Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 16 November 18 >

November 17[edit]

Alabama Collegiate Conference football[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Southern States Conference was known as Alabama Collegiate Conference in 1969, the last year in which the conference sponsored football. It was not rebranded to "Southern States Conference" until 1972. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:16, 17 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:Governors of Egypt[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 25#Category:Governors of Egypt

Category:GAA people by province[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There appears to me to be confusion here (either in the category name or the contents) between the sports (Gaelic games) and one of the governing bodies (the Gaelic Athletic Association). "GAA" is a redirect disambiguation page. The two relevant options there are Gaelic Athletic Association (governing body) and Gaelic football (sport). If it is Gaelic football then the hurling categories are misplaced. If it is the Gaelic Athletic Association (which I'm guessing it is) then lots of other categories are misplaced.

  • Some examples:

The people in the categories have only one thing in common, their involvement in Gaelic games, whether it is as players, managers, coaches, referees, administrators, commentators or other.

The name of the sport is used in similar category titles, e.g. Category:Sportspeople from County Dublin has Category:Cricketers from County Dublin, Category:Association footballers from County Dublin, Category:Field hockey players from County Dublin, Category:Rugby league players from County Dublin and Category:Rugby union players from County Dublin, with Category:GAA people from County Dublin standing out as focusing on the organisation and not the sports. So "Category:Gaelic games people from" would make sense and prevent the need for "Camogie Association people from..." or "Ladies' Gaelic Football Association people from..." which would contain much fewer articles anyway. Besides there is no "Category:IRFU people from..." (there isn't even a Category:Irish Rugby Football Union). "GAA" is also a redirect disambiguation page. Gaelic games is clearer. To all. --Gaois (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: no objection, but pinging BrownHairedGirl in view of her previous activity around this topic, in case she may be aware of any adverse implications. – Fayenatic London 15:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand the proposal? The "GAA people" categories already exist and seem to have existed for many years. They are not being created by the proposal.
The contents are already in the categories.
Hence this proposal. The proposal is an attempt to address the ambiguity, to swap "GAA" (a disambiguation page, with various meanings internationally) for the clearer "Gaelic games".
The problems described exist already. The categories already seem to contain "people for whom the GAA connection was merely tangential or not personally defining". Adding or subtracting a person to or from a county isn't part of the proposal.
I tried to simplify it by describing the existing categories and their contents. As removing contents from the categories didn't seem like a good idea. --Gaois (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a sensible comment. The categories should be split to Gaelic footballers and hurlers, and purged from non-players. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they should be purged of non-players. There are not that many and this shouldn't be difficult. I didn't want to make this proposal any longer than it was. But since the issue has been raised... I agree.
Yet even if/when they are purged of non-players, the problem identified in the proposal remains. The camogie players are also... players. And they are overseen by the Camogie Association. Not the GAA. And the ladies' Gaelic footballers play too. They are attached to the Ladies' Gaelic Football Association. Hence the unsuitability of "GAA" (disambiguation) and "Gaelic Athletic Association" (not all of the players fit).
It sounds like the word "people" in the proposal should be swapped for "players", so that the categories should be retitled "Gaelic games players from"....? That title would cover every player (camogie/hurling/football/men/women) and is similar to Category:Field hockey players from County Dublin, Category:Rugby union players from County Dublin. It also allows the non-players (who are already in the categories) to be purged.
So, for example, Category:Gaelic games players from County Antrim, Category:Gaelic games players from Connacht. Are there any objections to this proposal? --Gaois (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be pointing towards a re-name of Category:Gaelic games players from County Antrim which I could support. That, however, is not your nomination. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I will update the nomination. --Gaois (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support updated nomination per recent discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support updated nomination per recent discussion above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:44, 24 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:Ottoman architecture in Algeria and Tunisia[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per a discussion at Category talk:Moorish architecture. The architecture in both Algeria and Tunisia during this period is a diverse hybrid of styles that is not easily categorized as just one thing. Bundling these under "Ottoman architecture" might be ok in a superficial geopolitical sense, but this wording implies they are "Ottoman" in style, which is overly simplistic and rather misleading when comparing to what's said by reliable references that cover these topics (e.g. Marçais 1954 p. 423 and after, Bloom & Blair 1995 p. 251 and after, Bloom 2020 p. 215 and after). This is already summarized (using these sources) at the relevant articles Architecture of Algeria and Architecture of Tunisia. In some cases, the buildings built by local "Ottoman" elites don't look much like imperial Ottoman architecture and are not described as such by sources. The de facto independence of both countries in later periods also complicates the label even if taken in a strictly political sense. The categories themselves are still needed, and should be embedded under their current parent categories, but changing it to "Architecture of (...)" affords a more neutral wording that avoids implying a narrower stylistic classification. R Prazeres (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, why is this nomination limited to only Algeria and Tunisia? There are many other countries using the same format where inclusion of articles is not limited to the style of Classical Ottoman architecture. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: Valid question and I leave that open for the future. I limited my proposal to these for now because I want to address these two cases which share a roughly similar situation, whose architecture during this period can continue to be classified as a variation of "Moorish architecture" in particular, and which are discussed together this way in scholarly references. If the change would also be useful for other cases, that could be discussed. Almost the same argument could probably be repeated about Ottoman architecture in Libya, though there's a lot less information about it so it would take more reading. I think a similar argument could also be made for regions like Syria and Egypt, where earlier Mamluk and Levantine architecture remained entrenched (with some notable exceptions however that are very Ottoman in character). Algeria and Tunisia are basically at one end of the spectrum in terms of how limited Ottoman influence was on material culture (among Ottoman provinces); obviously Turkey and most of the Balkan provinces would be at the other end, so I imagine renaming those would be more objectionable. R Prazeres (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose using different formats for different countries while the situation is the same everywhere: the categories are based on belonging to the Ottoman Empire at the time of building, not to any particular style. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation is not the same everywhere and Ottoman architecture refers to a style. M.Bitton (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The situation is the same everywhere" directly contradicts any relevant reliable source on either Ottoman or North African architecture. I get the appeal of maintaining symmetry, but I don't see a reason to prioritize format over precision and informativeness. Unlike article titles, category names appear in articles with no explanation, so regardless of whether we argue that it should or shouldn't refer to style in particular, for common-sense readers "Ottoman architecture in (...)" is ambiguous at best and misleading at worse in this context. R Prazeres (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. M.Bitton (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The situation is the same in other countries. E.g. in Hungary none of the five articles claims the building is in Ottoman style, they all claim to be from the Ottoman era. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the sources, you're comparing apples to oranges. M.Bitton (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:24, 17 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:Citizens through descent[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: manual partial merge/purge. I will list these at WP:CFDWM for follow-up. – Fayenatic London 10:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC) – Fayenatic London 10:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be WP:NONDEF and WP:OVERLAPCAT with Category:People by nationality. Descent is the primary way of acquiring citizenship and for some countries over 90% of biographies would fit into it, cluttering the categorization. Brandmeistertalk 14:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back to the category for citizens of the country in question. A little sampling of the British category indicates that is is about people born elsewhere to British parents. Such persons are automatically British by birth, though they may also be nationals of the country where they were born. They are as British as I am, who was born in England to English parents. I am prepared to believe there may be more formalities in other countries, and particularly where the claim to nationality is through a single grandparent. This is a quite different process from citizenship by naturalisation. Possibly, we might make this British citizens born to a British parent abroad, but it is much better not to have it as a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I previously closed this discussion as merge. That has been reverted per User talk:Qwerfjkl#Citizens through descent categories deletion question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If this category gets deleted/merged, so should Category:Naturalized citizens by country (the only other subcat) for the same reason. A single category (Category:People with acquired citizenship) is probably enough. Nehme1499 16:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerfjkl (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Merge per User:Marcocapelle and User:Peterkingiron. This is an unnecessary split.User:Namiba 17:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Namiba, note that, per the discussion I linked in my relist, Peterkington and Marcocapelle are proposing different merge targets. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Marcocapelle's target. The two categories seem very simillar. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Having seen the previous close and looking into the !votes beforehand, it is apparent that there are two categories of articles included: 1. the people covered by the original merge suggestion, people who did not have a birthright citizenship but had significant ancestry to later acquire it, and 2. people who did have a birthright citizenship, but were born outside of the country in question. If there are no Category:Citizens of X born abroad or, simply, Category:Citizens of X by birthright (as a clearer term than "descent"), set of categories (and I haven't found them), then these should be created and the articles included in the current categories need to be manually checked. I, and Peterkingiron above, took samples and found more articles that belong to the non-existent categories. A simple merge to "acquired" re-categorises all of these into new targets to which they don't belong and is a bit careless. If it helps, it could take me a while at the moment, but I'd be happy to look through the articles myself. Kingsif (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the categories contain a mix of two sorts of people then I agree that it should be a selective merge. That should be sorted out manually then. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to Peterkingiron's merge back suggestion, I suspect, if people do not belong in the acquired citizenship category, that they were not moved from anywhere else in the category tree. In other words, I suspect there is no "back" and no target. So in that case we can just purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and purge as necessary) per Marcocapelle. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:36, 28 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:Independence League[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 25#Category:Independence League

