Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 5 January 7 >

January 6

[edit]

Mayors of places in New Zealand

[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, except not the Invercargill one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2021 (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 Sunderland, Tyne and Wear

[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. – Fayenatic London 10:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, as Sunderland, Tyne and Wear redirects to Sunderland. There was a procedural oppose against speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Necrothesp, Armbrust, and Pppery: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Birmingham and Plymouth names are mistakes in the article space and should be renamed as they are not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That's not the case here, as Sunderland is the primary topic (as is Carlisle). - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You refused to implement the close. Did any other adminstrators refuse? There's no record of it. This is a violation of the Wikipedia:Deletion process, that I helped write nearly 15 years ago, and specifically allows non-administrative closes. You also failed to properly format the relisting, and failed to notify the closer. Why cannot administrators follow the rules?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Ymblanter: How is no admin being willing to enact the decision helped by relisting? Won't we be in the same boat a week from now? - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CFD nominations must be closed by admins, at least if the result is move, because one of the conditions of NACs is that discussions requiring administrative intervention are not eligible. Because of the backlogs, some non-admins sometimes close CFD discussions, and ask admins to enact the close at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working (the page itself is fully protected, and non-admins can not edit it). Usually we enact the closes. However, if I enact such a close I take the responsibility for the close, and I am only willing to do it if I, well, not necessarily agree with it, but at least consider it valid (another NAC requirement is that the discussion must be non-contentious). In this case, I was not prepared to take the responsibility and refused to enact the close. This is perfectly according to the policies, because I am not in any way required to enact it. No other admin showed an interest, and I had to unclose. The whole nomination page for 27 November was already done, and it was not an option to unclose the discussion and leave it at that page. I expect that in a week, an admin will close the discussion (in fact, any admin can do it any moment now, since the discussion is older than seven days).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back when I'd made CfD and TfD as Discussion (instead of Deletion) many years ago, we didn't address AfD as that was already well established. I've always treated them the same. Requested moves are treated the same as deletion, and renamed categories are similar to moves. Could update the text:

    For appealing the deletion of a page or outcome of a deletion discussion that appears to be against community consensus, if the request is outside of the scope of requests for undeletion, and after discussing with the deleting administrator or closer respectively.

    For appealing the closure of a requested move, including one that resulted in a deletion or merger, if it appears to be against consensus or proper closing procedure, and after discussing with the closer.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move review not deletion review since this CFD clearly has nothing to do with inclusion and I agree this shouldn't have been re-opened unilaterally even though the citation of C2D in close was incorrect (C2C yes per Category:Sunderland but not C2D since Sunderland is ambiguous). Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we're supposed to do is take the rogue administrator to the administrator incidents to be reviewed by the Bureaucrats and Steward (assuming that process is still around). But we're short on CfD participants. Years ago we had fewer daily nominations with more participants and more closers. So we need him to actually do the work. We just need to rein in some administrators who have gotten a bit self-important. He's actually written:

    I am not going to implement this close (and I believe the close of 5 December is not good, and definitely not in NAC domain), as well as any future closes by this user. I hope another administrator can look at them.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, may be you should first learn which processes are still around, and then start complaining about my breach of non-existing policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have the shoe on the wrong foot. Justifying is a requirement for you:

    Administrators should not revert a closure based solely on the fact that the original closer was not an administrator, based on consensus following this request for comment. Per WP:ADMINACCT, administrators are expected to promptly and civilly justify their decision to revert based on an assessment of the local consensus and application of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not what I did. I believe that your close does not reflect consensus. I made it very clear from the beginning. May I please remind you again that I am not under obligation to implement your close, and any other administrator can do it any moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, I will say that overall participating in CFD has declined (I attribute that to not displaying cats on mobile view) and I appreciate admins who are volunteering their time. I don't think that get's us to agreement on this item but I want to make that general statement. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As another aside, non-admin closures are supposed to reduce the burden for admins. By closing a discussion but not being able to implement the outcome, the burden for admins is hardly reduced. That is sort of pointless, really. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It greatly reduces the effort, as they aren't required to think, just run the bot (so that we don't have to do them by hand). We don't want everybody to be able to run the bot; that's why the Working page is protected. (Heck, I used to run my own Botryoidal, but haven't re-qualified it for years, as that computer is long gone.) As closers are experienced and independent, there shouldn't be any second-guessing involved. Once you have them second-guessing every closure, that way lies madness.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I have done this above, but I can try again. The deletion policy says

    Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages.

