Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 16

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:SVG images of trademarks. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename' per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename' per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:23, 22 January 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: rename to Category:Non-free university technical college logos. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename' per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename' per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:25, 22 January 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: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Woefully underpopulated. Curbon7 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:25, 22 January 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 21:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Italy did not exist until 1861, and this is a late 1700s period category. Category:Italian counter-revolutionaries should be split apart, e.g. Fra Diavolo should be in Category:Neapolitan counter-revolutionaries.--Mvqr (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• We have Category:Italian people by century and occupation going back to the 11th century and Category:Italian people by century going back to the 4th century, mostly because we dont like categories with fewer than 5 articles. There are only 3 articles in Category:Italian counter-revolutionaries. Its not practical to split it between the Italian states. Rathfelder (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Mvqr's concern is not resolved by keeping the categories separate, because Category:Italian counter-revolutionaries is already a parent category and thus they are already categorized as Italian. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Object -- Savoy is now part of France. It was part of the kingdom of Piedmont, later called Sardinia, in a period when Italy was disunited. If we are to have Italian categories before 1861, they need to be confined to people living south of the Alps. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Both articles are about politicians in the kingdom of Sardinia, so I do not think that it harms to count them as Italian. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Italy was a loose concept prior to 1861. Also since Savoy was an integral part of the Kingdom of Sardinia, ignoring its later annexation by France is not solved by that move. This is essentially trying to make the term less hisotircally accurate. Yes, there was an idea of Italianess in the 18th century, but it lacked clear and defined limits. It is not good to try to use one category to merge together unlike things that happen over time to have had the same name. We have a huge problem of ignoring the national designations that best describe people based on when they lived and were publicly known.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 26 January 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: merge to Category:15th-century Spanish poets. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• as creator I am fine with this. Rathfelder (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge one article categories are not needed, even if they can be justified, which is not clear here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 26 January 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: merge. – Fayenatic London 21:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 18 January 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: merge. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• support - Jonteemil (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there should be a subcategory created for category: Simple logos that are ineligible for Commons, for weird non-US copyrights, where the logo is free in the US but not somewhere else. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 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: rename both categories as proposed. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nom — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:37, 26 January 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 17:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure I understand why the category should be merged or deleted. Just because there's one subcategory for the U.S.? Surely there are other notable defunct LGBT nightclubs around the world. The category should populated, not eliminated... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that Wikipedia has very few articles about defunct drinking establishments in general (not just LGBT), see also Category:Defunct drinking establishments. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. We don't typically divide drinking establishments by their current status. Dimadick (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dimadick "Defunct" is not the issue here. Nominator seems to have issue with the "nightclubs" portion of the category. Unless I am misunderstanding? But not all drinking establishments are nightclubs, hence why we have Category:Drinking establishments and Category:Nightclubs. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)@Dimadick --Another Believer _(Talk) 12:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (as nom) I have an issue with neither, the issue I am having is that the current strucure unnecessarily impedes navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per Another Believer. I'd rather see the category be better populated than merged; I don'think it provides sufficient hindrance to navigation to be worth changing. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Officially casting a vote to keep. No need to merge. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:21, 26 January 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 17:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Merge per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The Punjab one now has two articles in, and both have significanr potential for expansion as more articles are created on municipal elections in India (I have noticed a lot more appearing recently). Number 57 18:04, 12 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: keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's not at all SMALLCAT. Nobody should bring well populated subcategories in a line with single entries! --Just N. (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of the two well-populated subcategories has been nominated because of WP:SMALLCAT. This is a nomination to facilitate easier navigation through the category tree, no more and no less. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I would have expected the parent also to have "Novels about psychology"; and it does though not by that name. We have two subcats in the subject. I am not sure that we need to a separate "academic" category level. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (although there is an alternative solution that I'll explain). Even though it's currently inarguably not well-utilised, there's value to separating out the academic and non-academic works in the case of psychology. Lay people love to write "psychology" self-help books or memoirs/autobiographies about mental health, or just their general opinions about psychology. For a bunch of examples, see Category:Books about mental health. The current categories are - again - a disaster, but there's value to having some categorisation about what is and is not academic. The alternative here to keeping and populating Category:Academic works about psychology, would be to delete the current category and instead create and populate Category:Non-academic works about psychology, but that would be out of step with the parent categories. --Xurizuri (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw after having added two more subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 7 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: rename to Category:Deaths by falling out of an aircraft. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, more consistent and inclusive.--Mvqr (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as clearly a good idea.--Bduke (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt merge to Category:Deaths by defenestration. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Defenestration is being thrown out of a window. Auric Goldfinger is the only example I can think of off the top of my head for a defenestration from an airplane. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wider scope. Dimadick (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the current name is missing a "s" to be grammatically correct Category:Deaths by falling out of airplanes -- the proposed name is overly long by an "an", as you can just use Category:Deaths by falling out of aircraft, "aircraft" is plural in this case. Compare "Deaths by falling out of windows" instead of "Deaths by falling out of a window" -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Who dies from falling out of multiple aircraft (or windows)? Do they fall out of a 747, land on a Cessna and drop off that too? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Category:Deaths by falling out of aircraft. Category names are better for brevity, to limit category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 23 January 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: rename to Category:Livestreamed crimes. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename as C2D. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Better solution. --Just N. (talk) 21:39, 22 January 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: keep. – Fayenatic London 11:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Science_theory_expert_needed:_Category:Scientific_laws_vs_Category:Empirical_laws Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge Category:Empirical laws into it, this presumably can be speedied per WP:C2D, since Empirical law redirects to Scientific law. I will tag Category:Empirical laws as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Handling of the categories should follow state of the art in science theory, not existing article redirects. Imo, "scientific" is more general than "empirical". I suggest to collect all discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Science_theory_expert_needed:_Category:Scientific_laws_vs_Category:Empirical_laws. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jochen Burghardt: these are two different discussions, one about the correct name of the article, which should be discussed by means of a move request on the article talk page, and the other about the merge direction of categories at this platform (which will normally follow the name of the article). Straight deletion of this category is out of order anyway, it should be a merge, in either direction. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: From the lead of scientific law it seems that "Scientific law" is used synonymously to "Empirical law" in English. This is different in German (the name of the translated article, "de:Naturgesetz", literally means "law of nature" resp. "law of natural science"), and it seems that I have been mislead by the latter. Provided the lead appropriately reflects the state of the art, merging in any direction would be ok for me. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Just N. (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (at worst merge). The distinction between a scientific law and an empirical one is a narrow one, but i think there is a difference, though some of the content of empirical laws would be better in scientific laws. I would suggest that the observation that there is a correlation between one factor and another is empirical, but where there is an exact arithmetic relationship, as with Ohm's law V = IR or Einstein's E=mc², it is a scientific law. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If we keep the categories separate based on this distinction, then quite a few articles should be moved from Category:Empirical laws to Category:Scientific laws. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Peterkingiron: I don't see your distinction, since Ohm's and Einstein's laws describe correlations, too. The exact arithmetic relations are idealized from empirical observations by attributing any deviations to measurement errors; moreover, even the exact relations are (special cases of) correlations. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 21:48, 27 January 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.