Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 31 November 2 >

November 1[edit]

Category:British viceroys educated at Eton College[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Category:British viceroys educated at Eton College

Big Bang Entertainments[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Big Bang Entertainments

Category:Fight Club (franchise)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Category:Fight Club (franchise)

Seasonal events by country in South Asia[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Nominator's rationale: the four temperate seasons don't occur in South Asia (except for the sparsely populated mountain tops of the far north), see South Asia#Climate. – Uanfala (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the four temperate seasons don't occur in South Asia? seriously?? Please see Geography of Bangladesh. It mentioned the four seasons. Although as a Bangladeshi I know that my country has six seasons including four. There is no logical reason to delete Bangladesh-related seasons events categories. Mehedi Abedin 14:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The linked article lists winter, summer, monsoon and autumn, and that's a different scheme from the one in the temperate north. Is that classification common though? I don't think I've heard of an autumn season in South Asia; more familiar classifications are the traditional one involving six seasons (which you mention), and the three-way division between cool ("winter"), hot (summer), and rainy (monsoon) seasons. If there is appetite for having seasons-based categories for events (and I'm not taking that for granted), then these need to match the local seasons, and not be simply carbon copies of the categories of the temperate north (as these appear to be). – Uanfala (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion might not be the correct solution. The events can be re-categorized with the seasons of the region. i.e Summer events in Myanmar, Monsoon events in Myanmar and Winter events in Myanmar. This isn't necessarily the most intuitive. For example, the 2021 Spring Revolution occurred during Summer but we still talk about the events as four English seasons in English. The events in the categories are more annual events that occur during different parts of the year and it's not obvious if "Monsoon events in Myanmar" necessarily tell you it's June festivals EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as trivial intersections, most articles in these categories have nothing to do with seasons, they just happen to take place on a date that falls in a season. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 1 November 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.

Late modern period[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: weak keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, these categories are in fact about the late modern period. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modern history articles are perfectly fine, but the categories only contain a subset of modern history, namely the late modern period. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- There is no clear boundary between Early modern and Modern modern (or late modern) history. Some of the categories (e.g. Italy) draw a boundary at the French Revolution (1789). For Poland it is the third partition (1795). In other cases it appears to mean 19th century and later. Some have an early modern article within the category or go back to the 16th century. In some cases the proposed rename may be fine, but in many cases, further work would be needed for splitting the category properly. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do these categories of "Modern history" contribute anything useful if there is not agreement about what that means? Why cant we just use the chronological categories? Bigwig7 (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good question. The underlying assumption of this category tree is that there are (enough) articles that span the whole period, or large part of the period, rather than just a single century. But whether that assumption is realistic would need to be sorted out. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:43, 1 November 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.

Muslim historians[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Muslim historians

Category:GAA people by province[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Category:GAA people by province

Category:21st-century 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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I was under the impression that centuries are a spectacularly useless way of dividing sportspeople, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 12#20th/21st-century sportspeople. If this holds for sportspeople, I assume it also applies to people in general. Nehme1499 18:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london, BrownHairedGirl, David Eppstein, Lugnuts, Grutness, Peterkingiron, Icarusgeek, and Hugo999: pinging editors involved in the sportspeople discussion. Nehme1499 14:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the subcats of Category:21st-century people, there are currently various company-specific categories at the top level that could helpfully be moved down into subcats by occupation. – Fayenatic London 14:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy to see the lower-level categories merged back together instead of grouped by centuries, for the reasons in the nomination rationale. But I also agree with Marcocapelle that the lower-level categories are the issue, not this top-level category. I don't think anyone but the people pinged here and category fanatics are likely to see discussions about container categories that exist only to make the hierarchy neat. Maybe a village pump discussion rather than a CFD for the top-level category would be a better way to set a precedent going? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. I'm not a fan of the profusion of "People by century" categories in general, and could potentially be persuaded by a mass consensus to do away with all of them across the board — but so long as hundreds or thousands of "XX-century [nationality] [occupation]" subcategories also exist, just getting rid of the top-level parent isn't actually solving the problem. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I would strongly oppose deletion of 19th-century people and earlier because of their historical value. If a discussion about that is going to take place somewhere outside this forum (as suggested above) please ping me. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is an ill-considered nomination, with multiple severe flaws.:
  1. Deleting only the container category is pointless; it leaves all the articles still categorised by century
  2. The nominator failed to read WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 12#20th/21st-century sportspeople before citing it. Nehme quotes my comment that centuries are a spectacularly useless way of dividing sportspeople, and assumes it also applies to people in general.
    But the same nomination explains why not: en.wp's articles on sportspeople overwhelmingly relate to people active in the 20th and 21st centuries. It's hard to think of a more useless way of splitting this set than by a single timepoint which creates significant overlap.
    This does not apply to other occupations such as writers, sculptors, clergy, soldiers, builders, and scholars ... because all those occupations have been in existence for at least a millennium.
I am not a fan of people-by-century categories. Their epoch divisions are crude and overlapping, causing massive category clutter which is exacerbated by a systematic failure to use sufficiently specific categories. They exist largely because one rogue editor with a few loyal enablers runs a very-badly-managed, unauthorised bot which the community won't take action against.
I would probably support a well-designed plan to cull most of the people-by-century categories, but it would take a lot of thoughtful discussion and detailed analysis to make a such a plan. This ill-considered and ill-prepared nomination is just a lazy way of wasting other editors' time, and I urge @Nehme1499 to demonstrate their good faith by acknowledging their errors and withdrawing the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We are now 22 years into a new century. The previous discussion focused on it being an attempt to create a current/past distinction. I am glad to find this is in practice a container, but it needs to be purged on categories that would be better in some more specific category. Where a category can only be populated with 20th and 21st centuries (even with these and 19th), it is probably not needed: this applies to most sports categories, but where there can be at least four by century categories (slightly less than the standard five for SMALLCAT), they may be justified by an individual should not be in two by century categories unless he was very active in his field in both. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.--BoldLuis (talk) 10:03, 9 November 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:Ongoing insurgencies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Category:Ongoing insurgencies

