Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 14 March 16 >

March 15[edit]

Category:Trochilidae[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) 23:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They seem to duplicate each other. AS sa 22:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, or perhaps reverse merge. I personally prefer a word I can understand. Oculi (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- leaving a cat-redirect. Prefer not to reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2020 (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:Tudeh Party of Iran 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: Not renamed Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term 'member' is more convenient and includes all, even those who were not 'politician' in the traditional sense: Ebrahim Golestan, Ahmad Shamlou, etc. Pahlevun (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is part of a category tree by occupation. Politician is an occupation (and a defining characteristic), party membership is not. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- A businessman notable for other reasons should not be in a category, just because he had joined the party. mere membership casts the net too wide. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle & Peterkingiron who correctly note that mere membership in the organization isn't what's defining nor what the tree contains. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2020 (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:Biomedical engineers[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They seem to be substantially the same. Not sure which way round would be the better merge. Rathfelder (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2020 (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:History of clothing (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. There is some support for a medieval sub-cat, so after merging I will rename the page and move relevant content. – Fayenatic London 08:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Smoother flow and consistency with other similar categories (Category:History of European colonialism, Category:History of European art music, etc). Brandmeistertalk 14:51, 15 March 2020 (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:Spelling reform[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 for opposition (non-admin closure). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both of the category is about orthography reform. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:22, 15 March 2020 (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:Track and field athletes by club[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: Not renamed Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The contents of this tree include competitors in all forms of the sport of athletics, not just track and field. The naming convention of the child categories is mixed and ambiguous: "athletes" and "athletics competitors". We need to make it clear that these categories are specifically about the sport of athletics, and not sport in general.
This is particularly problematic as the parent clubs are often multi-sport ones with child categories for other types of athlete (e.g. Category:Fenerbahçe S.K.). It also does not help that some similarly named "X CLUB athletes" categories relate to all sports rather than specifically athletics (I will raise this in a separate nomination). I suggest we standardise the athletics club member tree to match the logical parent Category:Competitors in athletics. SFB 11:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Child nominations
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:Public Health Emergency of International Concern[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. – Fayenatic London 11:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a set category rather than topic category. Only Polio eradication is somewhat out. Brandmeistertalk 11:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it isn't a set category as it contains 2 topic subcats. Oculi (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having topic subcats doesn't make it a topic category automatically. Five out of six disease articles inside the category have been classified as Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Brandmeistertalk 11:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does. Any subcat of a set category is necessarily a set category (assuming the correct laws of logic have been followed, which sadly is very far from the case in Wikipedia). Oculi (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. An example mentioned in WP:SETCAT, Category:Cities in France contains many topical subcats, e.g. Category:Strasbourg. Likewise, this category overwhelmingly contains diseases classified as Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Polio is also classified as such, so except parent article and Template:PHEIC all articles inside are PHEICs. Brandmeistertalk 12:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the category does not contain declarations, it contains epidemics. Apart from that, abbreviating PHEIC does not make any sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2020 (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:19th-century kings of Germany[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) 23:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, "king of Germany" is not a defining characteristic of Napoleon II. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed him from that category because I don't see how it's appropriate. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments I had added him to a category as the last King of the Romans. The category was merged to the Kings of Germany category, and then deleted. Dimadick (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there were kings in Germany (e.g., the King of Bavaria) but not of Germany; there was an emperor of Germany. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. By the 19th century the title, if it ever really meant anything, had ceased beyond doubt to have any meaning. It could only conceivably be said to have had meaning for 2 years. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2020 (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.

Kings of Germany[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) 23:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, C2D per King of the Romans and C2C per Category:Kings of the Romans. This was opposed at CFDS.
copy of CFDS discussion
Isn't "Kings of the Romans" highly redundant to Category:11th-century Holy Roman Emperors‎ and so on? --mfb (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Middle Ages it is certainly not redundant. Many Kings of the Romans have not been crowned Holy Roman Emperor. In the Early Modern period it becomes much more overlapping though. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Armbrust: pinging contributor of speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments I had created the Kings of Romans categories, and they were all deleted in August 2019. Isn't there a rule against recreating deleted categories? Dimadick (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general rule is to not be disruptive. In this case I had nominated the categories as "merge or reverse merge", the discussion was closed as "merge" but in hindsight "reverse merge" would have been better. This nomination is meant to implement the latter after all. That is not disruptive. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2020 (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:10th-century kings of Germany[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) 23:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, anachronistic title, rename to match Category:9th-century kings of East Francia. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2020 (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:Carolingian Roman emperors[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) 23:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I created this category in 2015, but after the creation of Category:9th-century Holy Roman Emperors in 2018 this category lost its purpose. No need to merge to the other parent, all content is already in the tree of Category:Holy Roman Emperors. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2020 (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/2020_March_15&oldid=955619842"