Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 14

November 14

Category:ARRAY films

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) 01:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have a well-established practice of NOT categorizing films by distributor, per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_20#Category:Films_by_studio_or_distributor and numerous related Cfds. The logic being that films have multiple distributors depending upon territory or platform, and so is not defining. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2015 (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:Citation template utility templates

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) 01:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant and misleading (almost all of those templates can be used with manually-formatted citations are not only of utility when used with citation templates like {{Cite book}}. Note: Many things presently in Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates are not maint/cleanup templates, but citation utility templates and need to be moved to this category instead.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:30, 14 November 2015 (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:Citation maintenance templates

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) 01:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category fork. Maybe speediable. Most of the template in the merge-from category are miscategorized anyway. (Quite number in the merge-to category are as well, and belong in what is presently Category:Citation template utility templates, as they are not maintenance (cleanup) templates, but utility templates for citing sources or meta-information about specific sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:21, 14 November 2015 (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.

16th and 17th century in the Southern Netherlands

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 all to use "Habsburg Netherlands", that is:

with consequent housekeeping changes to parent categories. – Fayenatic London 13:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


rest of mergers
Nominator's rationale: initially this was supposed to be a rename proposal, from "Belgium" to "Southern Netherlands" in accordance with this earlier discussion. However there are only just over 20 articles per century so I'd rather to take the opportunity now to also simplify the tree per WP:SMALLCAT.
  • There would be a lot more per century already if my contributions on Belgian history weren't being constantly interrupted for weeks at a time by proposals for recategorization. Since there was no such thing as the Southern Netherlands before 1579, this proposal rather founders on the original objection to just using "Belgium".--Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason for delaying any contributions just because of recategorization proposals, it would be a shame indeed if that were the case. Recategorization is being done in parallel however (if there is consensus). You're right about 1579, I've corrected the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I seem to have wasted an afternoon bringing the Years in Belgium categories into conformity with the logic of the previous CfDs, so my apologies if I seem crabby. And I can state quite categorically that my contributions have been considerably delayed by these CfDs (quite apart from how I might otherwise have contributed this afternoon), since I'm trying to be systematic about this and the system is apparently unstable. Anyway, as to the substance of the proposals: establishments/disestablishments to a century category is no problem as far as I'm concerned (I've never quite seen the use of them as separate categories at all, but I was trying to be a good contributor and follow the category structure used in comparable articles). However, merging all the years to a century category is something I oppose because all of these are "live" categories with plenty of room for growth. As the number of articles increases, the century category will be too capacious to provide a useful overview. There's a further problem with centuries, which is that there is no single target for the sixteenth century. Avoiding anachronism (the rationale for not sticking with Belgium in the first place) requires only using Southern Netherlands from 1579 onwards (or arguably from 1585 or 1609 - not sure how we'd establish exactly when "common name" applies). The logical thing to do in light of the previous CfDs would be to use Seventeen Provinces for all the Benelux countries (minus prince-bishopric of Liège) between about 1450 and 1579 (it would be anachronistic to treat them as separate entities, and there's clear consensus to avoid anachronism). I've said before that the geographical term Low Countries, at least to 1579, would solve a lot of problems, but consensus seems to be against that (at least to the extent that anybody has responded at all). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see the proposal has been modified since I drafted my response. I hadn't previously noticed the existence of the Category:16th century in the Habsburg Netherlands, and am left wondering why we don't use Years in the Habsburg Netherlands from 1482 to 1797, since that is the time span during which the Habsburgs were in power (or claimed power) and it would prevent fragmentation of categories. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Southern Netherlands has the advantage over Habsburg Netherlands in the sense that it includes the Prince-Bishopric of Liège, while Habsburg Netherlands doesn't. This is a bit of a theoretical argument though, since the amount of content about the Prince-Bishopric of Liège is small anyway. So I wouldn't really oppose using Habsburg Netherlands all the way. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary: no support for merging; with renaming everyone agrees to change "Belgium" into something else, two in favor of Habsburg Netherlands, one in favor of Holy Roman Empire and one in favor of Low Countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2016 (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:Venetian explorers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Related to the Republic of Venice people discussions below. These categories are in the Category:Republic of Venice people tree and contain people active during the pre-1797 republic. Because "Explorers/Historians of the Republic of Venice" might be ambiguous, I suggest these are renamed "from" as suggested. Sionk (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2015 (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:Venetian clergy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 20:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the parent category Category:Republic of Venice people and the contents of the sub-categories, who all seem to be connected to the pre-1797 republic, as opposed to the modern city of Venice. Based on the related Category:Venetian emigrants discussion below, I'm led to understand a speedy re-name nomination has been opposed in the past. Sionk (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2015 (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.

