Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 17

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) 05:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Augustana Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is only one page in this category. Veverve (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This was a splinter denomination that existed 1997-2020. The article should probably be retained but it is already well-categorised. With no scope for expansion, the category cannot be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category is unnecessary because the only article contained within it is the article with the same name as the category itself, and it does not appear that there are any other subjects which could also be contained within this category that are notable enough to have their own articles. --Zander251 (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too small & no scope for expansion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:46, 21 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. – Fayenatic London 08:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Assassins of the Russian Empire to Category:Assassins from the Russian Empire
• Nominator's rationale The "assasins of" phrasing normally refers to the person who is assasinated (for example, Category:Assassins of Julius Caesar). Some might interpret this to mean that the subjects tried to assasinate the Russian Empire, not that they were assasins who were subjects/nationals of the Russian Empire. There are at least 5 other sub-categories of this category that use from and at least 2 that use in, so we do not have a universal precedent to use "of", and so in cases where it is ambiguous or confusing to use "of" we have chose to use from/in as we feel makes sense. Since in this category a subject/national of the Russian Empire who assasinated someone outside the limits of the Russian Empire would still belong in the category, it is best to use "from".John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. They did not assassinate the empire! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:42, 21 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. – Fayenatic London 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Sicilian emigrants to the United States to Category:Kingdom of the Two Sicilies emigrants to the United States
• Nominator's rational This is explicitly what the article heading says it should be. The current name would easily mislead people some in to supposing that post-1860/1860 emigrants born in Sicily would belong in it. Alternately the current name might not obviously tell people that emigrants in the 1816-1860 time frame who left areas in southern mainland Italy belong it it. Growing up in the northern Suburbs of Detroit I have friends who decribed their families as "Sicilian", whose ancestors had left Italy 50 years or so, or maybe even in some cases more than that, after Italy was unified. Since we want this category limited to those leaving a specific political entity, we should explicitly invoke the name of the entity in the category name. We have realized this issue with other past political entities whose names do not easily translate into demonyms that clearly include all nationals of that political entity, thus we have Category:Emigrants from the the Russian Empire to the United States and Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire to the United States. The parent category in this case is Category:Kingdom of the Two Sicilies people while in the others they are Category:People of the Russian Empire and Category:People of the Ottoman Empire. Another relvant example is Category:Kingdom of England emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies. So we have precedent to use the target suggested here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but Category:Emigrants from the Two Sicilies to United States would be better as it is shorter. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current proposal matches the parent category. If you want to rename the parent you should make a broader nomination. For now this category should match its actual parent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per parent Category:Kingdom of the Two Sicilies people. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 20 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:Stewards (office) (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Stewards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful to try to combine stewards on passenger ships with Lord High Stewards. Rathfelder (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment of the 4 articles, it appears 3 were lower level stewards along the lines of the Lord High Stewards, and just one is a 19th-century ship steward. So would it not just work to remove the 19th-century article and add a hatnote explaining what type of steward is actually meant, and maybe coming up with a disambiguator that makes the type of steward meant clear?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Stewards (office) to be in line with the article Steward (office) which is what this category was meant to capture.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Stewards (office) per John Pack Lambert. There are a lot of Lord Stewards which could added. Oculi (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wouldnt it make more sense, and be less ambiguous, to rename it Lord Stewards? Can that be a parent to Lord High Stewards? There are, after all, plenty of menial occupations that can be called stewards. Rathfelder (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 3 are Stewards, not Lord Stewards. It would make sense to have a 2nd subcat Category:Lord Stewards. Oculi (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge or containerise. One of the articles (Margaret Lynch) is on a nautical waitress. The rest held the office of steward (estate manager). The term is somewhat archaic, but every manor had a steward, who conducted the manor court on behalf of the lord of the manor and he would also manage his other estates. The nearest modern equivalent is land agent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 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 Category:Intellectual disability, rename the other categories using "with intellectual disability". bibliomaniac15 00:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Intellectual disability to Category:Intellectual disabilities
• Propose renaming Category:People with intellectual impairment to Category:People with intellectual disabilities
• Propose renaming Category:Competitors in athletics with an intellectual disability to Category:Competitors in athletics with intellectual disabilities
• Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters with intellectual and cognitive disorders to Category:Fictional characters with intellectual disabilities (added 19 Dec)
• Propose keeping Category:Sportspeople with intellectual disabilities

