Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (talk | contribs) at 12:52, 26 June 2023 (→‎Category:Themes in fictional films: Relisted on 2023 June 26 (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< May 6
May 8 >

May 7[edit]

Category:Club Atlético Américo Tesorieri players[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 23:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No evidence that the club is notable, plays in the fourth tier of Argentinian football, never played above the third tier. The club article only exists on the Spanish wikipedia, not on the English one. Geregen2 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2023 (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:House of Dolgorukov[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 15#Category:House of Dolgorukov

Category:Bhaiṣajyaguru Buddha[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: speedy rename WP:C2D. – Fayenatic London 10:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other Buddha name articles Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 15:15, 7 May 2023 (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 of Rus'[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. This should obviously be renamed back if RM decides so. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 23:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D King of Ruthenia. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. King of Rus is much more commonly used in reliable sources.[1] Perhaps an RM for the article should precede renaming the category. —Michael Z. 15:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we shouldn't overestimate the power of Ngram. I've noticed that in many cases it simply won't find lots of sources that do exist. E.g.:
Btw I did some reading a few months ago about what contemporary sources said; I just copypasted the relevant section to King of Ruthenia#Title. There is quite a lot of variation to be found.
Also, there is WP:OVERLAP between List of rulers of Galicia and Volhynia#Halychyna and Volynia (Halych–Volhynia) and King of Ruthenia#List of kings of Ruthenia; I would propose to merge the former section into the latter. What do you think? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t overestimate a naïve reading of the first page of search results. Google Books limited to English sources and paged to the last result actually shows 13 pages, for 124 results in total[2] (it says “Page 13 of about 1,900 results,” but I think that is bogus). Google Scholar limited to English-language sources actually shows 28.[3] The figures you submitted above seem to be wrong by 115% and 500%, respectively, but who really knows? Google book search results are so brain-dead they include links to scores of empty pages after the last result – can you believe this consumer utility has been in production for 18 years?!
Google Ngram is actually made to compare frequencies. Ngram explicitly states “we only consider ngrams that occur in at least 40 books” of its corpus[4] which likely explains the absence of results, and may indicate that rex ruthenorum is too infrequently used to be considered the single most commonly used English name for the subject.  —Michael Z. 18:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe merge the latter into the former? It seems the list article wants to be comprehensive, and include all historical princes and kings, while the article about the title is restricted to a subset. I think an embedded section there would be appropriate, although I worry that including specific content in templates hinders editing (probably should have the V·T·E links that navboxes have).  —Michael Z. 18:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I will defer to any outcome of an RM if there is going to be one. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2023 (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.

Emigrants from former countries[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: Upmerge all Timrollpickering (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full list of around 450 categories
Rationale: recent cfds such as 2022 October 4#Category:Emigrants from the United States to British India, 2022 October 4#Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire to British India, 2023 April 29#French emigrants and 2023 April 28#Belgian emigrants have upmerged small categories to their relevant parents. The categories listed are all small (1, 2 or 3 articles) and should be similarly upmerged. The full list (around 450 categories) is on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 7. Oculi (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having spent a few minutes looking at these and similar cats, I think they shouldn't be merged but simply deleted, as way too many of Johnpacklamberts categorizations are at best for trivial, non-defining characteristics and at worst just wrong. I removed such cats[5][6][7][8][9] before coming here. Time to put a stop to this. Fram (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are not all creations of Johnpacklambert although many are. Rathfelder has a few. Much of the categorisation seems to involve guesswork and giving undue weight to the place of birth. Oculi (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are dozens and dozens of emptied categories including these ones and many similar categories (see here). Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see the entire list of categories nominated is at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 7, not just those listed here. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert is emptying them (needlessly). Oculi (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2023 (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:Faculty by university or college[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 23:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A few months back, most of the categories underneath this one were renamed to use this kind of more generic phrasing. Was there any regression from that? If not, we should rename this one at the top as well. (Inside, there'd still remain the various American categories using the term faculty wherever appropriate.) Joy (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename We have six continental categorises, all renamed to the format "academic staff", leaving only north America with "faculty" and in a minority of one. Can the closing admin please nominate the other subcats by subject: Art School; law school; etc. where the same considerations apply. Even calling these "schools" is an Americanism and the majority of the content is non-American. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "schools" is not an Americanism; see google for 'school of law uk'. Plenty of UK universities have schools, eg at Leeds the faculties are divided into schools. Oculi (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I agree, let's deal with that separately, there's no need to conflate all of these. --Joy (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be Category:Academic staff by university or college, correct? If so, support. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fixed, thanks. --Joy (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2023 (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:Redirects from Uighur-language terms[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 23:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: correct spelling of uyghur greyzxq talk 13:34, 7 May 2023 (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:Neographer[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 23:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Badly named WP:SMALLCAT for a concept that (a) doesn't have a head article, and (b) doesn't have any other potential content besides the one thing that's already here. This isn't needed for just one thing, and even if it were justifiable it would have to be renamed anyway. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not important, Neographers might as well be under Neography anyway Frzzl (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2023 (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:Gaslamp fantasy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 19#Category:Gaslamp fantasy

