Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 27 May 29 >

May 28[edit]

Category:Egyptian Food writers[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:Egyptian food writers. It may be deleted per WP:C1 if not populated. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "food" not "Food" --Another Believer (Talk) 23:44, 28 May 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:People from Histon and Impington[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) 20:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm suggesting deletion but actually it should probably be split to Category:People from Histon and Category:People from Impington (if Impington is large enough) if not the Impington people can be merged back to Category:People from South Cambridgeshire District. Of the 7 people 5 are Histon and the other 2 (Roger Gale (antiquary), Henry Saunders (cricketer, born 1841)) are Impington. "Histon and Impington" does not actually exist as a unit or settlement other than as a ward and as "Histon and Impington Parish Council" as the 2 separate parishes share a single parish council. The ONS BUASD that covers both places is called "Histon" not "Histon and Impington". The separate articles Histon and Impington were split again as a result of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 25#Histon and Impington. There was a similar discussion back last year at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 15#Category:People from Amwell, Hertfordshire following a split for a placename that refers to separate places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The two villages have grown together to become a single populated place, but they remain separate parishes, with a significnat area of green fields between this settlement and any of its other neighbours. If not kept, split, but Impington with only two articles would have to be merged to S Cambs, which results in a loss of data. Accordingly (though aberrant), I think the best solution is to keep it. If we can get 5 Impington articles, a full split would work. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Histon states "Over the years the Histon and the neighbouring village of Impington have grown and entwined together, to such an extent that many villagers today do not know where one ends and the other begins." At most this warrants a split, not a deletion.--Mvqr (talk) 15:17, 30 May 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:Research institutes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 15#Category:Research institutes

Category:Language orthographies by script[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:Orthographies by script. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure why this needs a specification; the category tree uses plain "orthographies". 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:17, 28 May 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.

Sons and daughters of Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia[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: renmae all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ibn Saud appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME for the king. Векочел (talk) 15:04, 28 May 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:Facebook employees[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 21#Category:Facebook employees

Category:Greek Orthodox rabbis[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 as proposed. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Present name is a little confusing. Rathfelder (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I'd say it's more than just "a little" confusing. QuietHere (talk) 08:42, 31 May 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:Fishing in Finland[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 per WP:NOQUORUM. Any editor may request this category's restoration at WP:REFUND. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete (or perhaps merge to Category:Industry in Finland) per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 28 May 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.

German bishops[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 28#German bishops

Category:Television stations in the Champaign–Springfield–Decatur market[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 29#Category:Television stations in the Champaign–Springfield–Decatur market

Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 28#Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation

Category:Fossils of Great Britain[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 Category:Fossils of Great Britain There was no consensus on Category:Fossils of the United Kingdom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The fossils are not peculiar to the former Kingdom of Great Britain. Though ironically, that too is a fossil. Nor is it inherent to the island of GB. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged this category is for the fossils of the island of Great Britain, see the whole branch Category:Great Britain. The same as in case of Category:Ireland. Balkovec (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are categories by political division, i. e. Category:United Kingdom, Category:Republic of Ireland etc and there are categories by geographical division, i. e. Category:Great Britain, Category:Ireland etc. Balkovec (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My, my, haven't you been busy creating a whole raft of redundant category layers. I regret to inform you that your labour has largely been futile. It would have been better to have discussed the grand plan with others in the project page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged I am always open to discussion. Let's discuss Category:Great Britain and all of its subcategories. This is better than discussing separately "fossils" and "geoparks". Balkovec (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a trivial intersection, fossils need not to be diffused by islands. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If this was about living fauna, having a GB and an Ireland category would be appropriate, as they are both islands, between which land-based fauna may not have been able to move. RoI fauna will normally be able to enter Northern Ireland without difficulty. However categorising biota by modern polities is generally not a good idea. I do not know enough of palaeontology to know how far fossils are indigenous only to England, Republic of Ireland, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Balkovec has been unmasked as a sock. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It makes sense to categorize by island rather than state, and the United Kingdom includes areas of Ireland. Dimadick (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dimadick, so reverse merge and redirect to avoid keeping a redundant layer. This must be done manually in order to retain the parent categories for UK. – Fayenatic London 05:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dimadick and Fayenatic london: please note that this would create an odd exception in Category:Fossils by country. In addition, while it does not make sense to categorize living fauna by state because animal species usually have a much wider habitat than a national state, this is quite different for fossils. Fossils are individual items each found in single country. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: the category does not contain pages about individual fossil specimens, but about species/genera which are found as fossils within the stated territory. Therefore it makes sense to categorise by island rather than by modern political borders. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (continued discussion) However, the articles are categorized by countries in which individual fossiles have been found. I am open to change that fundamentally, but until then it is not desirable to only remove the UK from the country tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GB (commented above). The present UK category doe NOT have a Northern Ireland subcategory, but is a container for GB England, Scotland and Wales. If LL's argument is right, the UK category should have a Northern Ireland. I assume there is an all-Ireland category. I am neutral on the UK category, but it might be retained as a container. If not it should be downmerged to the GB category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose British Overseas Territories are not part of the island of Great Britain, and have no paleontological fossil relation to it. -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh? There is no sub-cat here for Fossils of the British Overseas Territories. – Fayenatic London 11:47, 11 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_28&oldid=1095980970"