Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 20 November 22 >

November 21[edit]

Category:Political power[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 17#Category:Political power

Category:Templates with transitional syntax[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) 06:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per the "usage history" section, this category has not been used since 2010, so is no longer serving a useful purpose. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are other and better ways to handle transitional syntax. Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 24 November 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:Culture terminology[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 to Category:Cultural concepts. bibliomaniac15 05:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Terminology, in this instance, is the language used to describe a cultural concept. A term (e.g. cultural assimiliation) describes a concept - there is a connected relationship. But, as these article predominately focus on understanding the concept, rather than the language of the term itself, I think it would be best to merge this category into "Cultural concepts". Jamzze (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Many terminology categories have been merged for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 29 November 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:Baronies of Fingal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 29#Category:Baronies of Fingal

Category:Executive branch of Oklahoma government[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:Executive branch of the government of Oklahoma. bibliomaniac15 05:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Better English. Consistent with 2 siblings categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:38, 21 November 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:Royal Air Force squadron leaders[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. bibliomaniac15 05:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not a particularly useful category, its not a senior or air rank and makes it a lot harder to find entries that were originally all within the RAF officers category. It would also mean that everbody above the rank would also need to be in this category which would make very senior officer articles category sections a bit stupid. MilborneOne (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have clarified that this is for the highest rank that the officer reached on the category description address one of the points raised by the nominator. --Kingbird1 (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. There is absolutely no point in classifying officers by their exact rank. Pure WP:OVERCAT. For a start, all more senior officers once held this rank. Creation of these silly categories is a very worrying trend. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's a longtime practice of not categorizing officers by rank because almost all officers have held multiple ranks. In most militaries you have to hold each rank to be promoted to a higher one. (t · c) buidhe 22:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on isn't this about people who have commanded a squadron, not people holding the rank of squadron commander? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is for people who held the rank of Squadron Leader, it is very rare that squadron commanders hold the rank of Squadron Leader. MilborneOne (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential Keep -- This is for people whose highest rank was Squadron Leader. Those promoted further should not be in this category. This is clearly indicated by the headnote. Sometimes, it is necessary to have a category name that does not fully explain its scope; otherwise category names become too long. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back, it is confusing to categorize by exact rank while people get promotions along the way. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 29 November 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:Royal Air Force wing commanders[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. bibliomaniac15 05:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not a particularly useful category, its not a senior or air rank and makes it a lot harder to find entries that were all originally within the RAF officers category. It would also mean that everbody above the rank would also need to be in this category which would make very senior officer articles category sections a bit stupid. MilborneOne (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - useful diffusion of Category:Royal Air Force officers which has over 1000 at the top level. There are already subcats for more senior officers. Oculi (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Oculi. All the more senior ranks have their own categories and Wing commander is equivalent to Lt-Col so notable rank --Kingbird1 (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. There is absolutely no point in classifying officers by their exact rank. Pure WP:OVERCAT. For a start, all more senior officers once held this rank. Creation of these silly categories is a very worrying trend. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that not all officer ranks need a specific rank category. I do however think that officers who held a notable senior rank should be categorised accordingly. The question is more of what constitutes a notable rank. The key point here is that this would be a category for the officers highest rank they achieved NOT a category to be applied for someone who once held that rank so the argument that this would apply to all senior officer is well in your terms 'silly'. I'm making reference here to the US rank categories that follow that pattern. These are well established and would also need nominating and deleting according to the logic applied by this nomination Kingbird1 (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the related documentation or in the category name that indicates it should be "highest" rank held. