Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 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: delete. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Disambiguation pages with short descriptions to Category:Disambiguation pages with short description

Nominator's rationale: Previously moved per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 4#Category:Disambiguation page with short description; I believe either it should use "short description", in line with its siblings, or all of the siblings renamed to use the plural (I would prefer the former). Qwerfjkltalk 18:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of previous discussion: @1234qwer1234qwer4, @SomeBodyAnyBody05, @RevelationDirect, @DexDor, @Xezbeth, @JHunterJ. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was moved from the name with "Disambiguation page" in singular; I don't see the othersiblings in Category:Pages with short description use a singular there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to it using "short descriptions". I've clarified now. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Category:Pages with short description. The plural of 'page with short description' is 'pages with short description'. Oculi (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions Is this category is to group disambiguation pages that begin with "Foo may refer to:" in the header? If so, what administrative purpose does that serve? - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @RevelationDirect: see Wikipedia:Short description. ansh.666 20:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: The current form is grammatically correct. It's "people with noses" not "People with nose", "dogs with tails" not "dogs with tail". Furius (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - see also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions. Your choice is either:

  a.) Category:Disambiguation pages with a short description

  b.) Category:Disambiguation pages with short descriptions

  To quote C. S. Lewis's Professor Kirke: "What do they teach them at these schools?" : ) - jc37 12:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jc37, @Furius, my reason for renaming is consistency with the other members of Category:Pages with short description, so if this category is to be kept, then the others should be renamed. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Disambiguation page short description * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to this either. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning delete. I notice that Category:Disambiguation pages with short descriptions has 344,978 pages, and Category:All disambiguation pages has 345,099 pages. I suspect that the missing 121 pages reflect some kind of system lag in enumerating the pages. If so (and perhaps even if not), these categories will basically be identical, and therefore redundant. BD2412 T 03:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a very important observation. Delete on that basis. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @BD2412, This doesn't seem to be system lag, as neither null edits nor purging fixed it (on one page I tried). See this PetScan query. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: What, then, is the source of this 120-count difference out of hundreds of thousands of pages, and is it worth having a separate categorization system? BD2412 T 17:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, it looks like it's {{X disambiguation}} templates that omit the short description. I support deletion. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Originally, I actually closed this discussion as a delete. However, on examination, I realized that the reason this category exists is because of the way Template:Short description works. Currently, this maintenance category is created via a parameter that automatically creates it on Template:Disambiguation page short description. However, if I remove it, it will put all of these pages into the absolutely massive Category:Articles with short description instead. I believe that this category exists to prevent these disambiguation pages from muddling the "articles" category. bibliomaniac15 03:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bibliomaniac15, surely that means the template should be changed, rather than keeping the category? — Qwerfjkltalk 07:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure how this can be done without introducing far-reaching changes to Template:Short description. But if it can be done, that's fine too. bibliomaniac15 19:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bibliomaniac15, should be fairly easy with a parameter e.g.
    

Thanks for the demonstration. I've struck my input. Aside from my initial query, I have no thoughts about the category either way. bibliomaniac15 20:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, something like this would be better:

Qwerfjkltalk 16:38, 7 December 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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

• Category:Accidents and incidents involving 3801 Limited
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Arriva Netherlands
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving CargoNet
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Chemins de Fer de l'Ouest
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving CIÉ
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Circumvesuviana
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving CityRail
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving ERS Railways
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Estrada de Ferro Central do Brasil
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Eurostar
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Ferrotramviaria
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Grand Duchy of Baden State Railway
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Grand Trunk Railroad
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Great Southern Rail (Australia)
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Great Western Railway (Ontario)
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Hollandsche IJzeren Spoorweg-Maatschappij
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Hungarian State Railways
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Islamic Republic of Iran Railways
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Japanese Government Railways
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving KAI Commuter
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Meitetsu
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Metrorail Gauteng
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Moldovan Railways
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Mozambique Ports and Railways
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving National Rail Corporation
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Norwegian State Railways
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Oslo Metro
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Oslo Tramway
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Paris Métro
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Queensland Rail
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Regiotrans
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Rhine-Main S-Bahn
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Saxon Steam Railway Company
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving SJ AB
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving SNTF
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Società per le Strade Ferrate del Mediterraneo
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving STA Südtiroler
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving State Railway of Thailand
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Swedish State Railways
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Swiss Federal Railways
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Tanzania Railways
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Teito Rapid Transit Authority
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Toronto Transit Commission
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Transrapid
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Ukrainian Railways
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving V/Line
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Veolia Verkehr
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving VFF Leste Brasileiro
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Victorian Railways
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Vietnam Railways
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving West Japan Railway Company
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Westfalenbahn
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Zabergäu Railway

