Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 15

< August 14	August 16 >

August 15

Category:Elections in Canada by number

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. ℯ xplicit 04:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Elections in Canada by number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subcategories:

Nominator's rationale: This is needless classification of redirects. The redirects themselves are possibly useful but there's no scheme of Category:Elections by number. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Don't understand the point of this. Number 5 7 08:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment The New Brunswick and Nova Scotia categories contain disambiguation pages, not redirects, due to the preexistence of those provinces before federalization. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nova Scotia and New Brunswick — as Mangoe correctly points out, those two contain disambiguation pages rather than redirects, because joining Confederation reset the official numbering from the colonial assemblies, so each number can refer to more than one different election depending on whether you start counting from ground or from 1867, and whether you keep counting Nova Scotia's elections straight or shift everything after #20 up one to keep them in phase with the Great Disappearing 21st Assembly snafu of the 1850s — but delete the rest and the parent category as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these categories - this is an attempt to use a category as a list, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an example of WP:Categorizing redirects#Categorization of multiple taxonomies, unless the redirects themselves are deleted. – Fayenatic London 13:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick disambiguation pages are premised on original research as the Election authorities in both provinces (Elections Nova Scotia and Elections New Brunswick, respectively) number elections from Confederation. There are no sources for the contention that elections are numbered to include colonial elections.Nixon Now (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussion - regarding the numbering scheme of the NB and NS elections, you may be interested in this discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:44, 25 September 2017 (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:Cultural depictions of Sean Connery

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Cultural depictions of Sean Connery

Nominator's rationale: This category holds a TV series because it includes an "interview" with an actor playing Sean Connery and a redirect. There is no plausible use for it. The faux interview TV show, The God & Devil Show, is a good reason to review all of these "cultural depictions" categories. They seem like magnets for every trivial mention of a notable person or something that resembles a notable person. That show's article lists dozens of faux interviews which could otherwise be used as bases for equally useless categories. Crewman Capote (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I used the wrong template on the category, renaming instead of deleting. I changed the nomoination here but I don't know how to change it on the category without messing up the link. Sorry.

Problem solved. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current contents are an article about something that has many parodies and cultural depictions (SC among them) and a redirect. No conceptual objection to this type of category but there's no there there, at least yet. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2017 (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:Legendary creatures and Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 16, adding "fictional" sub-cat. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Legendary creatures to Category:Mythical beings

and

Propose renaming Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings to Category:Deities and spirits

Nominator's rationale: Per current structure, we have Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings as subcategory of Category:Legendary creatures. Why cut "Mythic beings" from the cat title? Is too general, as you cannot distinguish it from "legendary creature", which is the name of the parent category Category:Legendary_creatures. A vast majority of the content of Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings are exclusevely either dieties or spirits, and those, who aren't, can be recategorized to the parent cat, if they are not already there, as is the case with Category:Ghosts.

"Legendary creature", "Mythical creature" and "Mythical being" are synonymous, but precisely because the cat includes dieties as well, who are no creatures, but creators, the latter is (1) more precise, (2) less offending to theists, which can also prevent edit wars like in 2013 [here]. CN1 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tend to think of "Legendary creatures" more as creatures from legend, which is often used in vernacular to be similar to fantasy (both genre as well as film). I am not sure if the content here is distracted by the changing use in common language. I have not heard anybody referring to Legendary creatures in a deistic way. --FULBERT (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FULBERT: But Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings already is subcat to Category:Legendary creatures. Would you like the option of supporting my second rename and exclude Category:Deities and spirits from Category:Legendary creatures? But this wouldn't fix the whole problem, because angels, demons etc, still are legendary creatures and at the same time spirits & dieties, you can not simply deny the connection between them, is that not true? CN1 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CreativeName1: How would you envision the two categories being connected? I suppose I am having trouble envisioning the overall taxonomy you are suggesting FULBERT (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FULBERT: Well, like this:

Category:Mythical beings (the new name of Category:Legendary creatures)

Contains creatures, spirits, gods, etc. Contains supernatural beings (human, plant, animal or ghost) from mysticism/folklore/legends etc.

Category:Deities and spirits (the new name of Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings)

Contains only deities and spirits

CN1 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming and narrowing scope of Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings to Category:Deities and spirits. Agree with nominator that a wider scope, including mythic beings, as is currently the case, is too similar to the scope of the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However I'm not sure about the first nomination. Legendary creature has its own article, while Mythical being redirects to Cryptozoology which implies to keep the category name as is, and to remove it as a parent from the second nominated category.

Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: The redirect is plainly wrong. Proof: (1) Mythical being = beings from mythology. (2) Cryptozoology = Study about "hidden" animals. Mythical beings involve also plants and immaterial beings like deities, spirits etc. CN1 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I realise the redirect is wrong, but for this discussion it's relevant that we don't have an article about Mythical beings. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rule that states that a category can't have a non-eponymous main article? Because I think Legendary creatures can still be a good main article, it just would cover only 90 % of it's content instead of the usual 100%. CN1 (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a fixed rule, but it is quite likely that an article Mythical being does not exist for good reasons, e.g. because Legendary creatures is considered to be synonymous. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how quite likely this is. I find concerns with the name of the article expressed in numerous discussions on the talk page but I never found my proposed name discussed. Chances are higher that nobody thought about it before me. Chances are, nobody of these editors is interested in category questions generally, because I contacted three Wiki-projects and the participation here is not very high. Marco, you say that they are synonymous--is that not a point benefitting the proposal, because it has advantages while meaning the exact same thing? CN1 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Legendary and mythical creatures are synonyms. Dimadick (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2017 (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:630s in the Rashidun Caliphate

