Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 21 September 23 >

September 22[edit]

Category:Construction in Namibia[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 11:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation; each of these holds only an architecture sub-category, which is otherwise adequately parented already. – Fayenatic London 20:32, 22 September 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:Queen's Counsel[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:King's Counsel. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per article title. Although the article was moved without RM it seems very unlikely that the move will be reverted. This proposal was opposed for speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Queen's Counsel to Category:King's Counsel – C2D to match King's Counsel. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SSSB: The problem is it'll be inaccurate for people who have been appointed QCs who are now deceased. For those who are currently alive, they're now KCs but for those who are deceased, the category will be wrong. That said, we've got people who were appointed as KCs who died before 1952 who are in the QC category, so ideally the category should probably be "King's (or Queen's) Counsel", or... I don't know. Maybe worth going to WP:CFD for an actual discussion... (Also, please ping back, I'm not watching this page.) —Tom Morris (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tom Morris: I'd argue this distinction doesn't matter, as King's Counsel and Queen's Counsel are synonymous. Alternatively, we can categorise individuals by the title they last held?(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose @SSSB: The main article was boldly moved without an RM just yesterday (and was tagged as a minor change at that) so it's hard to see this falling under WP:C2D. I wouldn't hold up a non-controversial rename given the historical moment except the vast majority of biography articles in this tree were appointed by a queen which is worth discussing. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The KCs of the 17th and 18th centuries are currently in Category:Queen's Counsel 1597–1800. I think it makes sense to rename the whole hierarchy to King's Counsel, with redirects from Queen's, but for future reference it might be best to have a full discussion on record. The dated categories should probably also be split/renamed "17th-century King's Counsel" etc, which may not a Speedy matter. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the speedy change. I already lodged a nomination to change from Queen's to King's but then withdrew. The reason is that there are many, many QC's who died before the Queen and so retain their title. I don't think we should change their category. Rather, a new King's Counsel category should be created. It is an enormous job but hey, we are addressing the last seventy years of Counsel, and given the likelihood of Charles > William > George ascension, the new King's Counsel is likely to be needed for generations to come. May as well start now, while maintaining the QC's.
I am strongly open to any alternative though. Because I am aware that having two Counsel categories may be redundant and clunky given that really, its the same category but under a different name. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to either this or pairs with some of the subcategories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is like having a category called "English and French authors," which one would expect to contain both French author and English authors (and obviously wouldn't be a valid category). I suppose "Category King's Counsel and Queen's Counsel" would be even less ambiguous. Furius (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:King's Counsel (not Council!). I do not think any lawyers who were QCs would consider themselves miscategorised as KCs, given that that is the current title; certainly they know the rule mutatis mutandis. The subcats should also move likewise, but any territories that ceased using the designation while it was still QC should remain as QC. Redirect all that are renamed for periods and territories that had QCs. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Parent Cat Although it was speedily named, King's Counsel seems stable. The subcats seem quite a bit more nuanced though and it makes sense to discuss them here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I've already commented above that I would prefer to name the category Category:King's and Queen's Counsel and name the main article King's and Queen's Counsel. My view has not changed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename When we had a Queen they were all called QCs, even if they never served under a queen, so now they are all called KCs. We should reflect the practice in the legal community. Rathfelder (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If this was split by period or other criteria, we should be retaining QC for those who were a QC at their death, having been appointed and died during the reign of QEII. However the parent in any event should now be KC. The Nigerian subcat has two people appointed as QC but presumably ceasing to be such when Nigeria became a republic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 25 September 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.

Years and decades in Greece (until 1820)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 30#Years and decades in Greece (until 1820)

Years in Greece (1821-1829)[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, Greece did not exist yet in the 1820s but the categories are nevertheless useful as Year in War categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are establishments in the conception stage in Greece, so I deliberately did not include them in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm – in very many precedents we have kept year categories and (dis)establishment categories exactly in line with each other, as "chronology categories". If it's useful to keep the establishment categories for 1820s Greece while it was a territory within the Ottoman Empire, then I think the same should go for the year categories. Why not just create the named target categories as new sub-categories alongside the establishments? Articles such as the 1822 and 1823 constitutions would stay where they are. – Fayenatic London 13:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In practice all articles in these categories are related to the war. We do not categorize births by country anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 23 September 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 Nizhny Novgorod Oblast[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 30#Category:People from Nizhny Novgorod Oblast

Category:People from the Komi Republic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 30#Category:People from the Komi Republic

Category:Organisms named after indigenous languages of the Americas[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 11:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete While interesting as trivia, this is a non-notable intersection. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This category was suggested by SlvrHwk, who suggested that, rather than those articles falling within [category:x languages], there should be a category named Category:Organisms named after indigenous languages of the Americas, so, I am contesting this deletion. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a trivial intersection. The articles also do not belong in a [category:x languages]. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do they not belong to a [category:x languages]? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 14:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the articles are about biology, not about language. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was based on List of organisms named after famous people, but how is this not notable enough? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic of a list may be notable in itself while at the same time it is not a defining characteristic for the articles in a category. They are two different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fully aware that they’re two different things, but it’s what Hemiauchenia suggested. He based the category name off of that article Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 12:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The current name doesn't make sense. "Allkaruen", for example, comes from the Tehuelche words "all" ("brain") and "karuen" ("ancient"), it's not named after the "Allkareuen language" (which sadly doesn't exist). In general, I agree that this is worthwhile information to have but that it would be better as a list. Furius (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Allkaruen" language is Tehuelche. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 18:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly. If the animal were "named after Tehuelche" it would be called "Tehuelche." Alkaruen has a name "derived from Tehuelche" or perhaps it "is named in Tehuelche." Furius (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - this should be a list article, not a category. Furius (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That's true, but as stated earlier, the List of organisms named after famous people would most probably deserve scrutiny. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the one who originally proposed the category. I think a better name for the category would be "Organisms with names derived from indigenous languages of the Americas". If this is a trivial cross-categorisation, then articles like List of organisms named after famous people (born 1950–present) also deserve scrutiny. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this misses the point, Hemiauchenia, which is that the criteria for a notable article and for a useful category are different. Furius (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the criteria for a useful category? What makes a category notable? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 13:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key policy document is here: Wikipedia:Categorization#Defining, with definitions gathered at Wikipedia:Defining. Furius (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell this category has a definition. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:Defining is about. Perhaps you might find it useful to read the policy again. Furius (talk) 21:01, 24 September 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_September_22&oldid=1113223379"