Category:WikiProject Villages members[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 20:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WikiProject is now defunct. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:12, 17 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:International bodies of Reformed denominations (currently existing)[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If it would be helpful to distinguish current and former, then the way we do it is to create a sub-cat for "Former…", not a sibling for "current". – Fayenatic London 14:26, 17 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:Tunisian writers in Arabic[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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Manual merge, dispersing the contents to Tunisian writers/Saudi Arabian writers or appropriate sub-categories thereof. Only countries outside the Arab world need sub-cats for Category:Arabic-language writers by nationality. – Fayenatic London 13:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is no point in having categories for writers using the majority language of their own country. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 22 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.

Writers by nationality and language[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two of these hold only one sub-category, making them unnecessary for navigation. If the above merge for writers in Arabic is carried, then this will also be true for the Saudi category. – Fayenatic London 13:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- This is about how we parent French writers in Latin; Italian writers in Latin; and Saudi writers in English. Those using the majority language of their own country should not have a category for that. Writing in another language is worthy of note (and thus a category), but we are unlikely to get a population of 5 languages to avoid SMALLCAT, so that eliminating this level is the best solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 22 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.

Astronomical objects by source of name[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: comment merged to other discussion. – Fayenatic London 13:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. Darque Fyre (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC) I find these incredibly helpful in their current format. Please do not remove them.[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 affairs in the Evangelical Church[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 25#Category:Sexual affairs in the Evangelical Church

Category:Almoravid literature[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 21:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Merging is not needed, the subcategory is already part of Category:Scholars under the Almoravid dynasty and Category:Writers of the medieval Islamic world. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 17 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:Horses in mythology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 25#Category:Horses in mythology

Category:Ball culture filmmakers[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 21:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for a non-defining intersection of traits. "Ball culture" is not a genre of film per se; it's merely a subject that a couple of documentary films happen to have been about, and thus "ball culture filmmaker" is not a centrally defining trait of the films' directors. This is, rather, somewhere in the suburbs of a WP:PERFCAT violation: it's "filmmakers who happen to have made films about a topic", not "filmmakers who specialize in a specific genre". Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 17 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_17&oldid=1127732273"