Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 18

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:Celtic studies scholars. Timrollpickering 14:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Celticists to Category:Celtic scholars

Nominator's rationale: According to Google, it's a slightly more common term, and more transparent, not needing a definition for a general audience. Catrìona (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: @Catrìona: the suggested name could be ambiguous, as it sounds like a sub-category of Category:Celtic people by occupation. Sub-cats are "Grammarians of Foo"; siblings within the parent Category:Linguists by language group of study mostly have the pattern "Linguists of Celtic languages", while those within the other parent Category:Scholars by region of area studies suggest "Celtic studies scholars". The latter might be appropriate if some Celticists are not primarily linguists. – Fayenatic London 09:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic: I chose the name because it is the general common name and is not ambiguous in how it's used. There's no ambiguity because someone from a "Celtic" background would be much more likely to describe themselves as "Scottish", grew up in an Irish speaking community, of Breton descent etc. In that sense there is no real pan-Celtic identity. Celtic scholars are not necessarily from a "Celtic" background, and include folklorists, historians, art historians, literature studies etc. as well as linguists per se. That said it does look like "Celtic studies scholars" would be consistent with other categories, although I've never heard that phrase used because it would be considered redundant. For these reasons I also support "Celtic studies scholars". Catrìona (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2018 (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.

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. ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Polish resistance fighters to Category:Polish resistance members

Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Resistance members by nationality, Category:Resistance members, Category:World War II resistance members, etc. Catrìona (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency reasons. It should match other categories on members of resistance movements. Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2018 (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.

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) 06:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kwame Nkrumah University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found another article for the same place (Kwame Nkrumah University and Nkrumah University) but nothing else for a category. Oculi (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2018 (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.

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 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Deaths by jungle justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, better suited by being mentioned in the article about jungle justice. Geschichte (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, without prejudice to recreating if more than five jungle justice incidents later make it into Wikipedia. Catrìona (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The definition is problematic: "Jungle justice or mob justice is a form of public extrajudicial killings in Sub-Saharan Africa, most notably Nigeria and Cameroon, where an alleged criminal is humiliated, beaten or summarily executed by a crowd or vigilantes." The concept largely overlaps with lynching: "Lynching is a premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate a group." Dimadick (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2018 (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.

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:Hindi-language films based on actual events. ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Hindi films based on actual events to Category:Indian films based on actual events

Nominator's rationale: The category is sparsely populated. Renaming it can allow the inclusion of more articles. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- The language used in a film is a defining characteristic. We should no more merge Hindi and Tamil than we would merge English and French. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but to Category:Hindi-language films based on actual events (subcat of Category:Hindi-language films). By all means create parent Category:Indian films based on actual events. Petscan believes there are 217 potential members of this category, and 134 Tamil ones. Oculi (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2018 (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.

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. ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished during the Francoist Spain period to Category:Buildings and structures demolished in the 20th century in Spain

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, as far as I can see there is no relationship between the Francoist regime in Spain and the demolition of these buildings and structures. They have been demolished for various non-political reasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- I thought we had already has this discussion! Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You are probably referring to this discussion, but a smallcat rationale as in the previous discussion doesn't apply to the Francoist category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2018 (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.

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 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1000s events
• Propose deleting Category:1010s events
• Propose deleting Category:1020s events
• Propose deleting Category:1030s events

• Propose deleting Category:1770s events
• Propose deleting Category:1780s events
• Propose deleting Category:1790s events

Nominator's rationale: delete, these "events" categories do not distinguish themselves from their parent "decade" categories because decade categories are collecting events almost by definition. The nomination ends in 1800 because from that year on there is a deeper subcategorization of events by month. This is a follow-up nomination after this earlier discussion has been closed as delete. There is no need to merge something because all content is also otherwise in the tree of the decade parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per arguments of previous linked cfd. Looking at Category:1790s, everything in there results from an event of some sort in the 1790s. I have checked that the first and last do not need an upmerge, and trust the nom on the others. Oculi (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- The previous discussion was for "by year" categories. The same rules should apply to the decade ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree with the nominator's assertions events are not distinguished from general date categories. Tim! (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Births and deaths, battles and treaties, etc. (which are in the general date categories), aren't they all events? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support And I was wondering why the decade-categories looked increasingly empty. The new category layer is not needed. Dimadick (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2018 (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.

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. ℯxplicit 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Loyola Marymount Lions football to Category:Loyola Lions football
• Propose renaming Category:Loyola Marymount Lions football coaches to Category:Loyola Lions football coaches
• Propose renaming Category:Loyola Marymount Lions football players to Category:Loyola Lions football players

Nominator's rationale: The football program at what is now called Loyola Marymount University was disbanded following the 1951 season, when the school was known as Loyola College of Los Angeles. The school's sports teams were known simply as the "Loyola Lions" at the time. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming. Loyola Marymount never had a football team. The program was disbanded in the early 1950s, long before the merger of Loyola and Marymount. Cbl62 (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming per nom and Cbl - merger took place in 1973. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:58, 18 August 2018 (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.

