Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 10

May 10

Category:Human Food WikiLove templates

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 18#Category:Human Food WikiLove templates

Category:Photography in Indonesia (Dutch Colonization)

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Photography in Indonesia (Dutch Colonization) to Category:Photography in the Dutch East Indies

Nominator's rationale: Rename from the current clumsy name to the established and correct name, following the subcats of Category:Dutch East Indies, e.g. Category:Sport in the Dutch East Indies or Category:Transport in the Dutch East Indies. Darwinek (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Oculi (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, to begin with. But I also notice that this category only contains biographies. Should Category:Photographers in the Dutch East Indies not be an even better name? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Obviously the appropriate name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2020 (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:Ancient Roman architecture by location

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: option C. The Peterkingiron variant seems to have a bit more support than Johnbod's. Note that Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in North Africa will require some reconfiguration because of this. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ancient Roman architecture by location to Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures by country

Nominator's rationale: this is follow-up on this earlier discussion, in which two other editors proposed alternative renames which have not been discussed yet.

Option A (alternative by User:Peterkingiron): Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures by location, in order to align the category name with the subcategories.

Option B (alternative by User:Place Clichy): Category:Ancient Roman architecture by country and move the North Africa subcategory to the parent category.

Option C, as nominated: combine both suggestions.

@Johnbod and Dimadick: pinging other contributors to the earlier discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option B to better reflect the contents. The North Africa category could be split to country categories.Dimadick (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OPtion C or a variant -- "Buildings and Structures" is the standard format. I suggested "by location" at a time when there were a number of non-country categories. I would now suggest Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures by modern country. My previous suggestion would have encompassed a category scheme by Roman province: the boundaries of these often differ markedly from modern boundaries. Any non-country categories should be split. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option C Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures by country - note there are already 5 country sub-cats of Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in North Africa, as well as some regional ones, so this can be kept in the main cat. We don't need "modern" - if it were contemporary ones it would be "by Roman province" (though they kept changing). Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option B - it's a subcat scheme for Category:Ancient Roman architecture, article Ancient Roman architecture so has to follow suit. Oculi (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option C. While Ancient Roman architecture is a correct term to describe the larger topic, local categories will mostly be about specific buildings and structures. That name therefore better describes the content of the category. Place Clichy (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option C (2nd choice B) AGree with Oculi's analysis that these are likely to be specific buildings. The more important piece here is the that this is by country, not just any location. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option C variant as suggested by PeterK - Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures by modern country in case anybody thought that "country" meant Ancient Roman province. There are many "by province" trees in the Ancient Rome structure. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2020 (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:Fukuoka Asian Culture Prize winners

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Fukuoka Asian Culture Prize winners

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

In 1988, the city of Fukuoka, Japan held a celebration of their centennial called "Yokatopia". As a follow up, the city began award called the Fukuoka Prize. Most the articles mention this municipal award in passing or not at all, although a few mention it in the lede, so it doesn't seem defining. We already have the winners listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. (Alternatively, if kept, rename to Category:Fukuoka Prize winners to match the main article.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just Delete since we already have a list: yet another NN OCAWARD case. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This fails WP:NONDEFINING and WP:OCAWARD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 12 May 2020 (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:City of Kraków Award laureates

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:City of Kraków Award laureates

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

The city of Kraków, Poland gives out an award for cultural arts and, refreshingly, they give give to locals not just someone blowing through town to give a concert. These articles are already categorized by being form Kraków and whatever their occupation (music, literature, etc.) The categories tend to mention the municipal award in passing and it doesn't seem defining. I just listified the winners here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just Delete since we already have a list: yet another NN OCAWARD case. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This fails WP:NONDEFINING and WP:OCAWARD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 13 May 2020 (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:Songs written by Oak Felder

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. Let the requested move run its course and then relist here or on CFDS as necessary. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Oak Felder to Category:Songs written by Warren "Oak" Felder

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COMMONNAME and also what he is actually know as professionally per this article. Main article page has been moved already. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 00:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Venue/Oppose in CFD I would prefer an WP:RM on the talk page of Warren "Oak" Felder to confirm your bold rename where more participants would likely know more about this artist. (Once renamed with consensus, then by all means rename any related categories per WP:C2D.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Revelation Direct. Having now read the RS article it only once refers to him as Warren "Oak" Felder, used as a way to point out Warren is his given name. The headline and the article otherwise only refer to 'Oak' or 'Oak Felder' which is where the article should probably be. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have now put a request for the article to be moved back to Oak Felder and this request should be held in abeyance until that decision is made. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2020 (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.