Scripts with ISO 15924 four-letter codes

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 12:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two entries per category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2015 (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:Kingdoms of ancient Ireland

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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 11:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of the category, the large amount of articles is about medieval kingdoms. (Or perhaps split the category between medieval and ancient.) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and split As the nom surmises, most date from the medieval period. However, a fair number pre-date this period. Having some that, some of these alleged kingdoms are near mythical. So it's a good idea to separate them out from those that have sound documentary source material. What to call it though? The classical name of "Ancient" is hardly appropriate seeing as Ireland was never a province of the Empire. What about "Pre-Christian"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2015 (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:Venetian emigrants

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 20:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Venetian emigrants to Category:Republic of Venice emigrants
  • Propose renaming Category:Venetian emigrants to the Russian Empire to Category:Republic of Venice emigrants to the Russian Empire
Nominator's rationale: "Venetian" is ambiguous in this context. It could mean someone with a nationality of the Republic of Venice or it could just mean a person from the city of Venice: see Category:Venetian people, which is a disambiguation page. In this case, clearly the former meaning is intended, since it is in Category:Emigrants by nationality, and we don't categorize people for having emigrated from a particular city. This rename will bring the categories into conformity with the parent, Category:Republic of Venice people, and would also be in accordance with this recent discussion outcome. (This was previously proposed as a speedy rename with other categories but was opposed by a user who objected substituting "Republic of Venice" for "Venetian".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2015 (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:Reporters covering gender discrimination

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) sst✈(discuss) 13:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Reporters covering gender discrimination
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT
Both of the journalists in this category have covered other topics (e.g. SARS, organized crime, technology). Can you imagine the category clutter if we started categorizing career reporters by every story topic they write about? (Each article is already in other reporter categories, so no need for a merge.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Ottawahitech as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Journalism. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that what you are doing is looking at the bottom of an article to find what categories it is in, instead of using the category system to locate articles. Categories aid navigation between similar articles, no matter how many categories those articles belong to. Just my $.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Most readers who are not long-term experienced with WP do not even know our category system exists, much less enter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:... into their browser's URL bar. They happen upon it and begin to learn how to use it by discovering it at the bottom of articles and using it to find material related to their current article of interest. This is one reason I favor appropriate narrow subcategorization over catchall categories for most purposes; while there are uses for things like lists of all American actors or whatever, those uses are uncommon and kind of geeky. This inspires a desire to more narrowly categorize, naturally, but it often leads to categorizing by trivial intersection, by whatever first comes to mind. The problem with it is that "every journalist who's ever written about gender discrimination" isn't really a topic. For journalists who focus with activistic intensity on that specific topic, they belong in a category of gender equality activists. If what they're really notable for is that activism, not journalism per se, then their being a journalist is a trivial intersection with that category, since people notable for gender activism may be politicians, singer-songwriters, civil servants, NGO executives, outspoken hate-crime victims, or any number of other things, with what they have in common being that they've come to public attention for their work on a notable socio-political platform. (They might also be notable and categorized in those topics as well, but this is not a rationale for intersecting the categories: "lobbyists co-authoring gender anti-discrimination laws", "employers with policies against gender discrimination", "novelists whose works have featured gender discrimination politics", etc., etc. Ultimately, the problem with a trivial-intersect category for journalists who've written about this topic is the same as categorizing programmers by whether they've ever written a bash shell script, or legislators by whether they've ever voted on a tax bill, or murderers by whether they they ever faced north when killing someone.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- much to specific. While journalists do specialize, there will be few who specialize that much fortheri wholeworking lives, or a significant part of it.
  • Weak delete - seems a bit too specific and ephemeral to be a good category. Kaldari (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale and that of SMcCandlish and per Wikipedia:NON-DEFINING. This is simply categorization by random trivia. The two sole members of this category (Vauhini Vara and Portia Li), are not particularly known for their coverage of gender discrimination at all. They simply happened to cover one particular gender discrimination trial (Pao v. Kleiner Perkins) amongst many other things in the course of their careers. One of them is apparently a writer on business in general and California politics and the other is primarily known for her investigations of organized crime in San Francisco's Chinese community. Both articles were created by the same editor who created this category and both are in my view of highly dubious notability. But that's another issue. Voceditenore (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by performance, akin to tennis players by court surface (clay vs. lawn) which was deleted long ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with what Carlossuarez46 said. Neutralitytalk 05:01, 18 November 2015 (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/2015_November_14&oldid=1074815466"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 14, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.