    This is because administrators are not expected to blindly implement closes, but they are responsible for all the administrative actions they perform (for the sake of the argument, and not trying to relate it to the current discussion - imagine somebody summarizes an obscure discussion and decides we need to delete the main page - you do not expect me to implement this). I am willing (but have no obligation) to implement fully uncontroversial decisions (which for CFD typically means full consensus, no dissenters possibly except for the nominator). Everything else is easier for me to close from scratch than to see whether I can subscribe to the arguments of the closer.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not policy. That's an essay. We have a Working section for non-administrative closures, where an administrator is expected to run the bot. If the administrator wants to challenge the closure, the administrator is expected to follow the review rules just like everybody else. Moreover, that's not the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS policy. Wikipedia doesn't need one of the most senior Internauts and experienced Wikipedians in the world to close unanimous decisions. I'm only interested in those that require thought, and usually where I'll learn something interesting.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I cited is exactly Wikipedia:Deletion process which is not an essay, it is a guideline. If you want to close discussions not eligible for NACs, and if you are so experienced, why do not you get an admin flag via RfA first? There is not single Wikipedia policy which would put me under obligation to enact your closes I disagree with. WT:CFDW#NACs is not a policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding on that, we can't expect any editor to blindly follow up on another editor's request, regardless of the nature of the request. You always remain responsible for your own actions. That applies just as well (or even more) to administrators. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still say keep -- This is (I think) not the only place called Sunderland. Without the disambiguator, it is likely to collect articles on other places (see Sunderland (disambiguation)). Peterkingiron (talk) Peterkingiron (UTC)
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:Ancient Romans by gens

[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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This new creation duplicates a long-standing category. Categories for Roman gentes (families) mostly contain biographical articles, and it would seem weird to have a category for the gens and a different one for its members. N.B. gens and gentes is the same word in singular and plural form, both in English and in Latin. Place Clichy (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Place Clichy: I was already aware of all this. I had created this as a sort of test (to see how it looked like) because I had my problems with the gens pages and gens categories being both grouped under Category:Roman gentes. I was accordingly planning to broach the subject on the wikiproject one of these days, but hadn't done so yet. Had the idea garnered no support, I was planning to revert it on my own, but it seems you came out ahead. I should have checked with the community immediately, but if you could give me (say) a week, I'd be grateful. Avilich (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the meantime, keep. It's not redundant at all: a distinction must be made between individuals themselves on one hand and families, offices, or groups on the other. It's akin to the distinction between Category:Ancient Roman military personnel (which is within Category:Ancient Romans by occupation, equivalent to Category:Ancient Romans by gens) and Category:Military ranks of ancient Rome (equivalent to Category:Roman gentes). Avilich (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. Having a container category for gentes is just as reasonable as having containers for city, class, death, and occupation. Category:Roman gentes is not itself a container, and thus by definition not a duplicate of Category:Ancient Romans by gens. It was my intention that all categories of gentes be moved to the container (a job currently unfinished) because Category:Roman gentes is too large and difficult to navigate. Avilich (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a distinct difference between articles about a gens and categories for its members who have their own articles. For instance, "Fabia gens" lists pretty much all the Fabii who occur in historical and literary writing, while "Category:Fabii" includes only articles about individual Fabii or other topics related to the gens (including "Fabia gens"). But both of these are listed in "Category:Roman gentes"—"Fabii" as a subcategory. The category created earlier today, and immediately nominated for merger, is intended as a container category for categories such as "Fabii, Calpurnii, Valerii", which will cut the size of the category "Roman gentes" nearly in half. It's going to have hundreds of categories as is—it doesn't need to have hundreds of subcategories on the main page as well, nearly all of them corresponding with the categories that follow. The container category seems like a good housekeeping measure, and it's being discussed at CGR already. P Aculeius (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — We created categories and container categories for just such as these. There's no technical reason to limit the number of sub-categories, any more than limiting the number of articles. We actually want well populated categories. So the family name should be the main article (category sort <blank>) in the subcategory containing the individuals, offices, and groups. This is just a mess.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point: they're not in a subcategory. They're in the subcategories area of the main category. Hundreds of them. All of them with names similar to the pages that belong in the category. There's no worry about the category "Roman gentes" not being well-populated: it already contains hundreds of pages. It doesn't need hundreds of apparently duplicative subcategories on the main page as well. Placing all of those in a subcategory designed specifically for them is simple housekeeping. And nobody is going to have trouble moving from one category to the other because of it: they all still link to each other. They're just better-organized. P Aculeius (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circular and massive cross links are not "better-organized". They are harder to maintain. They are harder to traverse. We need a simpler organization. I'd prefer that Roman gentes had the subcategories, and the family names be moved to the subcategories themselves instead of populating Roman gentes. All that would remain would be the article(s) describing the meaning of Roman gentes. Adding a subcategory to contain the subcategories is completely unnecessary. We only do that for multiple techniques of organization (by date, by country). That's not appropriate here.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2021 (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:Burials 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: do not convert. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Burials by country to article List of burials by country
Nominator's rationale: burial location seldom is a defining feature fgnievinski (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2021 (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:Republic of Venice encyclopedists

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1. Rathfelder (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2021 (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.

