Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 8

< August 7	August 9 >

August 8

Category:Coudenhove-Kalergi

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. MER-C 09:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Coudenhove-Kalergi to Category:Coudenhove-Kalergi family

Nominator's rationale: Family categories in most countries are all like "Foo family". It appears that this convention has not been followed strictly with Category:Austrian noble families. Is there a reason? Do we need a wider discussion? Rathfelder (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that and there was an objection. Rathfelder (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was because it is not a case of WP:C2C: sometimes "family" is used, sometimes "house of", sometimes nothing at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well C2D wouldn't work either, because the move is recent. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree switch to. (e. g., Category:Beethoven family) YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2020 (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:Fagus

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 now that the pages in article space have been rearranged instead. – Fayenatic London 19:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Option A

Category:Fagus to Category:Fagus (plant)

Option B

Category:Fagus to Category:Beech

Nominator's rationale: The bare title Fagus is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is Beech, and the scientific name Fagus (plant) (plant) redirects there. I am not sure which to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in Some Fashion I'll defer to others on which title. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid ambiguity. Option A is consistent with the general usage of scientific names in biology categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beech is clearly primary, by a mile. As so often, Bhg, it would be better to sort out these bogus disam pages, than mess about the categories. Failing that, option B seems far more sensible, unless there is some strong convention otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more partial to option B, the common name here, since it seems that the "beech" name applies to all members of the genus, and only members of that genus, which is not always the case for common names. The other consideration, of course, is that the main article is at Beech. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: southern beeches (myrtle beech, silver beech, mountain beech, etc.) are not Fagus'. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing my vote to option A per concerns by Lavateraguy and Peter coxhead. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A, per the convention of using scientific names in categorization—e.g., Fir/Category:Abies, Pine/Category:Pinus, Oak/Category:Quercus, and so on. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Move Fagus to Fagus (disambiguation), redirect Fagus to Beech, and continue to use Category:Fagus for beech articles. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly support the suggestion above (move Fagus to Fagus (disambiguation), redirect Fagus to Beech, and continue to use Category:Fagus for beech articles). I would prefer to use Fagus for the genus article, since "beech" is commonly used for Fagus sylvatica, but worldwide Hyperik's proposal may be the least worst. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I mean we don't call "our" beeches "[adjective] beech" either. They're just beech. :) —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 12:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Beech, as the main article is Beech. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the articles in a genus category will be about species with scientific name titles. If the category is not the genus name, they will all be sorted under the same letter of the alphabet (i.e. the genus name). For Category:Fagus this hardly matters, as there aren't many species (indeed it could be argued that the category is too small to be worthwhile anyway), but as a general principle, articles at binomial names should be sorted in categories by the epithet, which requires the category to be the genus name (plain or disambiguated). We are discussing a taxonomic categorization system – the parent is Category:Fagaceae, not "Category:Beech family".
(A problem with discussing plant taxonomic categories here, rather than at WT:PLANTS is that long established consensus methods of categorizing plant articles are not understood or not respected by some participants.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2020 (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.

Mayors of populated places

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. – Fayenatic London 08:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one article in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion; @BrownHairedGirl, WilliamJE, and ItsPugle: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Thanks for the ping too 🙂 ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 23:26, 8 August 2020 (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:Coordinates on Wikidata

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. Favonian (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Coordinates on Wikidata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Three years after the previous no consensus CfD, this cat has grown to more than 1 million articles, and still no indication of what it possibly could be used for. The cat doesn't indicate any need for action (not here and not even on Wikidata), any error or potential error... it's just tracking for the sake of tracking. Why we should need or want to check some Wikidata property on enwiki is not clear, neither is why we shouldn't then track all other Wikidata properties in the same way (Category:Property "Human" on Wikidata anyone?). Yes, it is possible, and it is even vaguely conceivable that someone finds it interesting once in a blue moon. But it isn't remotely useful to improve enwiki or Wikidata. Fram (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata:Coordinates tracking may be of interest, though it still does not clarify what purpose this tracking serves... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful, as it alerts editors to the possibility to use templates using data from Wikidata. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So an advertisement? That's not really what categories are for, actually. And worse, it isn't what this template indicates. All it means is that for this subject, there are also coordinates (the same? different ones?) on Wikidata, not whether the article already has coordinates or not, not that the coordinates are imported from Wikidata, nothing. If you want to keep the category for that reason, I don't think it will do a very good job as it has no indication that people can use templates for this (leaving aside the discussion of whether they should do this). Fram (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for largely the same reasons that people want to keep Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 7#Category:Short description with empty Wikidata description. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jackmcbarn. SD0001 (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: extremely useful tracking category for bot work on coordinate maintenance. Which is what I'm working on right now. -- The Anome (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2020 (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.

Grammy Award

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. MER-C 18:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Grammy Award for Best Soundtrack Album (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Grammy Award for Best Soundtrack Album was created in 2000 and renamed in 2001 to Grammy Award for Best Compilation Soundtrack for Visual Media Category:Grammy Award for Best Compilation Soundtrack for Visual Media so no need in two identical categories, its useless double with the exactly same winners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diopic (talk • contribs) 16:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2020 (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:Template loop warnings

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) --Trialpears (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Template loop warnings to Category:Pages with template loops

Nominator's rationale: This category is populated by the MediaWiki:Parser-template-loop-warning message, and only works when the template loop ends up directly in the final output, and not, say, inside of an {{#if}} conditional. Category:Pages with template loops is populated directly by the MediaWiki software, and includes template loops no matter where they end up. This category is wholly redundant to that one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like an argument for deletion, not a merge, since there's nothing to merge, but it does make sense, so Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: Yeah, I was actually on the fence as to whether to call this a "deletion" or a "merge". My thought was that after we stop populating this category, we may want to leave its description page around with {{Category redirect}} instead of deleting it altogether, although if anyone disagrees, I don't feel particularly strongly about that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info. At Cfd a merge means that the 14 user pages in this category should be moved to Category:Pages with template loops. With deletion those 14 pages will not be moved to Category:Pages with template loops. In any case no category redirect is created unless you specify that separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Every page in Category:Template loop warnings is already in Category:Pages with template loops too. Jackmcbarn (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok in that case delete and merge have the same effect. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2020 (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.