Nominator's rationale: Wrong name (should be Eurostar Italia, if at all); and only one page is linked to this category. User:Haraldmmueller 08:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Accidents and incidents involving Eurostar Italia per Eurostar Italia. Convention in Category:Railway accidents and incidents by operator is to permit small subcategories. Oculi (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominate sibling categories too (for merging rather than for deletion), these smallcats appear to be the work of a single editor. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support that, if proposed. Oculi (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, merging to what? — Qwerfjkltalk 13:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Qwerfjkl: the merge targets aren't straightforward. A relatively easy example is Category:Accidents and incidents involving Arriva Netherlands to be merged to Category:Railway accidents and incidents in the Netherlands. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The categories can be deleted after all because the articles are thoroughly categorized by intersection of type of accident and country. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, so I should tag all the siblings? — Qwerfjkltalk 14:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Qwerfjkl: for now, it is better to limit the nomination to categories with one or two articles. Abandoning the entire scheme would require a separate discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the other smallcats. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support new nom (as stated above). Oculi (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support new nom per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 13 November 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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Islamophobia in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Former entries have been moved to the more standard format of "X by country". Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - 'by continent' is perfectly standard: see Category:Categories by continent and Category:Anti-Islam sentiment by continent; and there is Category:Islamophobia in Europe. Oculi (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am against the proposed deletion, unless a better, more practical solution and better rationale is given, after all Foo by continent is very much a standard (Category:Categories by continent).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- A lack of immigration to Central American and Caribbean countries means that this is poorly populated. An alternative might be to have a single category for the Americas. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to maintain the integrity of the "by continent" tree structure. It's a permissible exception to SmallCat. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:35, 19 November 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: reverse merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging:

  Category:Port settlements in Argentina to Category:Port cities and towns in Argentina

  Category:Port settlements in Canada to Category:Port cities and towns in Canada

  Category:Port settlements in Chile to Category:Port cities and towns in Chile

  Category:Port settlements in Japan to Category:Port cities and towns in Japan

  Category:Port settlements in Mexico to Category:Port cities and towns in Mexico

  Category:Port settlements in the United States to Category:Port cities and towns in the United States

  Category:Port settlements in North America to Category:Port cities and towns in North America

Nominator's rationale: Look like duplicates. And why is "settlements" within "cities and towns"? All cities and towns are settlements, but not all settlements are cities or towns. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people participated in the earlier discussion: @Valfontis, Postdlf, Vegaswikian, Skookum1, and Peterkingiron:. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge (or else merge). Settlements apart from cities and towns presumably are villages, but there is little need to distinguish port villages from port towns and cities. "Settlements" covers it all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverse merge? @Lights and freedom, you haven't tagged 6 of the categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Qwerfjkl, I did not get your ping. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 05:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lights and freedom, your thoughts on a reverse merge? — Qwerfjkltalk 21:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl A reverse merge would be fine. I didn't comment on it because I haven't been involved in the categories here long enough to know the common practices. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 23:48, 20 November 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:Tinker Bell (film series). bibliomaniac15 03:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tinker Bell films to Category:Disney Fairies

