Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 22

May 22

Category:Mythological cosmologies

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) 02:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not distinct enough, as evidenced by their contents and especially their subcategories. Main article is titled Religious cosmology. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename WP:C2D, consistency with main article's name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I don't see any articles or subcategories that should be specifically held apart as non-religious. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although I'm not very interested in this area of studies and for that reason could live with any outcome, I have to uphold academic/intellectual honesty and make you aware of thousands of academic books on metaphysical or other speculative matters which are not about religion but about mythological cosmologies. A lot of them are even famous like Rousseau's Contrat social or Gargantua and Pantagruel or Sigmund Freud's Totem and Taboo, just to name a few examples. Wikipedia seems to attract much more engineers and jobless scientists than academics of the humanities, so most of those historical mythological cosmologies haven't got a proper categorical embedding in Category:Mythological cosmologies. But they are nevertheless still there. Religion is only a small part of the human history of mind, much overestimated. --Just N. (talk) 05:08, 30 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:Burials at Hollywood Forever Cemetery

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 on the keep/delete alternative. There was no discussion of the proposal to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I’m using the above category as an example for my proposal that all “Burials at” categories be renamed to “Interments at”. My reasoning being that not every interment in a cemetery is a burial. Many could be cremated and stored into a wall niche or an above ground crypt, thus not falling into being “buried”. Of course I could just be over semantic about it, I just feel it’s more accurate to call it “Interments at”. Rusted AutoParts 17:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a deletion discussion, it's one in regards to renaming. Rusted AutoParts 23:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting a different CFD outcome than the one originally proposed (but I'm neutral on the naming if kept). - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this was to broach whether the categories should be renamed. Whether they should be deleted should be it’s own discussion as opposed to being thrust onto this one. Rusted AutoParts 05:36, 24 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:All Linux Distributions

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. – Fayenatic London 08:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Linux distributions. Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 22 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:Independent Linux distributions

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) 02:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Linux distributions. Every Linux distribution is independent. Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: created at the same time and by the same person as Category:All Linux Distributions listed above. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for one thing. Enterprise and non-enterprise Linux distributions actually exist. There is no such thing as a Linux distribution that is not independent. Therefor this category has exactly the same entries as Category:All Linux Distributions, which in turn has exactly the same entries Category:Linux distributions. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:04, 30 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:Articles using template 'Track gauge' with unrecognized input

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 30#Category:Articles using template 'Track gauge' with unrecognized input

Category:Children of Charles, Prince of Wales

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) 06:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very small category, unlikely to expand at this stage. PatGallacher (talk) 14:54, 22 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:Belgian people (before 1830)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Belgium didnt exist before 1830. Is this a sensible categorisation? Rathfelder (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly because Belgium didn't exist before 1830, this is a sensible distinction within the category:Belgian people. In the Dutch Wikipedia it's called nl:Categorie:Zuid-Nederlands persoon (voor 1830) (people of the Southern Netherlands). In French it is fr:catégorie:Personnalité belge (avant 1830). Before 1830 the territory of the (Southern) Netherlands sometimes was called 'pays belgiques' (Belgian lands, in French) or 'Belgica/Belgium' (in Latin). There was no unique name for this people (Flemish, Dutch, Austrian Netherlandish, Belgian). - Karel Anthonissen (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do now have Category:People of the Austrian Netherlands, Category:People of the Burgundian Netherlands, Category:People of the Habsburg Netherlands and Category:People of the Spanish Netherlands. This could be a parent for all of them. Rathfelder (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Category:People of the Southern Netherlands as the more usual contemporary name, and populate per Rathfelder. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy with that. Rathfelder (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Belgian people. I am not convinced by the apparent anachronism. People from Bruges or Brussels etc. belong in the history of Belgium whatever the century they lived in, as does the Manneken Pis. I am actually more concerned by the retroactive used of the term Flemish which seems much harder to precisely define and subject to POV, nationalism and protochronism. As second best option, also support Category:People of the Southern Netherlands with the issue that it would not extend before the mid-16th century. Place Clichy (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flemish is clearly both ambiguous and contested, which is a problem for categorisation. Rathfelder (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Place Clichy. As I've pointed out in a number of these discussions already, the Oxford English Dictionary says: "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. When it comes to English lexis, you can't get much more reliable a source than the OED. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Belgian people per Place Clichy and Andreas Philopater. Certainly not Category:People of the Southern Netherlands which is mostly confusing for all non-insiders or -historians. We owe clear, non-confusing mapping to Wikipdia users in general. We do not prefer insiders and history specialists! --Just N. (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge. We should limit nationality categories to people who were nationals of a given nation, and pre-1830 there was no Belgium.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    According to this statement, Goethe was not German, and Dante was not Italian. Place Clichy (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:People from Bruges etc are still in Category:People by populated place in Belgium, even if they lived in the 13th century. This only affects categorisation by century. Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 12 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:Disney Renaissance franchise

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) 06:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category. All entries and all category tags are already present in Category:Disney Renaissance (or at each specific franchise category), and I don't see any need to split that category up. Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 22 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:Operation Homefront

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) 06:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Operation Homefront
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
Operation Homefront is an American veteran organization. An organizational category is fine and so is a subcategory for the national heads of that organization but the only 2 articles here are Operation Homefront and CEO John I. Pray with little growth potential. Those articles are both crosslinked and well categorized so no merge is needed. No objection to recreating (or creating a CEO subcat) if either ever get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 22 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:International Game Developers Association members

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) 01:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:International Game Developers Association members
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC and WP:TRIVIALCAT
International Game Developers Association is a membership based organization you can join right here with a credit card: $60/yr for standard individual membership or $30/yr for students. This category contains companies not people though and, while the IGDA website does list corporate "affiliates", that official list doesn't match this category so I'm not sure if we're categorizing by former members or there is some other IGDA relationship involved. Whatever this association is or was, it doesn't seem defining in the articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 22 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_22&oldid=1073193179"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 22, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.