show that the category will probably never be significantly bigger than it is right now. The number of entries currently in it, and the length of time since the category was created, are relevant but not determinative. The main question is whether there is potential for expansion, and that hasn't been addressed, unless you count the nominator's reasoning that the only way for the category to expand is for future Jewish politicians to rise to prominence in the Roman Empire—which doesn't really say anything about whether there were other Roman statesmen of Jewish descent who could fit into this category. Until there's some realistic attempt to determine whether there's potential for expansion, the rationale for deletion fails.
As for whether "politicians" is the best title, that's a legitimate issue for discussion, but not a basis to delete the category. Perhaps "statesmen" would be better, although "politicians" is used in some other Roman topics for lack of a better word. It's true that Roman governors didn't run for the office and tour their prospective provinces in a jeep, touting their ties to the community and kissing babies. But they didn't come from nowhere; most of them had held elected/appointed office in Rome or the provinces before, and had long political careers, even though we often lack many of the specifics. Any Roman governor is prima facie a politician—unless there's clear evidence to the contrary—although it might also be argued that being appointed to the government of a Roman province constitutes being a politician in itself. This category is like a stub article: a beginning, without any known limits. We don't delete stubs because they're very small; we delete them or merge them into other articles when they're unlikely ever to be expanded. That's what needs to be shown here. P Aculeius (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a guideline with a default process and a rule of exception. The nominator needs to demonstrate that the default process should apply, the opposers (if appealing to the rule of exception) should demonstrate that the rule of exception applies. Everyone claiming something is responsible for justifying one's own claim.
"Statesmen" is an anachronistic term, besides it is questionable even for modern governors whether they should be classified as statesmen. Only "governor" would be really appropriate in this case. But Jewish Roman Empire governors would be even more exceptional and smallcattish. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "whether there were other Roman statesmen of Jewish descent" Several with Jewish descent, but I am uncertain of their religion. Antonius Felix, the procurator of Judea married a princess of the Herodian dynasty. His article mentions several known and possible descendants from the 1st to the 3rd centuries, but does not bother with their religious affiliations. Dimadick (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that any of this group is potentially includible in this category, irrespective of religious practice. I'm not saying they would have to be included, just that they're potentially includible, in the same way that Benjamin Disraeli would tend to be included in a category for modern Jewish politicians, or Felix Mendelssohn among Jewish musicians, despite both of them having been raised as Christians. Returning to the original nomination, are any of them significant enough to warrant articles of their own? P Aculeius (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quick follow-up: if it doesn't look like many of these people will warrant separate articles on Wikipedia (whether or not they already have them), it does sound as if there's enough material for an article about or list of (probably a combination of both) Jewish politicians in the Roman Empire, which could explain the reasons for their scarcity, and why the ones who are known were able to achieve what they did (whether by assimilation, conversion, good fortune, or the policies of particular emperors, for example). So if the final result of this discussion is to delete, the information it was created to contain can still be included in Wikipedia, as an article rather than a category. P Aculeius (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, a list will also provide better insight than a category regarding questions like what occupation people had and to what extent they may be considered to be Jewish. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article is the place to expand on dubious inclusions. No such article exists. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not need 1 articles categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 6 February 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:UNESCO Creative Cities Network[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This isn't a defining attribute of the cities listed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:17, 9 January 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:Songs from Spider-Man soundtracks[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Based on Category:Songs from James Bond films and I believe a more defining description. Otherwise, following the Batman example, they can be moved to a broader Category:Spider-Man music (see Category:Batman music). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spider-Man music is way to generic, for the Bond alternative instead.★Trekker (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree and I think a similar Batman songs category may be warranted. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of those songs have articles? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rise Above 1 --A really paranoid android (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 04:30, 9 January 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_January_9&oldid=886072512"