Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9

March 9

Category:Anchovies

• Propose merging Category:Anchovies to Category:Engraulidae

Nominator's rationale: "Anchovies" is simply the common name for the family Engraulidae. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Question, shouldn't it be a reverse merge? The main article is at Anchovy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the main article uses the common name, but all the taxonomy categories are listed with the Latin names. I guess I was thinking we would merge this way for consistency. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reverse Merge (or Merge) I would go with Anchovies, especially with Category:Anchovy dishes. But the proposed merge would be better than the status quo so I would also favor that if it's closer to consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reverse merge -- I know what an anchovy is. The scientific Latin family name is gobbledegook to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagging Engraulidae so that a reverse merge can be considered
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Thiomersal controversy

• Propose renaming Category:Thiomersal controversy to Category:Thiomersal and vaccines

Nominator's rationale: Rename in line with the parent article, recently moved to thiomersal and vaccines as the word "controversy" gave undue weight to a refuted fringe theory. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The move argument was rubbish. It basically says by giving the name that the people involved used we gave undue weight to the people who orignated the controversy in covering the controversy. This is all part of a new age double speak which we should avoid. This is a controversy, the people pushing it insist it is a controversy, plain and simple. It is not giving "undue weight" to pay attention to what people actually say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed name sounds meaningless to me. Thiomersal was used (and is used) as a component of vaccines (among many others). It is not clear what exactly "Thiomersal and vaccines" would mean? Ruslik_Zero 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Ruslik. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support/Correct Venue The oppose votes above indicate that the article is misnamed. OK, submit a requested move on Thiomersal and vaccines and reach a consensus for a better name. I'll gladly support renaming this category to match the outocme (whether I agree with it or not). Having different main article and category names hinders navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support . See my reasoning in the Category:MMR vaccine controversy section. This case is very similar. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support move or delete altogether. It's not a genuine controversy, no matter how much Johnpacklambert moves words around. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:WikiPathways

• Propose renaming Category:WikiPathways to Category:WikiPathways templates

Nominator's rationale: Would be a more accurate name for this category UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:African-American civil rights movement (1954–68)

• Propose deleting Category:African-American civil rights movement (1954–68) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty category. A Template:Db-empty was added on 1 March 2019‎ by me for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:C1. The speedy deletion tag was removed on 4 March 2019‎ by Marcocapelle with edit summary stated as "why?". User:Tleaver created the category on 13 March 2013, but has not been active on Wikipedia since 13 March 2013. Therefore, no notice was sent to category page creator. Mitchumch (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Slovenian Chetniks

• Propose renaming Category:Slovenian Chetniks to Category:Slovenian Chetnik personnel of World War II

Nominator's rationale: As a child category of the existing Category:Chetnik personnel of World War II. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - There are several reason for my opposition:
  • Renaming is unnecessary because the child category does not necessarily have to have the same wording of the parent category. The parent category sometimes has personnel in its title because it is sometimes child category of parent category which covers more topics than personnel. Child categories of Category:Foo personnel can only be about personnel.
  • Its not about ethnicity. Its about military units divided on territorial principle. Slovenian Chetniks were Chetnik subdivision separate from i.e. Montenegrin Chetniks. The nominator tries to introduce completely unrelated and irrelevant ethnic division into this category. Slovenian Chetniks category exist not to point to Chetniks of Slovenian ethnicity, but to point to Chetniks who belonged to separate group of Chetniks which more closely define them and distinguish from other groups.
  • Per WP:CAT - Don't write the category structure in names. Example: "Monarchs", not "People - Monarchs".
  • Per WP:CAT - Standard article naming conventions apply to categories also. Having that in mind, the existing title is more natural, concise, recognizable and equally precise. Consistent with ie Category:Slovene Partisans.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The clearly established category structure is Chetniks of WWII→Chetnik personnel of WWII and Chetniks of WWII→Military units and formations of the Chetniks in World War II. Moving this to Slovenian Chetnik personnel of WWII does not change the meaning, they are still Slovenian Chetniks as distinct from Slovene Chetniks, which is the ethnic division in this case. The separate subdivision is maintained by moving it to Slovenian Chetnik personnel of WWII, and the category is fixed in time by "of WWII". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per current structure, but honestly the term Chetnik personnel sounds a bit odd. Why not simply Chetnik people? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Chetnik personnel indeed sounds a bit odd. It is neessary to understand that all Chetniks were people. The existing title of the category by default refers to people. There is no need to add personell or people to it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't odd at all Marcocapelle, this is exactly the wording used for the entire category structure relating to military personnel (which Chetniks were), see Category:Military personnel by nationality for dozens of examples. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Then the other alternative would be Chetnik military personnel. The current category name is neither fish nor fowl. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

No, military personnel is implicit in Chetnik. They were all guerillas, therefore military. And this is a subset of Chetnik personnel of WWII, specifically Slovenian ones. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Montenegrin Chetniks

• Propose renaming Category:Montenegrin Chetniks to Category:Montenegrin Chetnik personnel of World War II