European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: now that all European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom are former constituencies, I suggest using dates to separate between the systems used between 1979 and 1999 (which were individual constituencies in all of Great Britain) and after that (9 regional constituencies in England and one each for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). At present the categories named for former constituencies contain the first set only, which needs to be fixed. Place Clichy (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2021 (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.

Google Arts & Culture works by unknown artists

[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, effectively merging all into a new Category:Google Arts & Culture works to retain the files in the tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to plural. Merge others which were set up by a now-banned editor; these category names were presumbably originally generated by a template, but are now separately entered and therefore easily editable as normal. – Fayenatic London 11:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to creating such a parent category to keep these articles in the tree. -RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2021 (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:Google Arts & Culture works by Kempf

[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, merging contents to the new Category:Google Arts & Culture works (see discussion above). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Each of these contains only one file. The Google Arts pages on the paintings (Kempf [1], Frantz [2], see also https://collection.cooperhewitt.org/objects/18570129/ ) have no further info, so it appears that only the artist's surname is known. – Fayenatic London 11:28, 6 January 2021 (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:Google Arts & Culture works by Unknown MAKER - Bardi people

[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, merging contents to the new Category:Google Arts & Culture works (see discussion above). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one file. If not merged, rename to Category:Google Arts & Culture works by Bardi people. – Fayenatic London 11:26, 6 January 2021 (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.

Parliamentary private secretaries

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I didn't know who I could ask or where else to turn. Please can someone change these categories and add the word "the" to all of these categories so that it reads "to the" as at the moment it is grammatically correct:

Nominator's rationale: currently grammatically incorrect.

BrendaJones54 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus that they are misnamed, no consensus on new name, or whether they should be deleted entirely. There are many related names in Category:Parliamentary Private Secretaries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — on relist, found most of them are missing the nomination:
  1. Category:Parliamentary Private Secretary to Department for International Trade
  2. Category:Parliamentary Private Secretary to Department for Transport
  3. Category:Parliamentary Private Secretary to Department of Health and Social Care
  4. Category:Parliamentary Private Secretary to Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
  5. Category:Parliamentary Private Secretaries to Minister without Portfolio
  6. Category:Parliamentary Private Secretaries to Department for Exiting the European Union
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PPS is not a government or cabinet position. Main article describes this position as an unpaid assistant, a bag carrier, a position to begin your progress with. Admittedly, people who held these offices also held a number of other positions before or after (such as MP or government minister) that would be more defining. Adding categories with such long names for a position so minor in a career adds much category clutter for little value. This is worth a mention in article, not a category. Clearly fails WP:CATDEF. Place Clichy (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons in my comment above. No objection to merging to the general PPS category, but suspect that would be too big to be useful. Being a PPS is a sort of apprenticeship that can be followed by becoming a minster. AS stated, I think they are personal to the individual minister, not to the department where he is a minister. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2021 (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.
[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This rename is for consistency with parent category, Category:TransLink (Queensland). Techie3 (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2021 (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:Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan

[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 Category:Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan to Category:Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obaid Raza (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2021 (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:Prehistoric animals of China

