Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 12

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 (if appropriate also to Category:Horse farms in Europe). Renaming to stud farms requires a fresh discussion because it impacts the whole tree. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Horse farms in Austria to Category:Farms in Austria, Category:Horse racing in Austria and Category:Horse farms
• Propose merging Category:Horse farms in Croatia to Category:Farms in Croatia and Category:Horse farms
• Propose merging Category:Horse farms in Egypt to Category:Farms in Egypt and Category:Horse farms
• Propose merging Category:Horse farms in Germany to Category:Farms in Germany, Category:Horse racing in Germany and Category:Horse farms
• Propose merging Category:Horse farms in India to Category:Farms in India, {{strikethrough|Category:Horse racing in India} and Category:Horse farms
• Propose merging Category:Horse farms in Japan to Category:Farms in Japan, Category:Horse racing in Japan and Category:Horse farms
• Propose merging Category:Horse farms in Namibia to Category:Farms in Namibia and Category:Horse farms
• Propose merging Category:Horse farms in New Zealand to Category:Farms in New Zealand, Category:Horse racing in New Zealand and Category:Horse farms
• Propose merging Category:Horse farms in Pakistan to Category:Farms in Pakistan, Category:Horse racing in Pakistan and Category:Horse farms
• Propose merging Category:Horse farms in Russia to Category:Farms in Russia and Category:Horse farms
• Propose merging Category:Horse farms in Serbia to Category:Farms in Serbia and Category:Horse farms
• Propose merging Category:Horse farms in Spain to Category:Farms in Spain, Category:Horse racing in Spain and Category:Horse farms

Nominator's rationale: There are just two articles total populating Category:Farms in Cambodia and Category:Forestry in Cambodia. Deleting both categories and moving the articles to Category:Agriculture in Cambodia seems best. Rename Category:Farms in China to missing parent category Category:Agricultural buildings in China. Merge Category:Farms in Hong Kong (one article) to Category:Agricultural buildings in Hong Kong (two articles). Category:Farms in Costa Rica is not worthy of sub-category of Category:Agriculture in Costa Rica at the moment. Many of the other listings are too small and/or do not follow the correct categorization scheme. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC) Nomination updated below. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - a merge to Category:Farms appears to be rather blatantly absent. Also a farm to me is not an agricultural building (a farmhouse is a building) - it is the nominator who has recently placed farms under buildings (diff). WP:SMALLCAT explicitly allows the existence of small categories, as part of a scheme such as Category:Farms by country. Is there really only 1 notable farm in Germany? Oculi (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Farms is currently a sub-cat of Category:Agricultural buildings so I was merely continuing that scheme down through the countries. My main concern is that of the 19 sub-cats of Category:Horse farms, 8 of them hold just one page. So is breaking those down by country really an effective scheme? There are also many categories within the Category:Farms by country that contain just Category:Horse farms in <country>. Perhaps if Category:Farms is removed from Category:Agricultural buildings then many of these proposals are overkill, but nonetheless, I believe there are still some issues in this scheme. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any straight deletion: if categories are not kept, they should be upmerged. Oppose any single merge: if categories are merged, it should be a dual merge. Besides it might be helpful for the discussion to split the nomination in multiple subsections (e.g. horse farms in a separate subsection), that can still be done. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• With the updated nomination the above has become moot. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator update. Reducing the nomination to just horse farms categories is a much more manageable discussion. I propose a full unmerge of the listed categories.
• Support the update. Oculi (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- The majority seem to be described as stud or stud farms. In my country, I believe that the function of these is for an owner to bring a mare to be covered by a stallion. This is not necessarily related to horse-racing. I would support renaming to Category:Stud farms in Austria etc and then merging small cats to Category:Stud farms in Europe. The Spanish category has a military name, and may be where their cavalry horses are bred. According to the strict definition a farm is not a set of buildings but the buildings and the land cultivated. On the other hand, the keeping of horses (unless for ploughing etc) is not a branch of agriculture. However that does not take the matter further. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron: I would now agree that horse racing is unrelated to the vast majority of these articles and that Stud farms in country is a better name for these categories as Stud farm is the eponymous article of {{cl|Horse farms]]. Would you support the nomination if the horse racing categories are removed and all collectively changed to stud farms. (Note: the name change to Category:Stud farms may need to be its own separate proposal). I think diffusing horse/stud farms by continent is an improved approach. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 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.

