Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 30 February 1 >

January 31[edit]

Masked Singer contestant categories[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) 22:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Falls under WP:PERFCAT. A similar category for another country was previously discussed here. Magitroopa (talk) 21:42, 31 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:Arab anarchists[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) 22:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicative container category. This is a subcontainer for Category:Anarchists by nationality and all of its contents would already be included in that category. Additionally "Arab anarchists" is a non-defining characteristic. czar 19:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another ethnicity category: nothing showing that Arab anarchists differ from their non-Arab counterparts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in most countries with large numbers of Arabs there are also populations of non-Arabs, so treating Arab as a container category for various nationalities is unworkable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above.--Grnrchst (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:09, 5 February 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:Chartered engineers[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) 22:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this category really needed? Given that Chartered Engineer (UK) says there are over 180000 registrants, it doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic of an engineer that warrants a category. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If I understand correctly a Masters degree is sufficient for this. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not usefully defining these days. Rathfelder (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is not a useful category. "chartered engineer" is probably being used to distinguish those with professional qualifications from mere mechanics and fitters. However most will have a qualification in one branch of engineering - mechanical, civil, electrical, etc and it is probably better to categorise them more precisely. Two of the three people already have a suitable category. The other seems to be a university lecturer. This might be retained as a container for the others. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Convincing reasons. --Just N. (talk) 17:10, 5 February 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:Newspaper of record[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) 22:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category grouping newspapers across national borders on a subjective characteristic. While it is true that some newspapers do get labelled as "newspapers of record", the problem is that there can be (and often are) differences of opinion about whether any given newspaper is or isn't one of those. So if inclusion or exclusion is subjective, then it's not a good idea for a category to which literally anybody could add or remove literally any newspaper at literally any time based on personal interpretation. It just isn't a defining point of commonality between, say, The Globe and Mail and O Globo, or between Helsingin Sanomat and The Sydney Morning Herald. Most of these are already listed and sourced in newspaper of record itself, and we do not have a rule that every list always has to be paired with a matching category -- some types of information are appropriate for both methods of presentation while others are appropriate for one but not the other, and this falls in the "a list is appropriate but a category is not" camp. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The newspaper of record article requires that every listed newspaper is referenced. Per Talk:Newspaper of record#Category / NavBox for NoRs, I proposed it and got a positive response from Novem Linguae. It is a notable categorization, and as long as the category only contains entries that qualified for inclusion on the list of the newspaper of record article (maybe we should state this in the category header), then it should be useful to readers. We have categories for which inclusion is based on being in a list in a particular article topic. Britishfinance (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too subjective for a category. A list is more suitable for this kind of thing because it allows elaboration of why and by whom this status has been attributed to newspapers. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this could work if we have the category match the sourced table at Newspapers of record. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no way to maintain that. Both the list and the category are dynamic. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not dynamic. Once a newspaper has been validly noted and accepted as a newspaper of record, then it will appear on the list and in the category. Even still, we have many categories that are live (e.g. Category:Living people), and many categories where the entry only holds only for a period (e.g. Category:American chief executives). There was some good pruning of this list earlier (the article is watched by several senior editors and admins - per Talk Page), so I think the list will be stable and well scrutinised.Britishfinance (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists and categories are dynamic by definition, every editor can add and remove articles from either the list or the category. There is no process that ensures that they remain congruent. So the category has to be based on objective inclusion criteria by itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is sources is the opinion that someone thinks a certain publication is a newspaper of record. Even with this citation, it's still inherently subjective. It's like a category for really good pizza restaurants based on reviews from restaurant critics. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When reliable sources commonly and consistently describe a publication as a newspaper of record, that is a defining characteristic of the newspaper. Categories must be verifiable, and "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories" (WP:CATV), so the only newspapers that would be in this category are the ones that are explicitly described as newspapers of record in their respective articles. — Newslinger talk 02:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability and definingness are necessary conditions for a category to exist but they are not sufficient conditions. Objective inclusion criteria is another requirement and that criterion is not met. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Printing opinions in reliable sources doesn't transform those opinions into facts though. At most, we could call them well founded opinions or widely held opinions. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is entirely subjective. "The second type of "newspaper of record" (also known as a "journal of record", or by the French term presse de référence) is not defined by any formal criteria and its characteristics can be variable." Enough said. Oculi (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. What some folks consider authoritative others consider POV pushers or government mouthpieces; an example given in the article is the Rodong Sinmun - North Korea's government publication - would anyone outside of the cadres of Kim Jung-Il lovers believe in what they publish? Where people's minds can differ, that subjectivity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is subjective, and it is subject to change over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (with a little regret) Delete -- We cannot have WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, however attractive. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too subjective for a category. --Just N. (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:46, 6 February 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:Persecution of homosexuals in Islam[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) 22:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per its own parent category "Category:Persecution by Muslims". Saying "by Islam" seems very odd since Islam is a religion and doesn't really do anything by itself, it is its followers that do things. ★Trekker (talk) 17:41, 31 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.

