Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 15

May 15

Category:Major League Baseball Wild Card Playoff

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories were created in 2012 under the wrong name, and have never been corrected. O.N.R. (talk) 23:29, 15 May 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.

Category:17th-century Belgian people

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. The old category should be redirected. – Fayenatic London 15:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Belgium didnt exist until 1830 Rathfelder (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is the way forward, it should at least be Habsburg Netherlands instead of Hapsburg. But. While technically the Habsburgs were the rulers throughout the Early Modern period, the problem is that the term Habsburg Netherlands is not actually used in historiography of the 17th and 18th century. The term Habsburg Netherlands mainly refers to the gradual unification period and the short united period of the Low Lands. After the Dutch Republic stabilized as an independent country, the terms Spanish Netherlands and Austrian Netherlands were used. Or Southern Netherlands, but that was a bit broader in geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the Oxford English Dictionary puts it: "The name Belgium and related words appear from the 16th cent. in several European languages, including English, as a name for the southern regions of the Low Countries, both historical and contemporary, often in contrast with Batavia". So the word was in use before there was an independent Belgian state, and it is accepted English usage to apply it to "the southern regions of the Low Countries, both historical and contemporary". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename There may have been a few uses of "Belgium" and "Belgian" at the time, but they were not that common, and scholars restrict those terms to the post-1830 nation state. When we have a term that is clearly assoviated with a specific nation-state, we should not recklessly apply it to those outside that nation state without good cause. This especially applies to a term like "Belgian" which is generally considered to only be a designation of nationality, and not at all of ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 2 June 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.

0-level babel

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale There is clear precedent against 0-level babel categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:10, 15 May 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.

Category:18th-century Belgian Jesuits

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Belgium didnt exist in 18th-century . Rathfelder (talk) 19:01, 15 May 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.

Category:Native American writers by tribe

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 and merge all, except no consensus to merge Category:Cherokee writers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Large cluster of one or two entry WP:SMALLCATs for the intersection of writing with particular Native American tribe. This isn't particularly helpful to navigation if there are only a couple of writers per category — and while obviously being a Native American writer is noteworthy in general, there is no universally accepted consensus that every individual First Nation has its own completely unique literary tradition that operates fully independently of other First Nations' literary traditions, so it's not at all clear that intersecting individual tribe with occupation would be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the writer per se. And while the Cherokee category (uniquely) is large enough that it could potentially be allowed to stand on size grounds alone, the latter issue still applies to it regardless. As usual, categories are not automatically justifiable the moment you can find one person who fits them, so there's no need to obsessively subcategorize writers this narrowly. Furthermore, many of these categories are for groups that cross the Canada/US border, meaning that some Canadian writers would have to be filed in them too, which would lead to the improper filing of Canadian writers in the American literature tree and vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 15 May 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.

Category:Shotting sportspeople by Canadian province or territory

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) 07:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not even sure what the intend meaning of this tree was. It contains one biathlete. Shotting has no meaning. And if this was meant as "Shooting" then that is already covered by Category:Sport shooters. SFB 15:10, 15 May 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.

Subcategories of Category:Paintings by collection

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 23#Subcategories of Category:Paintings by collection

Safavid governors in Gilan

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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, Gilan was under the Safavid dynasty sometimes distinguished in two or three provinces, named "west" and "east" or named after the capital of a province. That merely leads to a lot of tiny categories, sometimes overlapping (e.g. Rasht was the capital of Bia-pas). None of these provinces has its own article. Suggest to merge the subcats and rename the top category from "of" to "in". Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 15 May 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.

Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of animals

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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of animals was inserted manually into one of the maintenance category trees supported by Module:Science redirect. This was done without discussion and without the updates to the Science Redirect module that would be needed to populate the new subcategory. William Avery (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am pinging the developer of Module:Science redirect - @Ahecht: Can you let us know whether you are willing to assist with, or advise on, required changes, if it's decided to introduce a set of categories for animals? I have a bot which can add the required parameter values to pages. William Avery (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awkwafaba already updated it with this edit. They also added a whole host of other supported values, not all of which have supporting categories yet (see the redlinked categories at Module:Science_redirect/doc#Tracking_categories). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator note: I am now satisfied that there is consensus to keep this category, and that the controlling module and its set of categories are in a stable, consistent state. I will file a closure request in a few days if it remains unclosed with no further substantive comments. William Avery (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It can't be populated that way as things stand. Try it! William Avery (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@William Avery: I did try, that’s why it is populating. --awkwafaba (📥) 22:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, the code is already there in the module. In which case, if all four categories for animal redirects are present, I can run a bot to populate them, if it's agreed to keep them. William Avery (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we clearly need an administrative category of this kind. A species can have multiple names: an English one; the current scientific name; and obsolete scientific name(s), which can be because an Englishman thought he was the first to describe it, but in fact a Czech had got there first or due to misclassification. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether a separate set of categories is required for animals. William Avery (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae: i thought the rule of thumb for these taxonomic maintenance categories was to mirror the WikiProject structure. So i think if we’re being binary it’s for the latter case, where it is a catchall for animals that are not mammals, amphibians, reptiles, arthropods, birds, nor mollusks. But obviously it can do both. --awkwafaba (📥) 22:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the catchall option is the normal way categories work. I can see an argument for at least separating out organisms in different taxonomic codes, but I'd be queasy about mirroring the whole wikiproject structure. William Avery (talk) 23:18, 16 May 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.

Category:House of De Mezzo

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) 07:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now, as it only contains Tommaso de Mezzo, who is already categorised in Republic of Venice nobility. The article states that his family was influential, but I can't find coverage of them here yet, nor in Italian Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 09:19, 15 May 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.

Category:Flemish painters

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, purging those that are not pre-1830. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, aligning with the parent Category:Flemish artists (before 1830) and in line with the instructions on the category page. Most articles directly in this category can be purged (e.g. moved to Category:19th-century Belgian painters). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it makes sense, matches parent category and would avoid modern speakers of Flemish being categorised here. Sionk (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Probably more Flemish categories need this approach. Rathfelder (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • support -- This should be for the intersection of painter and being a Flemish (aka Dutch) speaker in southern Netherlands. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support such historical splitting of terms is best advised. I have to wonder if we should consider a similar approach to Armenian categories. As I often say Armenian is a very complicated term because it is an ethno-religious designation. In many ways the Armenian issue is what we would have if the founders of the new nation state in 1948 had chose to call it Judea instead of Israel, and Jew was the recognized international term for nationals of Judea. The analogy is not quite right since modern Armenia was never as un-Aremanian as modern Israel was un-Jewish 150 years ago, but you have Armenians in Lebanon, Syrian and Iraq who it is not clear ever had ancestors in Historic Greater Armenia, and who have been in those general areas for a milienia or more. In Israel and Lebanon especially Armenians are just one of multiple groups, all of which are essentially ethno-religious groups. Albanianess is likewise complex with so many ethnic Albanians living beyond the modern boundaries of Albania. In that case virtually all Albanians until 1912 were subjects of the Ottoman Empire for centuries, so maybe the key is to use occupation categories only for post-indepdence subjects of the nation state of Albania.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 2 June 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.

Category:Moksha and its components

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, neither this category nor its parent is very well-populated. If kept, rename to Category:Components of Moksha as a more usual format. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 15 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_15&oldid=1028796436"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 15, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.