Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 25 May 27 >

May 26[edit]

Category:Hippo Campus songs[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. bibliomaniac15 19:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains 3 redirects which all redirect to a single album. No help to readers. Richhoncho (talk) 22:31, 26 May 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:Roman North Africa[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. bibliomaniac15 21:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, suggest the same format for modern regions as for modern countries. The country siblings are consistently "in the Roman era". The North Africa category was opposed for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of CFDS discussion
@Black Falcon: pinging contributor to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm inclined to agree with Black Falcon that we should reserve the "Foo in the Roman era" structure for modern states. I don't think that much good is achieved by having fuzzy regions. For that reason I think that it would be better to upmerge Category:Roman North Africa to Category:Roman provinces in Africa (excluding the modern state categories, so maybe a manual moving might be best). There were no Roman provinces in Africa that were not also in North Africa. Also, we should upmerge Category:Roman Balkans to Category:Roman provinces in Europe (excluding the modern state categories, so maybe a manual moving might be best). As an alternative, I could live with a "Continent Foo in the Roman era" structure. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is not a good idea to rename "North Africa" to "Africa" because the latter may well be confused with Africa (Roman province). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the scope of Category:Roman provinces in Africa says "Ancient Roman provinces located on the continent of Africa", I don't think that those objections greatly matter. Since the articles cover the whole of Roman North Africa, then they are in the continent of Africa. An expanded note can accommodate differences with Africa (Roman province). By the way, there was nothing in the Roman state called "Roman North Africa". Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there's a "North Africa" today, and if the resulting title, "Roman North Africa" is perhaps a bit macaronic, it's at least fairly clear what is meant—with the notable exception that Egypt, while we think of it as part of "North Africa", would rarely if ever be included under the title of "Roman North Africa"—Egypt is sui generis. "Roman Africa" usually refers specifically to the province of Africa, which is why it redirects there. These small distinctions matter in classical studies—which is why a category called "provinces of" might be susceptible to the argument that "nothing that isn't a province should be in this category"—dramatically limiting its scope. All the notes in the world won't eliminate that argument. Lots of topics besides provinces can fit under "Roman North Africa", and nobody can object on the grounds that the name of the category excludes them. P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(as nom) I agree with P Aculeius, since the three articles and two subcategories that I mentioned before do not fit in Category:Roman provinces in Africa (they are not about provinces) and this content should stay together in some fashion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So if the nom proceeds with Category:North Africa in the Roman era, then Egypt willnot be allowed to be a member? I would find that very strange. I would expect North Africa to conform to the modern definition, not the Roman one. Egypt has always been catgorised as both Africa and Near East in modern parlance. In Roman times, I don't think that there was such a thing as "North Africa". Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the comments so far, I don't think the category is moving at this time. Whether Egyptian topics can be included is another matter, as both the current title and the proposed new title would include the phrase "North Africa". But to the best of my knowledge, there was no more interaction between the other Roman provinces in Africa and Egypt than there was between them and Sicily or Spain or Syria. Historically and culturally, Egypt belongs to a different part of the Roman world; but all of the other Roman provinces on the continent of Africa—all of which were on the Mediterranean coast—were linked with one another, as former Carthaginian colonies, and their immediate neighbors. It makes sense to treat them as a geographic unit, but I personally wouldn't include Egypt. I'm not demanding that anyone else agree with me. But in any case, it's a separate issue entirely; this discussion was first about renaming the category, and then about merging it into another category. P Aculeius (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose renaming these categories; oppose upmerging as proposed by Laurel Lodged. With respect to the names, this is a discussion about consistent titling between "Roman Foo" and "Foo in the Roman era". Legitimate reasons exist for both styles: we have Roman provinces at a variety of titles, and it isn't practical to enforce a single naming convention on them; we have "Roman Britain" rather than "Britannia", because "Britannia" is used for a different article; "Roman Syria" rather than "Syria in the Roman Era" because the province and the modern state don't share the same territorial boundary; "Asia (Roman province)" because "Roman Asia" would cover many different provinces, whether one includes all of what we call "Asia" or just Asia minor (and in antiquity the term was even more ambiguous); "Gallia Narbonensis" because that's what it's usually called today, but "Cisalpine Gaul" instead of "Gallia Cisalpina" for the same reason. And of course there was "Africa (Roman province)", the extent and boundaries of which changed significantly as new provinces were created from it.