Mayors by city and country (1)[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) 22:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant container categories with one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:36, 31 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.

Mayors by city and country (2)[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) 22:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer as the parent category only contains one (this) subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:36, 31 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.

Education buildings by district in Sri Lanka[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) 22:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: dual merge, redundant container categories with usually just one or two subcategories. There is no other country with a tree like this. This is a follow-up from this earlier nomination, @Grutness and RevelationDirect: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All These categories sound reasonable but just contain school buildings and museum building subcats. I can't think of a reader that would have navigation helped by them. -RevelationDirect (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - redundant layer. All articles are already in the usual school etc subcats. Grutness...wha? 13:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:18, 5 February 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.

Cultural depictions of ancient men[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; this seems to be squarely within WP:OCEGRS. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCEGRS, as far as I know cultural depictions of ancient men is not a notable topic in its own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Since when has categories been dependent on notability standards. They aren't.★Trekker (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting the WP:OCEGRS guideline (which also deals with categories by gender): "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agee with Treker. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ERGS rules say the subject itself must be notable enough that you can create a non-list reliable sourced article. ERGS rules make this totally dependent on notabability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless Category:Cultural depictions of ancient Egyptian women is also included. Images will clearly be identified as a man or a woman by their dress or bodily features, so that there is no reason not to have one for each gender. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and JPL. --Just N. (talk) 17:22, 5 February 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:Wikipedians formerly in California[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) 22:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A SMALLCAT with only one page included. Lettlerhello • contribs 04:02, 31 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:Talyshstan[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) 22:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be redundant with Category:Talysh. Gjs238 (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we have Talish (region) and Talyshstan (region) which also appear to be on the same topic. This discussion should be started at article-level and the category name should then match the article. Oculi (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not kept, it should be merged rather than deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is not needed, the content of the two categories is identical. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment/nomination by User:Mad Irishman1789

I think this category may be because there is such the word in reliable sources

Indigenous Peoples: An Encyclopedia of Culture, History, and Threats to Survival [4 volumes].

Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups around the World, 2nd Edition: Ethnic and National Groups around the World.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Irishman1789 (talk • contribs) 2021-01-31 12:08:26 (UTC)
  • Comment -- This is about an ethnic group straddling the boundary between Azerbaijan and Iran. Talysh-Mughan Autonomous Republic represents an attempt (subsequently crushed) by the northern portion to gain autonomy. The various articles need to be merged and categories likewise. There is not enough content for multiple ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT without objection to nominate Category:Talysh for renaming to Category:Talyshstan if the latter would turn out to be the better name. --Just N. (talk) 17:26, 5 February 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:Recipients of the Order of Merit and Management[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) 22:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of Merit and Management is an Iranian award for management expertise. Most of the people we have articles on are very high ranking government officials who, indeed manage people as part of their roles, but this award just reflects those other positions which we already have categories for. The articles in the category are about evenly split between those that mention the award in passing (usually in the infobox) and those that don't mention it at all so it doesn't seem defining. There is already a list of the winners, most of which are redlinks, right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 31 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:Recipients of the Spanish Cross[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) 22:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The Spanish Cross was a Nazi campaign medal that was issued in some form to all Germans participating on the Francoist side in the Spanish Civil War. Because of the unique situation in Spain and because that war served as a testing ground for new tactics later used in WWII, the Spanish Civil War is absolutely defining for the German military perssonnel which is why we already have Category:German military personnel of the Spanish Civil War. Automatically winning this award for that same participation is redundant and non-defining. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this nomination passes, some articles will need to be manually difused to Category: Condor Legion personnel which I can handle post close. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more overcat by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (without listifying). Campaign stars (UK), crosses (Germany) clearly come up with the pay for serving in a theatre of war, so that there are indistinguishable from the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (without listifying). --Just N. (talk) 17:28, 5 February 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_31&oldid=1005895451"