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:Non-governmental organizations with consultative status at the United Nations (option C below, non-abbreviated form of option E which also had support). – Fayenatic London 10:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:United Nations non-governmental organizations to Category:Non-governmental organizations related to the United Nations

Nominator's rationale: rename, the current category name wrongly suggests these are organizations of the United Nations, which is not actually the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but not as suggested. The majority of the content is national (etc) United Nations Associations, which are organisations whose role is to be cheer-leaders for UN. I am not quite sure what the rest of the content is doing there: are they NGOs recognised by UN? if so, that is a separate category. My preferred target would be Category:United Nations Associations, with anything else purged to somewhere else. This needs more discussion: please relist. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with creation of Category:United Nations Associations as such. But for the other content, purge to somewhere else sounds quite vague, so I would rather create Category:United Nations Associations as a subcategory of the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the proposed category to be created Category:United Nations Associations appears to exist as a subcategory already, under a different name, Category:World Federation of United Nations Associations. I have moved some articles from Category:United Nations non-governmental organizations to the subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Non-governmental organizations accredited to the United Nations "Related to" is too ambiguous and could encompass NGOs who seek to undermine UN activities. What seems to be the contents are those granted status by the UN. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (as nom) That is also perfectly fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Excessively long and jargony, and I don't think the jargon "accredited" is actually supported by RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point, it is more precise to say Category:Non-governmental organizations with consultative status at the United Nations (not sure about the "at" preposition). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Use Category:United Nations associations. We do actually need a category for official UN organisations (UNESCO, UNICEF, etc.) if we don't already have one, but it shouldn't be commingled with national UN associations. However, it should not be "Associations" with a capital "A" per MOS:CAPS. In plural form like that, it's a common not proper noun (if you attended both Harvard and Oxford, you went to two universities not "two Universities").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This suffers from the same problem as the current category name, as it implies they are of the United Nations. Besides this name would become very confusing in relation to Category:World Federation of United Nations Associations. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The scope seems to have changed since I last looked. Category:Non-governmental organizations with consultative status at the United Nations. Category:NGOs with consultative status at the United Nations (being shorter) might be even better. NGOs can be expanded in a head note. Category:United Nations associations would be a subcat, but I suspect that is being covered by "World Federation of …", which probably lists member associations. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:NGOs with consultative status at the United Nations (being shorter) sounds reasonable too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Option A (nominated) Category:Non-governmental organizations related to the United Nations

Option B (by User:Carlossuarez46) Category:Non-governmental organizations accredited to the United Nations

Option C (by nom) Category:Non-governmental organizations with consultative status at the United Nations

Option D (by User:SMcCandlish) Category:United Nations associations

Option E (by User:Peterkingiron) Category:NGOs with consultative status at the United Nations

• As nominator, I'm mostly in favour of option C or E, while I'm opposing option D because it would wrongly suggest they are associations of the United Nations. I would consider option A to be outdated. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer option E (my suggestion). Option D would be a valid category, but a different one. Option C (=option E without abbreviation) or perhaps option B (a low preference). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Carlossuarez46 and SMcCandlish: Do you think there is any chance of consensus in this discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I favour option C. Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2018 (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.

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 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Survivors in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too heterogenous in my opinion. There are too many different events that one can survive in Category:Survivors: Holocaust survivors, survivors of plane crashes, survivors of seafaring incidents, survivors of mundane crime, survivors of diseases, survivors of assassination attempts, for a national division to make sense at this level. Catrìona (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and I also wonder about the definingness of some of the subcategories (see discussion below). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not something they really have in common. Geschichte (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Why is this subcategory in the category tree for Category:Victims? The main category is intended for victims of violence (in one form or another) and "earthquake survivors" are not typically part of the definition. The main article is Victimology. Dimadick (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as creator of the category. --PanchoS (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2018 (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.

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 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Assassination attempt survivors to Category:Survivors of assassination attempts

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be more encyclopedic, and matches other multiword subcategories under Category:Survivors, such as Category:Survivors of aviation accidents or incidents‎, Category:Survivors of terrorist attacks‎ Catrìona (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-defining in many cases (e.g. Donald Trump whose article doesn't mention an assasination attempt) and too subjective (e.g. "The Brighton hotel bombing was a ... assassination attempt against the top tier of the British government ..." so should all the then cabinet be in the category?). DexDor ^(talk) 06:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DexDor. Note that we have a List of people who survived assassination attempts, which is a more appropriate means for keeping this kind of information. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral on deletion of this category. Catrìona (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for some Gabrielle Giffords, I think it's likely defining; however, it's better handled in a sourced list and how serious is the "attempt" and to whom is it directed (like the Brighton bomboing mentioned above) may be subjective: see recent events in Venezuela, and presumably lots of WWII aerial bombings of capitals were at least somewhat in hope of knocking off key people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's not defining. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2018 (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.

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: repurpose Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues as parent of Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues by issue and rename Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues by month, and its contents likewise. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues to Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing‎

Nominator's rationale: Very confusing names, not much of a substantive difference.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both, the names are confusing indeed but the categories are different. Suggestion for new names e.g. Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues by issue and Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues by date. I have tagged the second category for that purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per Marcocapelle, make both subcat schemes for recreated Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues and ensure that neither is a subcat of the other. (At present Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues is a parent of Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing‎.) Oculi (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to @Mr. Guye, Marcocapelle, and Oculi: the categories by date are "Wikipedia articles needing style editing‎ from Mmm YYYY"; would you have these renamed as well, as follow-up housekeeping? I believe this could be done without too much work, by editing the 15 templates that populate them.

The monthly categories are created by AnomieBOT, containing only {{Monthly clean up category}}, which I believe generates parent categories based on the name excluding "from [date]", i.e. it won´t populate a parent named "articles [with problem] by date".

@Anomie and Rich Farmbrough: can you correct me on this? Is it possible to change the parent, e.g. using the "cat" parameter in {{Monthly clean up category}} for a family of maintenance categories? – Fayenatic London 12:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could add the category to the bot's list of "special" categories that don't follow the usual naming convention, if necessary. Category:Articles needing expert attention by month is an example of a category in that list. Anomie⚔ 12:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: That is a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anomie: thank you!

  Following that example mentioned by Anomie, the second nominated category should probably end with "by month" rather than "by date".

  For the record, I note that the name "articles with style issues" complements "articles with content issues" and "articles with sourcing issues" in Category:Wikipedia article cleanup. – Fayenatic London 14:24, 8 September 2018 (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.