I'm not sure that enforcing a consistency in category names here is necessary or desirable; certainly "Roman Foo" is more concise than "Foo in the Roman era", and it makes an important distinction: does "in the Roman era" cover the entire period of Roman history, or just the period during which a particular place was under Roman administration? I would tend to assume the latter, but I can foresee instances where the answer might not seem as obvious. "Roman Foo" doesn't have that ambiguity. I'm not sure we need to choose one or the other for all Roman geographical categories, however.
With respect to the upmerging proposal, I think that merging "Roman North Africa" to "Roman provinces in Africa" would be a mistake, because not every topic is going to neatly fit into a provincial category. The category may not be very large currently, but it has significant room for expansion—"Roman provinces in Africa" is very narrowly-defined by comparison, which would make many topics that would fit under "Roman North Africa" seem miscategorized. The problem is still more serious with "Roman Balkans", which is a category of much more limited geographical extent—as well as a broader topical reach—than "Roman provinces in Europe". There are legitimate reasons for grouping topics relating chiefly to the Balkan peninsula, without including topics relating to the many other European provinces (which, technically, would exclude Italy, which was not a "province", although modern Italy also contains part or all of several provinces). I think it would be a mistake to eliminate a potentially-useful category in favor of one which, by its name, would exclude most of the natural contents of the existing category, and fold the rest in with a much wider geographical grouping. P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose The current titles are both more consise and clearly indicate that these areas belonged to the Roman State. We are not interested in areas outside of Roman control but during the same historical era. Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unlike the Spain article, these refer to geographic locations not ahistorically to a country that didn't exist contemporaneously with Rome's occupation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to support -- Both these cover multiple Roman provinces. Africa (Roman province) was only part of the area. In the Balkans, the boundaries between Roman provinces and modern countries are so different that a category of this kind is needed. Asia (Roman province) was only a part of modern Turkey, which is itself far smaller than even the Roman part of what we call Asia. This is a case where we need to allow article names to fit the circumstances, not crush the circumstances into fitting artificial WP rules. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 31 May 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:Articles containing Panjabi-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. bibliomaniac15 19:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Articles containing Punjabi-language text

as Panjabi is a alternate name of Punjabi 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- I suspect the issue here is one of transliteration; however Punjab is the normal English spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 31 May 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:Volodymyr Zelensky filmographies[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. bibliomaniac15 19:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Each of the entries should be a filmography, but they are merely films, which belong in a single filmography article. Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:11, 26 May 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:Article-specific Wikipedia tables[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) 09:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For clarity. The templates in category are used to generate a header of a table or a row of a table. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:10, 26 May 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:Formula One tire suppliers[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; no consensus to delete Timrollpickering (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match Formula One tyres and the project consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Conventions#General to use British spelling by default. This was opposed for a speedy, which is why I'm starting a proper discussion Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Category:Tires, Category:Tire manufacturers. Convention is to respect this spelling until we reach local level (eg Category:Tyre manufacturers of the United Kingdom); Formula One is global. Oculi (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes it entirely inconsistent with almost every Formula One related article though. Which is completely illogical. And it should be a sub-category of Category: Formula One which uses British English, so by exactly the same logic as above, it should be tyres not tires. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Global categories don't specify a variety of English. I'd be surprised if Formula One races in the US are written in UK Eng; and has the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company been told of this? Oculi (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company being American takes precedence over it being a Formula One tyre supplier in years past. In the same way the Daniel Ricciardo being Australian takes precedence over him being a Formula One driver. But this does not apply to Category:Formula One tyre/tire suppliers. I therefore think it more logical that it follows the naming convention of its parent article than of other tyre related categories as the category is more closely related to Formula One tyres (as being the category partnered with that page) than any of the categories you named.
          SSSB (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Wikiproject convention is to use British English. The parent article is called Formula One tyres (British English spelling).