[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 Category:Prehistoric animals of Tibet, but no consensus to merge Category:Prehistoric animals of China, so merging target for Category:Prehistoric animals of Tibet is Category:Prehistoric animals of China. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Having country-level categories of this sort is an anachronism, since China and Tibet are creations of historical, not physical, geography; all the other cats correspond to non-historical geographic locations. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger of "China into "Asia because paleontology and geology still have a lot of discussion and study about Chinese-specific palaeo-localities ("Dzungar basin," "Maotianshan Shales," etc).
No different from ones elsewhere, like Burgess Shale, many more, but we have no Category:Prehistoric animals of Canada, nor should we. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we have Category:Fossils of Canada which (as it consists almost entirely of articles about species/genera rather than actual fossil specimens) is Prehistoric animals of Canada in all but name. DexDor (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not resolve the fundamental problem that finding places of fossils are just random. Besides you run into problems with multiple finding places, how would you geographically categorize a species with finding places of fossils in India, Uzbekistan and Ukraine? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing by regions like that can introduce other problems - they often overlap, have gaps, don't have clear boundaries, don't mesh well with the rest of the category structure ... DexDor (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom's argument that these categories should be deleted as "anachronistic political categorizations" is wrong. The category is for articles about animals that lived in the part of the world that we now call China (or, if you prefer, animals whose remains were found in China). Note: There are many other categories (e.g. Category:Cretaceous China) that could also be accused of being anachronistic. Marcocapelle's argument against categorizing prehistoric animals by small areas is more relevant. Thus, merge Tibet into China, but keep China for the moment. In the longer term (after other improvements to categorization in this area) an upmerge to East Asia or Asia might be considered. DexDor (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the Tibet catagory to the China one but we do not have any category on the other providences or states of other countries but at the same time we have categories on other countries 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2021 (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:SCIRA commodores

[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 as non-defining; noting that there is now a full list in the article that has been created – although whether that list is valid encyclopaedic content is another question. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no article SCIRA. (Scira redirects to Skira, an unrelated topic.) This abbreviation means Snipe Class International Racing Association. There is no article for that yet either, so using an abbreviation is particularly unhelpful in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In the long month, there is now a matching main article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2021 (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:Chinese contemporary classical opera singers

[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:Chinese western-style opera singers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These singers don't just sing 20th-century Chinese-libretto operas. Reveal the real feature without any potential ambiguity. Seanetienne (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We need to think broadly about the best way to classify people. In the case of singers that means not classifying them by every possible small genre they could sing, but looking at the large grouping in which they participate and making categories that are both large enough for navigation and at least for some people keep down the number of categories we put them in. Opera singers is a fine enough categorization, especially considering we normally break that up further by which specific voice range they sing in. We should not be sub-dividing opera singers by the specific type of opera they engage in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First thing to bear in mind: Chinese opera is not opera, but the terminology for a form of musical theatre of Chinese tradition. "Chinese opera singers" (former title of this category) contained an ambiguity that led to a mix of "opera singers of Chinese nationalty" (what this category is about) and "performers of Chinese opera" (successfully separated into Category:Actors of Chinese opera). "Western-style opera singers" bears little sense, since opera (musical composition form) is western by essence, and it's probably natural instinct to associate "opera singers" with the European bel canto singing technique. "adj. +opera" is an unnecessary attempt to avoid confusion, because the two belong to largely separate category trees and wouldn't meet each other under natural circumstances, so no worries. Even if so, the category already contains a note to clarify. Plus, there is precedent of renaming "Georgian opera singers" to "Opera singers from Georgia (country)" to avoid ambiguity (the country or a US state). Seanetienne (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC) edited Seanetienne (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus to rename, not enough discussion to determine target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2021 (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.
[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Looking for better solutions for a name as this category should be identified as being part of a WikiProject within its name. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2021 (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:Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards South

[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 as empty (as a result of the AFD). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category creator recently created an article on Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards South as well as two content forks. This appears to be a non-notable festival that doles out awards like any other Indian award mill, and the article creator has subsequently added this award to a score of articles, and now appears to be using category space to create sprawl. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2021 (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:Honorary citizens of Baikonur

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and WP:OVERLAPCAT)
Baikonur or "Star City" was the center of the Soviet space program (and now the Russian space program) and the city gave out a the Honorary Citizen of Baikonur award to Soviet cosmonauts (and now Russian cosmonauts). These biography articles are already well grouped under Category:Soviet cosmonauts (and Category:Russian cosmonauts). The creator of the category added an External Link to all the articles (see this edit history) but they otherwise make no mention of the award.
These municipal "honory citizen" awards are too common to be defining which is why Valeri Kubasov's article lists 11 of them (not counting this one). I copied the current category contents right here so no work is lost if anyone wants to find reliable sources to establish notability to create a main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2021 (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:Heroes of Kosovo

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD & WP:OVERLAPCAT)
The Hero of Kosovo is a contemporary award and about half of the contents are retroactively inducted historical figures like Isa Boletini, Shaban Polluzha and Idriz Seferi. The rest are more recent members of the Kosovo Liberation Army who are already well categorized under Category:Kosovo Liberation Army soldiers. The award doesn't seem defining to either group where the award consistently gets mentioned in passing. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2021 (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/2021_January_6&oldid=1005572611"