Category:Ongoing conflicts[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Category:Ongoing conflicts

Category:Ongoing protests[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Category:Ongoing protests

Category:Ongoing legal cases[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Category:Ongoing legal cases

Category:Ongoing events[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Category:Ongoing events

Books by award nomination[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization (WP:CANDIDATECAT) Οἶδα (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we routinely delete award winners categories, even more so should award nominees categories be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 2 November 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:IDM Albums[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: redirect. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Intelligent dance music albums and its subcategories exist, no need for this redundant category. Purplneon486 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Empty and redirect (but rename the redirect to "IDM albums" without capital A). A redirect is probably useful, IDM seems to be a commonly used abbreviation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Empty and redirect per Marcocapelle. --Lenticel (talk) 02:06, 8 November 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.

Template:Coahuila-stub[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stub template that's not really serving much of a useful purpose. It isn't paired with its own "Coahuila stubs" category, so it just files articles directly in the base Category:Mexico stubs -- but it's actually in use on just one article, which is also already stub-tagged for {{Mexico-edu-stub}}. So the only thing it's actually doing in practice is unnecessarily duplicate-categorizing its article in parent and child categories at the same time.
As noted below, there also isn't an established set of Mexican "State-stub" templates or categories for this to be a part of; there is a "State-geo-stub" scheme, but the only other template that exists at the base "State-stub" level at all is for Nuevo Léon, which I've also listed for deletion below for the same reason.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of Mexico than I have can find the 59 other articles it would take to justify the creation of a dedicated Coahuila stubs category, but it's not needed for just one article if it's breaking duplicate categorization rules. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 1 November 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.

Template:NuevoLeón-stub[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stub template that's not really serving much of a useful purpose. It isn't paired with its own "Nuevo Léon stubs" category, so it just files articles directly in the base Category:Mexico stubs -- but it's actually in use on just three articles total, all three of which are also already stub-tagged for {{Mexico-struct-stub}} or {{Mexico-gov-stub}}. So the only thing it's actually doing in practice is unnecessarily duplicate-categorizing its three articles in parent and child categories at the same time.
There also isn't an established set of Mexican "State-stub" templates or categories for this to be a part of; there is a "State-geo-stub" scheme, but the only other template that exists at the base "State-stub" level at all is for Coahuila, which I'm also listing for deletion for the same reason.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of Mexico than I have can find the 57 other articles it would take to justify the creation of a dedicated Nuevo Léon stubs category, but it's not needed for just three articles if it's breaking duplicate categorization rules. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 1 November 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:Disney protagonists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Category:Disney protagonists

Category:PlayStation characters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Category:PlayStation characters

Category:Ottoman architecture in Algeria and Tunisia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Category:Ottoman architecture in Algeria and Tunisia

Category:Young adult fiction[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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 13:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What's the difference between this and Category:Young adult literature? If it's that the latter includes nonfiction books, then we can just included all the fictional books in the YAL category since all fictional books are literature, even though not all literature is fiction. Guacjeans (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, fiction is more than books, as can clearly be seen in subcategories like Category:Urban fantasy and Category:Coming-of-age fiction, so the rationale is flawed. One could argue about the subjectivity of "young adult" works in general, but if the category should be deleted for that reason then other young adult categories should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I withdraw this nomination. Guacjeans (talk) 07:48, 1 November 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_November_1&oldid=1120947951"