Nominator's rationale: The article Intellectual disability uses the plural many times. The first category is both a set category and a topic category, so the plural would be more appropriate. The plural is already used for e.g. Category:Learning disabilities and Category:Sportspeople with intellectual disabilities. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, intellectual disability is classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder. I have not yet looked in detail at the content of the category, it would not surprise me if quite a bit of purging is needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (with suggestion). Firstly, if we're going off the social model of disability, then the term disability is an uncountable noun. Secondly, under the current medical understanding of intellectual disability, it is considered to be one disorder. This is per the DSM-5 classification system, just to cite my sources (I'm ignoring ICD-10 because it uses an obsolete and heavily deprecated term, and we can't easily apply the ICD-11 because that one can't be straight-forwardly interpreted on this matter). Conversely, there are multiple learning disorders. And regardless, in my assessment this is a topic category which also contains disorders associated with intellectual disability. I would suggest that we instead create Category:Disorders with intellectual disability (in line with the naming of the Category:Syndromes by affected organ categories), and to rename the people, competitors in athletics and sportspeople categories to have "with intellectual disability".--Xurizuri (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I have put a message on WP:WikiProject Disability's talk page regarding this discussion. --Xurizuri (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection to Xurizuri's alternative of keeping the top one and using "with intellectual disability" for subcats. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is fine with me as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "competitors in athletics" category would be renamed without the word "an". – Fayenatic London 08:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's my preference, in case that wasn't clear. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Xurizuri I think we should maintain the impairment/disability distinction per the social model. At least one of the involved subcats uses impairment. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        • Dodger67 - as far as I can tell, even when they're named "impairment", the actual scope of the articles in the categories is disability. Unless perhaps I missed something? --Xurizuri (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support unifying to "with intellectual disability" for the sake of wp:consistency. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:05, 26 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:Norvind family. No consensus to delete, so rename as nominated. – Fayenatic London 20:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Norvind acting family to Category: Norvind family

Nominator's rationale: Matching other subcategories of Category:Show business families where no other prominent family of the same name has an article. Mike Selinker (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad idea, because the "family" goes through female line and has no genuine surname. Some of the daughters have Norvind as an additional Mother's name according to general Spanish custom, but that is not a surname. (Terot (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

• The mother's surname is a genuine surname in Spanish-speaking countries and why can't a family go through female line? Besides keeping the category at its current name does not solve that issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, but it still isn't the surname of all the descendants, and in that sense not a genuine surname as is customary. (Terot (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

• Support, though given its size, deletion is aanother possibility. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems to have SMALLCAT and potentially DEFINING issues. (t · c) buidhe 17:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Mike Selinker, Terot, and Marcocapelle: your opinions on possible deletion? – Fayenatic London 23:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not delete based on SMALLCAT. It seems like a legitimate entertainment family to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can certainly be deleted, especially because the articles are already interlinked in the body text. The category does not add any value. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I made this category, the idea was that value would be due to international connections with people that can't necessary be recognized as relatives by the same surname. I am Finnish and to me it is interesting to see such a family of actresses, who descend from a Finnish woman, spread to different countries. That's why I wouldn't delete. (Terot (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2022 (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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Albums recorded at Woodbine Street Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I see no significance for an album being recorded at Woodbine Street Recording Studios. They could have been recorded at any studio and the final output would still be the same. It's a non-defining quality for these albums. None of the articles in the category even mention the studio except in the infobox. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not even sure that the original studio where the majority of the albums in this category were recorded was even known as "Woodbine Street Recording Studios"... that's certainly the name of the professional studio now, but back in the 1980s the "studio" was literally producer John Rivers' house... the recording was done in the basement, and the control desk was in his living room. The (virtually unsourced) article for Woodbine Street Recording Studios says it had a kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms... of course it did, it was an actual house! So I'm not sure whether the albums in this category will even list "Woodbine Street Recording Studios" in their liner notes, because it wasn't in the same place where the studio now exists as a genuinely professional recording facility. Richard3120 (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unclear! --Just N. (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, as there is a whole tree of Category:Albums by country of recording location that ultimately diffuses by studio, should we allow some studio categories but not others? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from my misgivings already stated above, I'm inclined to delete this, as none of the albums in the category were actually recorded at the current Woodbine Street studios, but in an entirely different location instead, which could be misleading. Richard3120 (talk) 13:02, 20 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.