Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 13 August 15 >

August 14[edit]

Category:TCDSB schools in TDSB properties[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. All articles were in the proposed merge target already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The fact that a school may be operated by a Catholic school board, but located in a building that's technically owned by a public school board but leased out to the Catholic board because the public board isn't using it, is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the school. All of the schools here are already double-filed in the Category:Toronto Catholic District School Board parent as it is, so no upmerging is necessary. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to the TCDSB category only. If others think a wider upmerge is desirable, I would not oppose that, as I do not know the Ontario system. Where a public board or the church provided the site seems insignificant. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:14, 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:Ford family[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just four people, whose articles all already interlink directly each other anyway. This would be warranted if there were a lot of other people to file, along the lines of the ten notable members of the Category:Trudeau political family and the 21 notable members of the Category:Woodworth political family, but it's not automatically needed the moment just two, three or four notable politicians happen to be related to each other in ways easily addressed in body text. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 14 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:Poles and Polish citizens helping Jews in occupied Poland 1939-1945[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 16. – Fayenatic London 13:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The last bit is unnecessary but at the very least, it should use an ndash per WP:DASH (and consequently be Category:Poles and Polish citizens helping Jews in occupied Poland (1939–1945). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the category name, we probably don't need "Poles" and "Polish citizens", one of them should be sufficient. However it's a bit doubtful whether this is a useful category, two of the articles don't even mention helping Jews and if we remove them there are very few articles left in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename as proposed; strongly oppose deletion. Open to supporting other changes (at a minimum, the hyphen should be changed to an en-dash). One of the main articles is titled Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) and there is a disambiguation page Occupation of Poland (disambiguation), which suggests to me that renaming the category to use the simplified phrase "occupied Poland" is unnecessarily ambiguous. With respect to deletion, two of the articles in the category do not explicitly mention Jews, but one mentions membership in Żegota, the Council to Aid Jews, an underground resistance organization. Also, not all Poles who assisted Jews are Righteous Among the Nations; that's a designation awarded by the Israeli government. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:19, 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.

Constellations[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. Timrollpickering 14:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unlike other constellations, these do not have associated disambiguation pages, such as Ursa Major (disambiguation), so their meaning is pretty straightforward. As such parenthetical dabs are redundant, unless potential dab pages are warranted. Brandmeistertalk 19:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support C2D. Pppery 14:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support makes categorizing easier. Loooke (talk) 20:46, 24 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:Linh Nga[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This one seems so obviously deletable that I had hoped it was a speedy deletion case. It literally only has one entry which is the article with the same name as the category making it effectively blank. A category with one member is not really a category is it? Sure, every category might start with one article before others are added but I see no indication that this is going in that direction. We do not need a category per article. DanielRigal (talk) 17:37, 14 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:Chicken[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: split to Category:Chicken as food and rename to Category:Chickens. – Fayenatic London 08:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category names should be plural nouns unless they're collective, such as Category:Paper. Georgia guy (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Category:Domesticated birds, Category:Ducks, Category:Monkeys, Category:Snakes, Category:Frogs, Category:Dinosaurs, Category:Sharks, Category:Ants, and just about any other type of animal named based on a common name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amending per Marcocapelle's suggestion. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 17 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:Toronto Catholic District School Board trustees[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: nomination withdrawn as the creator found evidence that the category had been erroneously emptied out of process by a blocked vandal, rather than actually being a SMALLCAT. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT whose only entry is a redirect, with no prospect of expansion. Serving on a school board is not a level of political office that constitutes notability per WP:NPOL, but instead with rare exceptions a person will only have an article to file here if they also held a more notable office at some other point in their career, so a dedicated category for just one redirect isn't warranted. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I could have sworn that when I created the category I had added at least a half dozen entries, perhaps more. It appears some were removed by a sockpuppet account (see this diff, for example). I've added four more articles to the category. Mindmatrix 22:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, never mind. That's the hard part of categories, it's only possible to judge what is in the category and almost impossible to determine what used to be there if you weren't yourself the creator or populator of it. Consider this withdrawn accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 14 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:Piscis Austrinus (constellation)[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate, the same as Piscis Austrinus. Brandmeistertalk 16:10, 14 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:Palaces of Nizam[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:Palaces of Nizams of Hyderbad. – Fayenatic London 06:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nizam is apparently not a place or a single monarch, but a title shared by a series of monarchs, Category:Nizams of Hyderabad. The title of this category needs to make its scope clearer. —swpbT 15:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise any of these : Asif Jahi Palaces or Palaces of Nizams or Nizams Palaces . Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 05:33, 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:Kyrgyz[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 to Category:Ethnic Kyrgyz people and make it a disambiguation page. I will also split Category:Ethnic Kyrgyz people to Category:Ethnic Kyrgyz people (individuals) following a precedent at Category:Squamish people, where there was a similar need to disambiguate the primary term on its own.
For the record, I am also making a new Category:History of the Kyrgyz people. – Fayenatic London 12:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME —swpbT 15:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't create categories for "every article that has a certain specific word in its name", which is what the stated intention here is. And virtually everything in here is already going to be in a Kyrgyzstan-related category anyway, so it's not adding any connection that they don't already have. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please chek-up one more time. There are some changes on this category - Category:Kyrgyz.Friendwip.kg (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a topic category about a people, comparable with e.g. Category:Oghuz Turks. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except we already have Category:Kyrgyz people and Category:Kyrgyzstani diaspora to cover what this has suddenly been converted into since the last time I looked at it five hours ago — so it's still not necessary at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Categorize articles globally" isn't a thing we do. We categorize articles as specifically as possible, not broadly — for example, we file people in specific categories for their occupation and location of residence, not directly in Category:People. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but primarily as a container. This refers to a language and the people who speak it, both those native to Xinjiang and those in areas conquered by the Russians in 19th century, which became Russian Kyrgyzstan, then Kyrgyzstan SSR and now Kyrgyzstan. This is another case (as with Armenians) where many of the people are not a diaspora from the country that uses their ethnic name. It may be this needs to be populated with a few more Kyrgyzstan categories. Unfortunately for WP's wish for tidiness, ethnic distributions and modern political boundaries often do not match. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 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:Paris Massacre 1961[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. – Fayenatic London 15:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, next to the eponymous article there is only an image file. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somehow. I am concerned that Paris Massacre should redirect to this article, when there have now been further massacres. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 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.

