Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 7 July 9 >

July 8[edit]

Category:Professional wrestling venues[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 - jc37 16:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Request to delete and salt this category. Per WP:OCVENUE. few venues are defined for hosting professional wrestling. Salt because this was deleted in April 2006, February 2007 and 2015. User:Namiba 21:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to Marcocapelle's suggestion but it should not include arenas which have temporarily been used primarily for professional wrestling such as suggested by LM2000.--User:Namiba 14:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Any indoor arena can host wrestling, and we have category:Indoor arenas to group them together. --Just N. (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All These were all general purpose facilities which hosted many events, including Wrestling. Short periods during a pandemic when other events were cancelled, also seems non-defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 17 July 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:Lithuania at EuroBasket[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 - jc37 16:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. These categories contains only the eponymously named article and 3/4 articles about rounds in which the team played. They are the only categories of their kind and the main articles are already in the appropriate subcategories. User:Namiba 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching them. I have also nominated them for deletion.--User:Namiba 21:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The articles about the topic, e.g. Lithuania at EuroBasket 2011, are already in that subcategory. The remain articles are about individual rounds in which the team played and should not be merged. This is why I advocated for deletion.--User:Namiba 14:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly legitimate categories. Nominator's rationale is absolute nonsense. Djln Djln (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What policy reasons do you see for keeping them?--User:Namiba 14:21, 9 July 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:Venues by event[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 all - jc37 16:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE, "There is no encyclopedic value in categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there, such as arenas that have hosted specific sports events..." User:Namiba 20:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - the suggested merges are still "categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there" but in a less satisfactory manner. Oculi (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, certainly do not merge per Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, certainly do not merge per Oculi & Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Don't Merge This is some hybrid of WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCVENUE. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 17 July 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.

Centuries in Naples[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. ✗plicit 04:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, this early in history it is a redundant category layer, each of these categories contains only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 8 July 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:Carniolan scientists[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 all to Category:Carniolan scientists. bibliomaniac15 00:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article Rathfelder (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No actual articles, just sub categories with a total of 3 articles Rathfelder (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only 2 articles Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. Cant see why we want to castegorise mineralogists by ethnicity. Rathfelder (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose upper idea of merging. Austro-Hungary was a big country/monarchy with many nations living on area that was known as Austro-Hungary. And thus term Austro-Hungarian is not really a nationality, it is like calling people from USSR Soviets or people from Yugoslavia Yugoslovans. --A09090091 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging. The category 'Carniolan scientists' should be an umbrella category containing only subcategories and not individual articles. The category 'Carniolan mineralogists' is expandable and the criterion is nationality rather than ethnicity. --TadejM my talk 17:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carniola merely functioned as a province of Austria-Hungary, so I can't see how this can be framed as nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carniolan was not a nationality. These categories are too small to preserve - and the articles will also need to be put into appropriate Austro-Hungarian, Yugoslav or Slovenian categories.Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Carniolan identity was quite strong (although Carniolans were partly German and partly Slovene by ethnicity), and there is considerable discussion of Carniola in reliable sources, so I don't see it only as a de iure administrative division, but as an important historical and cultural entity. For this reason I oppose merging these categories in 'Austro-Hungarian scientists'. It would lead to a loss of a defining and distinguishing characteristic for all these people: their regional identity. --TadejM my talk 17:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it is an ethnicity after all, and we do not have unrelated intersection categories of occupation and ethnicity per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johann von Valvasor (Janez Vajkard Valvasor in Slovene) wrote a book about Carniola (The Glory of the Duchy of Carniola) and even today the book stands as one of biggest works of that era. So I oppose, as per TadejM.--A09090091 (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly; more like nation. The Germans and the Slovenes would be ethnicities. "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups such as a common set of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion or social treatment within their residing area." --TadejM my talk 15:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • People associated with these areas would qualify as both Austro-Hungarian and Carniolian (or Slovenian) though, I therefore see no objection not to add Category:Carniolan scientists (or any other Carniolian category) to both Slovenian and Austro-Hungarian parents. Place Clichy (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support regarding 'Carniolan'. The reason I have provided for retaining this specific subcategory is that the category 'Carniolan mineralogists' is expandable. There were several Carniolan mineralogists (e.g. Žiga Zois, Valentin Vodnik, Valentin Tratnik, etc.). Mineralogy was a major scientific discipline at the time and many scholars were interested in it. The category provides for unambiguous overview of Carniolan mineralogists among e.g. Slovenian or Austrian mineralogists, which is important since Carniola was a major administrative and cultural unit. In addition, if you take a look at Category:Mineralogists by nationality, you will see it is not the sole such category currently containing only one article so it makes no sense to make it an exception. If it is considered that none of these categories should contain less than a certain number of articles, all those that do not meet the criterion should be nominated. --TadejM my talk 11:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No evidence has been given showing that A-this is not likely to grow B-that there has been an exhausive search to ensure we do not currently have any other articles that belong in this category that are not currently placed in it. 3-by nationality is a widely accepted exception to the small cat rules when the overall category has lots of components.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 29 July 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:Poachers[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are not enough articles in Category:Poachers to subdivide by nationality. If Category:Indian poachers is upmerged, Category:Poachers will still only contain seven articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete as nominated. I also wonder if the parent category should also be renamed to be limited convictions, but that beyond this nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 8 July 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:Black Panther (Marvel Comics)[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) 08:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per the main target page already being moved from Black Panther (Marvel Comics) to Black Panther (character). Thus propose the same renaming for Category:Black Panther (Marvel Comics) images, Category:Black Panther (Marvel Comics) in other media, Category:Black Panther (Marvel Comics) characters (this one could be different, as "Category:Black Panther (character) characters" doesn't sit well), and Category:Black Panther (Marvel Comics) images. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting here as I recently reencountered an issue with comicbook related categories and is relevant here.
Our system for comic book categories is based on the primary page (like other categories), but it should be based on the comic book titles. "Black Panther" is a character and as Trailblazer pointed out, Category:Black Panther (character) characters is bad, but as is Category:Black Panther (character) images when the images belong to characters who aren't the Black Panther or Category:Black Panther (character) in other media when the character might not even be in it (Black Panther: Wakanda Forever).
However, if the categories are based on the comic book title then these become much clearer. There could also be a category for images related to the comics, but there could be a category for images of a character (if needed).
The only reason I haven't nominated something like this is that I just don't know what the correct title the system should use, as each comic book related to a subject had usually more than one title. Should we just use the publisher for comic book categories (so always "Marvel Comics", "DC Comics", etc.)? Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The name of the category implies the content would be related to the character, which not all the articles within it and the other subcats are. Also, the subcats have not been tagged. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The name of the category implies the content would be related to the character, which not all the articles within it and the other subcats are. --Just N. (talk) 14:15, 15 July 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_July_8&oldid=1073192994"