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 Category:650s in the Rashidun Caliphate as empty (this only seems to have held Battle of Bishapur (643–644), presumably based on the mistaken infobox in which the dates were copied from Muslim conquest of Pars in error); no consensus on others. I will make a new proposal to merge Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate into Category:Rashidun Caliphate instead. – Fayenatic London 14:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:630s in the Rashidun Caliphate to Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate and Category:630s in Asia
Propose merging Category:640s in the Rashidun Caliphate to Category:640s in Asia added 20 August
Propose merging Category:650s in the Rashidun Caliphate to Category:650s in Asia added 20 August

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, this is the only decade category of the Rashidun Caliphate and it only contains a few items. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and of course populate and expand additional decade categories from Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate.GreyShark (dibra) 12:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a classical WP:SMALLCAT case. The parent Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate isn't that heavily populated that it would benefit a lot from a full diffusion by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it rather looks that in many cases you are misinterpreting the policy of WP:SMALLCAT as general policy referring to current cat population, whereas it is referring also to the potential of category population. The Rashidun Caliphate is relatively well documented polity with plenty of information available on the decade level and possibly even on the annual level. I will demonstrate it by populating the cat with 10 articles as example that WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply here.GreyShark (dibra) 11:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these 10 are just copied over from the subcategories, so this is not a very good demonstration and goes against WP:SUBCAT. Besides all 10 articles are in a battles subcat of Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate so the amount of articles in the target will remain very modest after merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom -- I have just altered the main article of Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate to be Rashidun Caliphate, so that it has an article that exists. This Caliphate existed 632-661 AD, which is not long enough to need to be split by decades. Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate is also unnecessary and could be profitably merged into Category:Rashidun Caliphate. The two further decade categories also need upmerging like this nom. Could the closing admin, please create the further merges that I am suggesting to remove those just created by Greyshark. I am not doing this myself as it is better to have one open discussion at a time. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the additional decade categories that were just created to the nomination. Like before, the content of the new categories is already contained in Category:Battles involving the Rashidun Caliphate‎ and/or Category:Muslim conquest of Persia‎, so the merge will lead to zero extra expansion of the head category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2017 (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:Cancer in cats and dogs

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Cancer in cats and dogs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Relevant pages in separate dog and cat categories, combination category not required. DferDaisy (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2017 (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:Heteromyidae stubs

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Heteromyidae stubs to Category:Geomyoidea stubs

Nominator's rationale: No longer needed - a scan shows that there are only 30 stubs for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:11, 15 August 2017 (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:Actors from the New York metropolitan area

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Actors from the New York metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Who refers to actors as being from this area? I've never seen it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I actually think that actors by metropolitan region is better than actors by specific city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2017 (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:About

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. Alex Shih ^Talk 04:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:About (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is empty, and there is no obvious class of articles that would fill it, or else every article in the project would belong here. This is not how categories work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SkyWarrior 03:14, 15 August 2017 (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:Kings

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. @Capankajsmilyo: Please do not bring repeat nominations so soon where there was a clear consensus already (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_18#Category:Kings). – Fayenatic London 14:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Kings to Category:Monarchs

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as both means the same. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 01:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - they don't quite mean the same thing, since "Kings" refers only to males; since males is the norm, we don't need a separate category tree for them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not an oppose): there are more monarchs than just kings, so they should be nominated for merge as well: Category:Emirs, Category:Emperors, Category:Sultans. The merge would imply a massive reorganization though, because most content in these categories is also in some other lower level of Category:Monarchs, so blindly moving over the content would not do. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: All Kings are monarchs. Not all monarchs are kings. Subcatagories in Category:Monarchs are about many different topics about all monarchs. Subcategories in Category:Kings are only about kings. Please tell me you didn't look at that and still wanted to merge them. Or am I missing something? CN1 (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – a king is one type of monarch, an emir is another. I don't see that there is any particular problem with the present arrangement. Oculi (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A king is a type of monarch, but there are monarchs with higher titles such as emperors. Dimadick (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Monarchs is appropriate as a container for categories for other titles, kings, emperors, sultans, etc. There may be some unique titles that would be directly in Monarchs, such as Nizams of Hyderbad and Nawabs of Bengal. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General support thinking about it it seems to me that Emirs/Sultans/Kings all tend to be more about shared name than shared office. Even the distinction between kings and emperors is often hard to define clearly. On the other hand, in many contexts princes are functional monarchs, principalities have often been as independent as kings. Right now this whole category tree seems organized by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2017 (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:Sarah.t.life's About Page

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. Alex Shih ^Talk 04:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sarah.t.life's About Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:Sarah.t.life's Talk Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:UCAT#Inappropriate types of user categories, which prohibits categories that are overly narrow in scope. This category may even violate WP:NOTWEBHOST based on the fact that these are for a single user page/talk page. SkyWarrior 01:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, as per nom. A category essentially intended for a single page is not appropriate. That is not how we do categories, particularly userspace cats. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Category creator is a newbie with an apparently irrepressible urge to do things her own way, no matter what she is told. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2017 (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.