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. bibliomaniac15 18:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Culture in England by region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Culture in the East Midlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Culture in the West Midlands (region) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate which is redundant with Category:Culture in England by county, which already covers the whole of the country. Also delete the first-level sub-cats; as these are also redundant to the existing categorisation scheme. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- To remove an unnecessary layer. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, there is more content here than sub-cats by county, namely articles that apply to the whole regions. Admittedly the East Midlands category only contains one such article "East Midlands English", and (now) the regional category for mass media e.g. BBC East Midlands, but the West Midlands sibling has more. Others like them could be added e.g. a new culture sub-cat within Category:Northern England. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There is also Category:Mass media in the East Midlands that will become orphaned. Oppose deletion but a manual upmerge may be feasible. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 19 December 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.

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:Classic female blues singers. bibliomaniac15 18:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Classic women blues singers to Category:Classic female blues singers

Nominator's rationale: This category was speedy renamed based on a larger scope discussion to change "female" to "women" for similar categories, but this is a genre of blues called "classic female blues". So those placed in this category are singers of classic female blues. An alternative could be Category:Women classic blues singers. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Oculi (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is a sub-cat of Category:American women singers. If we use women in the parent we should in the child cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. "Classic female blues" is the style. These are singers of the style (and my understanding is they would all have to be women). The parent cat name isn't a locked-in factor: it's other subcats include American contraltos, American sopranos and American girl groups, all of which are logically populated with articles on women, but the word itself is not required to be present when the categorisation is gender-specific without it. Crowsus (talk) 07:31, 13 December 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.

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: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 19:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Incest in legend to Category:Incest in mythology

Nominator's rationale: This category is small, and there is no real need to have them both. ★Trekker (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, legends and myths are two different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legends is just a subset of myth that happen to be inspired by possible true things as far as I'm aware. And regarless the legend category here is very small, so I don't see how it could be kept.★Trekker (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternatively, both could be merged into "Incest in folklore". The difference between myths and legends are not that significant, and if both categories are rather small, one larger one would make sense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference is big enough that we have two separate category trees for them. Besides mythology (e.g. ancient Greek and Roman mythology) would never fall under folklore. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure they can. The folklore article even states that myths are a genre of folklore..★Trekker (talk) 12:13, 13 December 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.

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: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 19:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ministers of Government of Bolivia to Category:Interior ministers of Bolivia

Nominator's rationale: Keeps the category name in line with other categories under Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs by country, avoid confusion with Category:Government ministers of Bolivia, and the ministry itself has been interchangeably gone under the title "Ministry of Government" or "Ministry of Interior" without real difference. In addition, pretty much all external media outlets translate the name to "minister of the interior".Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment, the category page was not tagged yet. I have done that now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose see Ministry of Government (Bolivia). Possibly rename to Category:Ministers of Government (Bolivia). The list article appears to indicate that the post is usually held jointly with another ministry, sometimes interior and sometimes Foreign affairs. I agree this is complicated and confusing. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I created the list so I suppose I could shine some light on that. The Ministry of Government itself has, at various points, gone under the "government" or "interior" title interchangeably (but never at the same time). Other portfolios have been added and removed from it often but I should not that attaching random departments to ministries isn't uncommon (before becoming its own office, foreign affairs was at multiple times an appendage of either the education and finance ministries, for example).

  Also, I suppose I should add that most external sources translate "minister of government" to "minister of the interior".

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 except for Category:Suryavansha. bibliomaniac15 19:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Descendants of Ikshvaku to Category:Ikshvaku dynasty Category:Solar dynasty
• Propose merging Category:Suryavansha to Category:Ikshvaku dynasty Category:Solar dynasty
• Propose merging Category:Raghuvamsa to Category:Ikshvaku dynasty Category:Solar dynasty

Nominator's rationale: Duplication of Ikshvaku dynasty Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging Category:Suryavansha. The target contains a legendary dynasty while Category:Suryavansha contains historical claimants of Ikshvaku descent. Possibly delete Category:Suryavansha per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the other categories contain legendary people from both Hinduism and Jainism, I wonder whether that shouldn't be more clearly split. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merging Category:Suryavansha as per User Marcopelle Jethwarp. Category:Suryavansha & Chandravansa are two major mythological dynasties (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Target has been speedily renamed to Category:Solar dynasty. – Fayenatic London 09:25, 25 December 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.