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This following appears in the Category description on the page: 'This category is for Royal Air Force officers with their highest rank being wing commander.' Kingbird1 (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bit naughty as you changed that after I nominated the category. MilborneOne (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - I stated I took this action in the Category:Royal Air Force squadron leaders thread and it's simply matches the logic of the category Kingbird1 (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they do. As do any other similar categories. Although, as far as I can see, colonel is the only rank that gets its own category for the US Army and USAF. I see no categories for lieutenant colonels or majors. But the simple fact is, who looks for an officer by their specific rank? Nobody. Nobody thinks, I know, I'll look for all the officers who have articles who reached the rank of wing commander but got no higher. So what exactly is the point of this categorisation other than "we can so we will"? Yes, we categorise air marshals, admirals and generals because they are significant groupings, but we don't need to categorise them by specific rank within that grouping. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Necrothesp....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's a longtime practice of not categorizing officers by rank because almost all officers have held multiple ranks. In most militaries you have to hold each rank to be promoted to a higher one. Regardless of any scope restriction listed on the category page, well-intentioned editors are likely to add the category to any officer who held that rank. (t · c) buidhe 22:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on isn't this about people who have commanded a wing, not people holding the rank of wing commander? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is for people who held the rank of Wing Commander, it is very rare that wing commanders hold the rank of Wing Commander. MilborneOne (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential Keep -- This is for people whose highest rank was Wing Commander. Those promoted further should not be in this category. This is clearly indicated by the headnote. Sometimes, it is necessary to have a category name that does not fully explain its scope; otherwise category names become too long. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back, it is confusing to categorize by exact rank while people get promotions along the way. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 29 November 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:Prehistoric animal genera enigmatic taxa[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:Enigmatic prehistoric animal genera. ✗plicit 02:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Current title, as proposed in an undisputed CFDS request and pointed out to me at User talk:1234qwer1234qwer4#Category:Prehistoric animal genera enigmatic taxa, is ungrammatical. I'm not fully satisfied with my proposed alternative, but it appears to be less confusing. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hi, thanks for notifying me about this! I've actually been thinking about this and the others that were renamed in the previous CFDS recently by some coincidence (though I forgot to act on my thoughts, shamefully): what if "enigmatic" was placed at the start and "taxa" ommitted altogether, resulting in "Enigmatic prehistoric animal genera"? The justification for the latter being that genera are taxa, so therefore it is redundant to use both the words "genera" and "taxa". The former I think looks nicer grammatically, and probably should be applied to all the other categories in the previous CFDS. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was doubtful when nominating this since I was not sure whether "enigmatic genera" (or any "enigmatic [taxon rank]" for that matter) was used. However, since Google Scholar returns a decent number of results, I believe this is a good idea. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     22:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unclear. --Just N. (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:54, 21 November 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:American gay actors[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) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: merge, this is a redundant category as it was created unnecessarily. There is already a whole category dedicated exclusively to gay actors. I suggest doing the same with Category:American lesbian actresses and Category:American non-binary actors. 20SS00 (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps so, but the categories were fine the way they were before and the subjects were still located easily. 20SS00 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's necessary because it creates a subcategory and thus prevents the overall category from being too large.Treybien2 (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Both Category:LGBT actors from the United States and Category:Gay actors have reached the point where they need to be split up into separate G/L/B/T subcategories for size management purposes — before the recent implementation of "Nationality gay actors" and "Nationality lesbian actresses" subcategories, both were populated well into the thousands, which is exactly the point at which categories do need to be diffused. It also warrants note that the implementation of these categories also caught a lot of people who had been incompletely categorized, such as being in the "Gay actors" category but not in the necessary "LGBT [actors or entertainers] from [Country]" category alongside it — but the important thing here is that the parent categories are too large now and need diffusion that may not have been necessary a decade ago. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 30 November 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:Demolished buildings and structures in Downtown Columbus, Ohio[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 8#Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Downtown Columbus, Ohio

Category:Women songwriters[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. bibliomaniac15 05:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: To match Category:Women songwriters - and all the other female categories. I would prefer if we used female, as all the men's categories use male, but that would require a bigger discussion. Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 21 November 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:Protoscience stubs[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) 07:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty, unproposed, and unnecessary; also no template or parent cat. Her Pegship (?) 02:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As out of order. The creator seems to have been confused in some regard judging by their proposal. Curbon7 (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 23 November 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_November_21&oldid=1062537142"