Ella Fitzgerald songs[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: keep. Individual members may of course be pruned according to WP:DEFINING. – Fayenatic London 15:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Ella Fitzgerald songs
  • Nominator's rationale After getting into the B section in this category, I came to realize that none of the articles as far as I could tell were on songs introduced by Ella Fitzgerald. There was one article on a poem, that Fitzgerald may have been the first to render as a song, but the poem dates to long before Fitzgerald's birth. Most of the songs in this category were show tumes introduced on broadway by other performers, with Fitzgerald being one of a great many later performers to have rendered the song. I have to admit I am begining to question the whole premise of the songs by performer categories, since I have seen songs in as many as 14 of these categories, and have seen songs with lists of well over 50 recordings done of them, but this is a case where it clearly is not working.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the subcat scheme is 'songs by recording artist' so the criteria should be changed and songs not recorded by EF should be removed. (Category:Songs by artist: "This category is for songs by recording artist".) Oculi (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You have spotted the error in the category, namely it really means, "Songs recorded by XXX" but it's not worth the effort for the failure to rename the category. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prune but keep. Songs should not be categorized by every musician who ever recorded or performed them, but normally only by the originating performer (or at least the one most directly responsible for making it notable enough to have an article in the first place.) Certainly there are some songs where Ella Fitzgerald is considered the definitive performer of them, which therefore merit this category — but many more things here are just standards that she was just one of many artists to do, where her cover was not necessarily the most famous or noteworthy version. (Ella Fitzgerald a defining characteristic of "Winter Wonderland"? Er, noooooo. As much as I enjoy her version, it hardly qualifies as definitive over the other eleventy squillion musicians who've done it, of whom 13 others have their categories here too. Eurythmics? Kenny Loggins? Dolly Parton? These aren't defining characteristics of "Winter Wonderland", guys.) As witness, some of the articles fail to even contain the name Ella Fitzgerald at all outside of the category declaration itself, and others do mention her but fail to suggest that her version has any special status in music history. And those are the types of songs that should not be filed in a category which suggests that she "owned" them — if we use "Artist songs" categories to contain every song the artist ever recorded at all, then standards that have been taken on by dozens or hundreds or thousands of artists get category-bloated into dozens or hundreds or thousands of these categories. It's only supposed to be used for songs where Ella Fitzgerald's take is considered the definitive notability-making take that towers over anybody else's rendition, not every single song she ever did at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prune and keep per Bearcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Songs introduced by Ella Fitzgerald and prune. This eliminates all entries for songs which Fitzgerald did not introduce. I don't know how important to a song the first person to record it is but if it's thought to be a significant attribute of a song then this is the way to go. Crewman Capote (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Is this not rather too much like a Performance by performer category? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. delete Ella? tut tut!!! The problem is that artists from EF's time frame didn't have songs personal to them, but shared songs with other artists. Often two or three different artists would chart with the same songs. I wouldn't mind a fair gamble that every song in this cat is also in the Great American Songbook and that is the root of the perceived problem. I have a problem with XXX songs for this very reason, because the nature of the phrase signifies ownership which is never true. NB I would expect at least a couple of lines mentioning EF's recording in each article, any failing that very basic premise should be removed from the cat. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:32, 3 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:Law of the Russian Empire[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 11. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Alternative name: Category:Russian Empire law. There are many categories of the "[x]ian law" type and a few of the "Law in [x]" type but none in this form. User:Fayenatic london suggested the "in" one, I suggested the adjective-style one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_14&oldid=1075704899"