People of the Thirty Years' War‎[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 23:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Small categories. Finland was at the time a Swedish province. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2023 (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:Films about Kamikaze[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:Films about kamikaze pilots. ✗plicit 04:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grammar. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As there is apparently no consensus for capitalization, this is also a good alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2023 (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:Sentient objects in fiction[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 22#Category:Sentient objects in fiction

Grammarians[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 26#Grammarians

Category:Invader Zim video games[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of these are Invader Zim games. ★Trekker (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2023 (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.

Volcanic eruptions by country[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 12:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. The merge to natural disasters should be manual since some are already in that tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2023 (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:Ships of North America[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. ✗plicit 07:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCLOCATION)
This is an unnecessary category layer containing only Category:Great Lakes ships, which is already well parented. Categorizing ships by continent just doesn't make sense since, excepting the Great Lakes, they're generally ocean bound. (The only sibling category is Category:Ships of Australia, but that's part of the ships by country tree.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Great Lakes ships are ones of a particular size, capable of navigating the river between the Atlantic and Great Lakes. That cat should perhaps be allowed to be a child both of US and Canadian parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of them are too large for the St. Lawrence and spend their entire careers in fresh water; see Lake freighter#Lakers vs. salties. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Categorizing ships by continent just doesn't make sense" Non-sequitur at best. Categorizing ships by region of origin seems perfectly sensible. Dimadick (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we think this grouping would help readers, we could certainly populate it with ships of Canada, US, Mexico, Panama, etc. Note that about a third of the world's current ships use Panama or Caribbean countries as Flags of convenience though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the individual ships will be categorised as US or Canadian, so no need to merge. Oculi (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCLOCATION). Categorizing ships by continent doesn't make sense because merchant ships of one country may fly a flag from another country for various reasons ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2023 (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:Ships named for Founding Fathers of the United States[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 12:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SHAREDNAME)
The Jefferson Memorial and Statue of Ben Franklin were both purpose built for specific people and are both defined by that association. In contrast, the Jefferson Nuclear Submarine and Ben Franklin Aircraft Carrier were both going to be built anyway and were just named in someone's honor, just like Jefferson Street and Ben Franklin High School. (The intros to the ship articles do mostly have a sentence about their namesake being a founding father, but those were usually added by category creator.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, memorials are established to commemmorate people, while ships just need a random name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random name, like picked from a phone book? The names of these American ships, mostly military, memorialize the American founders they were named after who literally created the nation who's flag they sailed under. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • History books are more common places to find random names, but yeah, the idea is the same. A ship named after a person wouldn't become a different ship if it would be renamed after another person. Again this is in contrast to memorials. