Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 5

June 5

Category:Ghibli Museum Library 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. ℯxplicit 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is consensus against categorizing films by distributor. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 20#Category:Films by studio or distributor. Reach Out to the Truth 23:00, 5 June 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.

Sixteen Kingdoms

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. ℯxplicit 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, and generally the category structure is unnecessarily complicated, it should be very simple because there is very little content beyond the articles about each of the 16 kingdoms and the people subcategories. So one main category Category:Sixteen Kingdoms with one subcategory Category:Sixteen Kingdoms people should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It concerns small states with a short period of existence and even the "overview articles" of each of the 16 kingdoms are very brief. If there is more content to be added, it should surely be added to those 16 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that's a very ignorant comment. Most of these "small states" were larger than major modern countries such as Britain and France, and despite their short lives, had enormous impact on the history and culture of East Asia. The Xiongnu Former Zhao, for example, burned down the Chinese capital Luoyang, which was recorded in the Sogdian Ancient letters (see [1]), whose discovery by Aurel Stein was an sensational event in archaeology and helped identify the Xiongnu in Chinese records with the Huns of European history. The Jie Later Zhao massacred Han Chinese and Ran Wei in turn massacred the Jie, erasing them from history. The Former Yan destroyed the ancient Buyeo kingdom in Manchuria and Korea, and sacked the Goguryeo capital Wandu (its ruins are now a World Heritage Site), forcing Goguryeo to move their base to Korea and changing Korean history forever. The Former Qin conquered the Kucha kingdom on the Silk Road, and the Later Qin ordered the famous Kumārajīva to translate numerous Buddhist texts into Chinese, which unleashed the spread of Buddhism to China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. Hundreds of books have been published about Kumārajīva's translations and their impact on Asian cultures and languages, and that's just one person from one of the short-lived "small" states of the Sixteen Kingdoms. They've also left numerous archaeological sites such as the enormous tomb of the Western Liang king Li Gao in Jiuquan. I could go on and on but I think I've already made my point. Note that almost none of these enormously significant events and archaeological sites have English Wikipedia articles. -Zanhe (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the bases that Zanhe mentioned; also, there should be more articles about each of these states. If not by me, then by other people. --Nlu (talk) 03:02, 8 June 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:Opposition to Donald Trump

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. ℯxplicit 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clear criteria which causes inappropriate articles to be added. We don't have Category:Opposition to Barack Obama, Category:Opposition to George W. Bush, or Category:Opposition to Bill Clinton although there was plenty of it. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It all depends what's done by the secondary sources, such as histories of the Trump administration; do they even cover this subject? Oh wait, the Trump administration is still ongoing, so there can't be any secondary sources yet. PS, addendum to original comment: try the Tyler administration, especially the coverage of people rejecting his claim to be president in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, which was my recommendation from the ANI topic. We also don't have categories for Categories:Opposition to Thomas Jefferson, Categories:Opposition to John Tyler, Categories:Opposition to Andrew Jackson, Categories:Opposition to Abraham Lincoln, Categories:Opposition to Andrew Johnson, Categories:Opposition to Richard Nixon, or any other President that had political opposition (which is just about all of them). On the flip side, we also don't have a Proponents of Donald Trump or similarly named category. I also believe that having such category violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as it implies taking sides in a political dispute, especially in the absence of similar opposition categories for other Presidents as well as categories for their proponents. —Farix (t | c) 02:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It all depends on the articles available. There is nothing against having Category:Opposition to John Tyler or Category:Support for Donald Trump per se, provided that we have a number of articles specifically about those topics. Now for opposition to Donald Trump we have a number of articles, but the question is whether they should exist separately per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, that's really an issue in article space and not in category space. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm counting two subcats and more than 10 articles that fit the category, that's not too few (though admittedly it's way less than 40 articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has been a significant category for going on two years, with many solid articles in the category. Like many categories, editors need to be judicious about which articles to include. But "opposition to Trump" is a real, significant, and useful category.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 15 June 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:Industrial history of Sweden

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. ℯxplicit 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete in the spirit of an empty category, its only content is a biography that should not be in a history category and which is correctly categorized in the businesspeople tree already. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate. What is the point of deleting the category when it will just need to be recreated? And I can see good reasons to keep Louis De Geer (1587–1652) in this category until there is a 17th-century Swedish industrialists category. --Hegvald (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Note that I have made a start at populating it. Sweden has a long significant industrial history, I merely went to the obvious industries: steel, shipbuilding, gunmaking, and found solid articles to fill this category.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 15 June 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:Bastard Sons of Johnny Cash albums

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 June 19#Category:Bastard Sons of Johnny Cash albums. ℯxplicit 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A bit of a pointless category as it contains only redirects all going to the same article which offers no details about the albums themselves. Doesn't benefit readers. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:46, 5 June 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:Cultural depictions of Christiaan Huygens

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) 18:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT pretty much Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:42, 5 June 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:Culverts

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 June 19#Category:Culverts. ℯxplicit 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are generally about rivers, canals and bridges and are categorized as such - this category is unnecessary. Categorizing some canals (e.g. Lancaster Canal) in Category:Bridges is strange. DexDor (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see. But the other folk above seem to be saying culverts are bridges which certainly isn't true where I live. In the light of all this I agree that "culvert" isn't a good name for a category at all. A typical culvert (for me) wouldn't be notable anyway and a big one one would be better categorised as Category:Subterranean rivers or whatever. Things some people call culverts that i would call bridges can be categorised as bridges. For me, Lancaster Canal isn't any of these. It does not seem to be defined by its culverts or bridges. BTW, I'd like to distinguish artificial underground rivers from natural ones. Thincat (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename then purge -- There is room for a category for watercourse (rivers, brooks, etc) which are culverted for a substantial part of their course, but some of the articles are about waterways (such as Lancaster canal) most of which is not in a culvert. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 10 June 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_June_5&oldid=1127484576"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 5, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.