Nominator's rationale: As a child category of the existing Category:Chetnik personnel of World War II. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Same arguments as above presented for Slovenian Chetniks, except pointing to the Category:Montenegrin communists at the end of the text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • • The clearly established category structure is Chetniks of WWII→Chetnik personnel of WWII and Chetniks of WWII→Military units and formations of the Chetniks in World War II. Moving this to Montenegrin Chetnik personnel of WWII does not change the meaning, as "Montenegrin" clearly can mean ethnic or territorial division equally, so the current name is no different from the proposed one in that respect. The separate subdivision is maintained by moving it to Montenegrin Chetnik personnel of WWII, and the category is fixed in time by "of WWII". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per current structure, but honestly the term Chetnik personnel sounds a bit odd. Why not simply Chetnik people? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Chetnik personnel indeed sounds a bit odd. It is neessary to understand that all Chetniks were people. The existing title of the category by default refers to people. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't odd at all, this is exactly the wording used for the entire category structure relating to military personnel (which Chetniks were), see Category:Military personnel by nationality for dozens of examples. This just brings it into line with similar categories. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Prince-Bishops of the Holy Roman Empire

• Propose renaming Category:Prince-Bishops of the Holy Roman Empire to Category:Prince-Bishops in the Holy Roman Empire
• Propose renaming Category:Prince-Bishops of Switzerland to Category:Prince-Bishops in Switzerland

Nominator's rationale: rename for clarification, the current names may wrongly suggest that the entire Holy Roman Empire, and entire Switzerland, were a prince-bishopric. Perhaps the parent categories "Prince-bishoprics of" should also be nominated to "Prince-bishoprics in" but that is probably less needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support for the first since the Prince-bishoprics were "of" the Empire, not just sited "in" the Empire. Would oppose changes to the parent categories "Prince-bishoprics of" since the same potential for confusion does not arise. Support the second proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Rename target is a better form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strong opposition. As Laurel Lodged indicates, the Prince-Bishops were "of" the Empire, i.e., their secular jurisdictions were (at least nominally) granted by the Emperor, they were not merely located in the Empire, and re-naming the category would obscure this fact. Even stipulating that the potential confusion cited here exists, if it were a sufficiently widespread problem to warrant comment, it would be easy to dispel. This same objection applies to the parent category idea. With regards to Switzerland, "of Switzerland" is a perfectly valid construction; "of Switzerland" can be read synonymously with "Swiss," and they were Swiss simply by virtue of having been located in Switzerland. Furthermore, it would not be universally valid to refer to these ecclesiastical principalities as being "in Switzerland;" the Prince-Bishopric of Basel had lost its Swiss territories prior to mediatization, and thus, after 1792, was no longer "in Switzerland" in any meaningful sense. --Masque (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. If a reader assumes that some prince-bishops being of the Holy Roman Empire implies the entire Holy Roman Empire was assigned to prince-bishops, that is their own logical mistake. I don't think the category suggests it. Meanwhile, the proposed rename target, while not necessarily grammatically incorrect, certainly flies in the face of typical grammatical convention. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Estonian animation directors

• Propose merging Category:Estonian animation directors to Category:Animation directors

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only two articles in the category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• @JDDJS: Shouldn't we also merge to the two other parent categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

UKBot

• Propose deleting Category:UKBot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:UKBot active contests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:UKBot archived contests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Categories consisting only of or only used by templates nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 19#UKBot {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note: the related TfD has been relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_27#UKBot. – Fayenatic London 08:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Close. Since they're intimately related to the previously nominated templates, we shouldn't go deleting them here. We don't want to risk the event of deleting categories for templates that are kept, or keeping categories for templates that are deleted. If the templates are deleted, these can be speedied with criterion G8. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Explosives engineering and bomb disposal in fiction

• Propose renaming Category:Explosives engineering and bomb disposal in fiction to Category:Fiction about explosives engineering and bomb disposal

Nominator's rationale: As with other CFDs of this nature, make it more clear that the category should be applied when the topic is a primary feature of the fiction, not an incidental element. DonIago (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as non-defining regardless of name. It's not an established genre, just more trivia cruft. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Rename without "Explosives engineering", i.e. to Category:Fiction about bomb disposal (although I would not oppose Category:Bomb disposal in fiction). Most of the contents seem to fit that name, and for it to be sufficiently WP:DEFINING, but this does not appear to be defining for Gunsmith Cats, so remove that one. – Fayenatic London 09:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Parties that campaigned for leave/remain during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

• Propose Deleting Category:Parties that campaigned for leave during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
• Propose Deleting Category:Parties that campaigned for remain during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and the spirit of WP:OPINIONCAT

Brexit is certainly dominant in UK politics today and has been since 2016. But most the current major parties of the UK were founded long before 2016: Conservative (1834), Labour (1900), Scottish Nationalist (1934), Liberal Democrats (1988), DUP (1971), The Independent Group (2019), Sinn Féin (1905), Plaid (1925), Green Party (1990). Looking through the minor parties, most have one line that they campaigned for or against. This is better for a list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. Categorising parties by issue is a v v bad path to go down, a recipe for massive category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Zimbabwean Independence Medal, 1980

• Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Zimbabwean Independence Medal, 1980

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)

According to the introduction of the Zimbabwean Independence Medal, 1980 article, this award was given to those who were "involved in the Zimbabwean independence commemorations in some way". While this award was presumably given to a lot of people, the only recipients in the category is an Australian military officer and a South African pilot who both served in many other locations and received this award as a de facto campaign medal . We typically don't categorize by campaign medals because career officers serve in a variety of locations and conflicts and categorizing by every one of them creates category clutter. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Background We've deleted similar broad-based independence medals for other countries here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ingersoll Rand

• Propose renaming Category:Ingersoll Rand to Category:Ingersoll-Rand

Nominator's rationale: Company has gone back and forth with and without the hyphen in their official name; current incarnation is with the hyphen: Ingersoll-Rand. Does not qualify for WP:CFDS because article just moved. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)