Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 10 December 12 >

December 11[edit]

Category:Levante UD B players[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. ✗plicit 14:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Correct team name, matching with article name. BRDude70 (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2021 (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:Sexual orientation and military service[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 to Category:LGBT and military service. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: rename, fits better with parent Category:LGBT and society and with siblings. As for content, the category is clearly not about heterosexuality and military service, so there is no objection limiting the scope of the category accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support renaming per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. The scope does widen, in that it would also include articles relevant to LGBT outside of sexual orientation, but that's not a bad thing. --Xurizuri (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair point and I agree that it is not a bad thing. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2021 (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:Psychology of political leaders[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Category:Psychology of political leaders

Category:Zoroastrian dynasties and rulers[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 to Category:Zoroastrian rulers. bibliomaniac15 05:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: split, dynasties and rulers are two separate trees. The split can be implemented by renaming the category to Category:Zoroastrian rulers and reparenting Category:Zoroastrian dynasties to Category:Zoroastrians. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not split -- Just rename to Category:Zoroastrian rulers. Strictly a dynasty is not a ruler, but the rulers would make an appropriate parent for something that will probably have no sibling categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per nom What a mess of a category, mixing individual rulers with entire dynasties. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not split -- Just rename to Category:Zoroastrian rulers. In theory the nom is right, but the category in fact works well, with a subcat for each dynasty and no articles (other than a list). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this was a second vote from the same editor. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not even expect there were such a lot of rulers/articles of this faith. But I still don't see the usefulness of a split - beyond tree considerations. --Just N. (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't split -- Just rename to Category:Zoroastrian rulers. Unless it is better explained that there is a necessity. --Just N. (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split—confusing, unnatural and largely unhelpful to conflate them like this. Aza24 (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2022 (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:Japanese Buddhist monks[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 all. No major objections to the nominator's rationale. bibliomaniac15 05:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_27#Category:Jōdo_Shinshū_Buddhist_monks I have noticed several categories, in their naming, assume all Japanese Buddhist clergy are monks. This is incorrect, and since this category both includes subcategories about monks and priests, it should be renamed along with its subcategories. "Clergy" may be substituted for some other term though, "Monks and priests" is an alternative. Sigvid (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question, would it be useful to split between monks and priests? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, at least if there is clarity which are priests and which are monks. Zen also has priests, but I'm not sure how clearly differentiated the monks are from the priests (cf. Zen ranks and hierarchy). I believe Nichiren Buddhism also have priests, but I'm not sure whether or not they have monks. I would suspect no based on their doctrines, but I'm not sure. Kegon might have (had?) both monks and priests (cf. Dōzen Ueno and Rōben). Tendai has both monks and priests, it appears? Sōhei seems to be translated as "warrior monk" but clearly includes priests also (historical Shinshu priests). There seems not only to be a possibility that several denominations have both priests and monks (and that it may be difficult to differentiate them), but also that there might be issues in translation that makes it even more confusing/complicated to differentiate monks from priests. For example, the Japanese term 僧侶 (Sōryo) can mean both priest, monk or bonze (see Jisho). Likewise, the term 僧 (Sō) can also refer to both monks and priests ((https://jisho.org/search/%E5%83%A7 Jisho). The Japanese category for Shinshu priests is jp:Category:浄土真宗の僧, 浄土真宗 being Jodo-Shinshu, の being a particle that in this instance means that the following word 僧 (priest/monk) is of Jodo Shinshu, i.e. category name in English is "Jodoshinshu priests". But without the background knowledge that Shinshu has only priests and no monks, the Category name might as well have been read "Jodoshinshu monks" because of the ambiguity in the term 僧. The parent category is jp:Category:日本の僧, which appears to include all Japanese Buddhist denominations, and as seen with the above, it is impossible to (in the Japanese wiki) differentiate simply by category name which are priests and which are monks, since they appear to use the same term? It gets even more confusing by the fact that jp:僧 is iw-linked to Sangha. My Japanese is too bad to be able to read the Japanese article though. Sigvid (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, i.e. I support nom's rationale but I remain open to any better solutions if they pop up later in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2021 (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:Historical and obsolete mental and behavioural disorders[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 to Category:Obsolete terms for mental disorders. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: rename as a combination of WP:C2C per parent Category:Obsolete medical terms and WP:C2D per article Mental disorder. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose If the category was merely about the names of disorders that are now named something else this proposal would make sense, but the category contains many diagnoses that are no longer considered to be disorders, or never were actual disorders at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is the names which are obsolete. There are few objective measures of mental disorders, but ideas about them change. Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It is the names which are obsolete. --Just N. (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. It's also relevant that, since this was posted, the grandparent category has been renamed to Category:Mental disorders. Given that the parent is Category:History of mental disorders, this change would also be aligning with those conventions. Also, the terms are the most relevant part - humans haven't changed, only the words we used to describe ourselves have. --Xurizuri (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2021 (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:Images with tile set downloads[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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Was deleted as empty on Commons, so presumably not needed here. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:12, 11 December 2021 (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 needing audio and/or video[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Category:Articles needing audio and/or video

Category:Articles_containing_timelines[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 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I completely fail to see how this is helpful to categorize. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adding a delete vote. The articles are unrelated to each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- This is tagged as a maintenance category. Does it fulfil any useful administrative purpose? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2021 (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:Rangers F.C. dispute articles[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 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Whatever dispute took place when this category was created has likely been resolved or gone stale ages ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, does not serve a current purpose.--Mvqr (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2021 (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.

Categories by username[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 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 24#Category:Articles created by Dhaneesh, we don't categorize pages based on actions taken by individual users. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:39, 11 December 2021 (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 with information extracted by the RAMP editor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Category:Articles with information extracted by the RAMP editor

Category:Pages with technical issues[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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, the sole subcategory is already adequately categorized. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:35, 11 December 2021 (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 using Wexion 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: delete. bibliomaniac15 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a bizarre conflation of three unrelated characteristics: Wikipedians who are a big fan of anime, Wikipedians who know that shiny is a color, and Wikipedians who like the color shiny. If nothing else, it should be three different categories, however those would all fail on their own merits as having no collaborative purpose, so the amalgamation should just be deleted without splitting. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:35, 11 December 2021 (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:Community maintained collections[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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This seems to have something to do with the now-defunct tool at https://trending.wmflabs.org. Whatever it is, though, it contains only pages in its creator's userspace, none of which have been edited by anyone else (so are not "community maintained") * Pppery * it has begun... 01:12, 11 December 2021 (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:Traditional Song boilerplate[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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Template:Traditional Song boilerplate was deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:02, 11 December 2021 (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:TfD Artifact[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a relic from an old content dispute in 2009, not a useful category. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:59, 11 December 2021 (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:Knowledge Gap Project[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: No idea what this is, but its three members seem to have nothing to do with each other * Pppery * it has begun... 00:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No clue why this exists?! --Just N. (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2021 (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/2021_December_11&oldid=1138412446"