    SSSB (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per F1 tyres and WikiProject convention. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Employ a blind monkey to toss a coin. This is a clash of at least two conventions, so any possible outcome brings some problems. Just ensure that category redirects are in place, and go do something useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining. Are we going to have every manufacturer categorized by what sports it supplies to? Category:NFL helmet suppliers, Category:Soccer ball suppliers, Category:PGA golf club suppliers; not to mention various tie-ins for uniforms, caps, socks, shoes, underwear, towels, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference between the examples you listed and the category is that Formula One's tyre supplier is of substantial media interest and the ability of the tyre supplier to make good tyres greatly affects the sport. See 2005 United States Grand Prix or 2013 British Grand Prix for example.
      SSSB (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining (e.g. for Bridgestone and for Avon Rubber where the article text doesn't even mention Formula One). Note: There is a list at Formula One tyres#Manufacturers. Imo we should (to reduce overcategorization) limit "Manufacturers of X" categories to companies for whom X has somewhen been at least 50% of their turnover and afaics this comes nowhere near that. DexDor (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. As another example, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company does mention it at the end of a pretty long lede, but it is not further elaborated in the body text. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - The tyres are an important component of F1 racing. At times, there has only been one supplier. Since most racing does not take place in USA, there is no reason to use US spelling. It may well be that the subsidiaries actually supplying the tyres are non-US companies (even if subsidiaries of US companies) and use the spelling tyre. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 31 May 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:American Revolution ships of the United States[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) 09:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with other primary sub-categories of Category:American Revolutionary War. Ledalion (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RobDuch: Yes I see your point, however Ships of the American Revolution is a far better title surely? Simpler and elegant. Why mangle the language, computers don't need this, in order to work. Broichmore (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The primary error the change is nominated to correct is changing from "American Revolution," the political event, to "American Revolutionary War," the armed conflict. Ledalion (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another very good point. I wish that had been made clear to begin with, or perhaps it has?. Have other titling suggestions been requested prior to this vote? Surely we could do better? Broichmore (talk) 11:31, 30 May 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:Greek Pop Corn Music Awards winners[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. bibliomaniac15 19:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
Pop Corn (magazine) ("popcorn"?) is a Greek magazine that used to have a readers' choice award called the Pop Corn Music Awards from 1995-2002 which had about a dozen categories for winners each year. This category potentially groups different types of winners together and, of the 6 articles, 1 mentions it in the lede, 2 in passing, and 3 not at all so it doesn't seem defining. The winners are already listified at Category:Pop Corn Music Awards in individual award ceremonies by year. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:55, 26 May 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:SAARC Literary Award Recipants[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. bibliomaniac15 19:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation promotes economic cooperation and peace in its region and, as part of that mission, has cultural programs with a variety of awards. The biography articles in these dueling categories generally mention this honour in a list with other awards in the infobox or in the text so it doesn't seem defining even though that list is often tacked onto the intro (examples: 1, 2). We already have the winners listified in SAARC Literary Award for any reader interested in the topic. (Alternatively, if kept, merge all to Category:SAARC Literary Award recipients to help out with spelling/capitalization and since all but one of the nationality subcats have less than 5 articles.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
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:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation people[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. bibliomaniac15 03:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C2D, matching the main article, and to avoid WP:PERFCAT
The main article in this category is Secretary General of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and people who lead the organisation are definitely defined by the association. All but one of the current articles are Secretaries General so this is mostly a truth in advertising nomination but I'm not running it through speedy since the scope will be narrower. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. The political leaders of SAARC's members states all have a role in SAARC, so the current broad title could include all of them, even tho it is non-defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname but purge -- Being Secretary-General is certainly worth a category; a mere staffer is probably not, as it will be a mere posting in the course of a diplomatic career. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 31 May 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:SAARC user 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: Merge Timrollpickering (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
No conceptual objection to this category but the only thing in it is Template:User interest SAARC and I don't anticipate a second template. No objection to recreating if I'm wrong and more content is created. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 26 May 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_May_26&oldid=1073192679"