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Strong Keep, defining as honors and memorials to founders of the U.S. These are far from "random names" (?, pulled out of a hat or something?), they are ships named by the nation to commemorate its founders, many of them honoring their namesakes while they were still alive, and defines the founders by the honors and memorials dedicated to them (as defined on each article). And why would the Patrick Henry category be "purged" of ships named for him as a direct honor and memorial? The category, which does no harm to the encyclopedia, and Patrick Henry's notable honors, kept to maintain Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - perfect case of WP:SHAREDNAME. (Randy Kryn, above, is the creator of the category.) Oculi (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • . . . and proud of it, it's a good category. As to SHAREDNAME, how does that apply at all to this category? You may or may not realize that a great many of the ships in the category were named for the founders during and directly after the American Revolutionary War, when the individuals were still alive and thus defined. The honor of naming a major fighting ship after someone is not trivial or random, as some editors claim, but a thought-out process going to the highest levels of the military or higher. These were not names chosen for their rapper names, or for similar last names, they were chosen because these were the people who created a nation and a new form of government. Nothing broken here, and nothing shared except for the honor (which, by the fact of the honoring, is defining). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Avoid categorizing by ... characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself" - you are categorising ships by a characteristic of the name, nothing to do with the actual ship. Classic WP:SHAREDNAME. Oculi (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missed a lot between the ellipses. . .: "by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject". The names define the subject as an honoring of the founders of the U.S.. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense - the name is not a defining characteristic of a ship. Oculi (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it backwards, an individual founder's legacy is partly defined by memorials and honors, such as ships being named for them. As for your point, I'd say the name is a defining characteristic of a ship, maybe ask those who've served (I didn't, have an uncle who did, loved his ship, by name). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those two examples seemed to be named for the founders. No matter the route the Franklin took to get there, it was named for B. Franklin, and the Hancock was named after John Hancock no matter who co-paid for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:SHAREDNAME. And RevelationDirect aptly describes the political, traditional and idiosyncratic methods behind ship naming. It's quite humorous. And agree with nom. Memorials are intentional, not so with ships, based on the info I am able to gather. Also, please note Randy Kryn is bludgeoning this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is either the clearest case of WP:REVENGE editing I think I've personally experienced or a nice coincidance. Let's just say this editor and I have had go-arounds in the last couple days (BRD, deletions, prod) and then I see that, in his second edit after the discussion he wants to delete a category that I have spent much thought and time in creating (and as importantly this may be the deciding comment if it goes unchallenged). No matter the reasons mentioned, and the rules and regs listed (which I've disputed, I think successfully, earlier in this discussion and won't go into again), and then that swat at me in the last sentence, I have to say that this editor finding and becoming interested in this nomination on his second-to-next edit after a major disagreement with me stretches my limit of assuming good faith. This is one of the few times I haven't been able to find a reason to assume it (okay, he did comment first on the nomination above, so if this is a coincidence it's a big one but there is still a chance it was, I kind of hope so actually, would prove a point in an interesting way). I say all this in asking that Steve Quinn's edit be stricken and not taken into consideration in this discussion. I've never done this before, and don't feel good about it, but this category is too important to be lost in a revenge edit. And if I am somehow mistaken, [Edit: explained] my sincerest apologies. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another option, since some of the commenting editors here object to the use of the term 'Memorial' then either please note or, more extremely, move the category to its upline parent Category:Posthumous recognitions, where it fits per category title. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing up alternatives! What I would see as a good alternative would be moving out of the category space entirely and creating a list article under Category:Lists of eponyms, similar to List of forms of electricity named after scientists or List of things named after Rembrandt. That way, readers interested in the naming history could get the same information as the category currently contains (plus maybe an introduction to the group). In that article space you'd need to find reliable sources to satisfy WP:NLIST, but that seems like a much easier climb than WP:SHAREDNAME. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2023 (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:Themes in fictional films[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 26#Category:Themes in fictional films

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_7&oldid=1162010814"