Nominator's rationale: Practically the same category, Disney Fairies is the proper name. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Tinker Bell (film series) per Tinker Bell (film series). It is already a subcat of Category:Disney Fairies. The parent (Category:Disney Fairies) should be purged of the film titles, per normal subcatting. - jc37 11:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per jc37. Disney Fairies is the broader term. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per User:Jc37. The films should be a subcategory of the franchise category. --LoЯd ۞pεth 17:53, 24 November 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging as follows Category:Architects from Bedfordshire to Category:People from Bedfordshire and Category:English architects

• Upmerge Category:Architects from Berkshire to Category:People from Berkshire and Category:English architects

Nominator's rationale - the cfd 2020 March 26#Category:Architects from Dorset resulted in an upmerge to the 2 parent categories. This is is a somewhat belated follow-up for the other counties in England. Oculi (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. Oculi (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, because I can't see what makes architects not worth categorising by county, when it unquestioned for other professions. If there are indeed architects in these categories who have only a tenuous connection to the place, they can be removed. Sionk (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I see that all or most are categorized as eg "19th-century English architects", and Category:English architects only has 35 members, so they should not be added there, if they have a century - or that should be added. Nice to see a tidy scheme for once. Large numbers "have only a tenuous connection to the place", as we found in the Dorset nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Manually merge per nom and Johnbod. Note that the rationale applies to many other professions too, sportspeople for a start. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:American architects are categorised by state and by city. Category:Italian architects by region and city. Why are English architects to be treated differently? And is it proposed to remove Category:English architects by city? And what about the rest of Category:British architects? Rathfelder (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • But not by US county. And some were created by Rathfelder, eg Category:Architects from Ferrara. Oculi (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the fact that I created categories is now grounds for removing them? Rathfelder (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Architects, more than other occupations, are often very much inked to locations, more in the past than now, and these articles should have a link to them. Its not proposed to remove the city categories so this would leave an incoherent mess. The fact that some articles are miscategorised is not a good argument for deleting a category. Rathfelder (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The work of architects is clearly linked to location - much more than most occupations and there is no reasons to treat the English ones differently than those in other places.Bigwig7 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually architects are very much tied to where the commissions are, and tend to migrate to big cities very early in their career to get the best training, and mostly mostly stay there (though often travelling around for commissions). We found that when the articles in the test discussion on Dorset, linked at the top, were looked at individually. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely this pattern of migration is much more pronounced now than it was historically? And NB Greater Manchester is a conurbation.Rathfelder (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• CU note to closer CU data indicates that Rathfelder and Bigwig7 are both operated by the same person. I have blocked both. They have only made one bold !vote in this discussion, so I'm not going to strike anything, but please bear this in mind when weighing the consensus. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Girth Summit: In fact both accounts have voted in bold text (one voted "Oppose", the other "Keep"). 66.44.22.126 (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well-spotted, IP editor - don't know how I missed that. Will strike one of them... Girth Summit _(blether) 12:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Subcategorizing people by geographic location can be done in two different situations: either the location actually has a meaningful impact on the work itself, or an unsubbed parent category would be too large and needs to be diffused for size-control purposes. It's true that this wouldn't likely meet test #1 — but with over 900 people already subbed into this tree, it most certainly does pass test #2. And since England doesn't have states or provinces under it at all, so that its counties are effectively the "first-order" subdivision, they're the only possible basis for size diffusion of an "English X" category, and thus it's entirely irrelevant whether the American sibling has an "American architects by county" scheme or not — American architects are diffused geographically at the state level, which is the only thing that matters here. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 14 November 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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:7th-century men
• Propose deleting Category:8th-century men
• Propose deleting Category:9th-century men
• Propose deleting Category:10th-century men
• Propose deleting Category:11th-century men
• Propose deleting Category:12th-century men
• Propose deleting Category:13th-century men
• Propose deleting Category:14th-century men
• Propose deleting Category:15th-century men

Nominator's rationale: delete, only as early as the 16th century we start having "male actors" and "male writers" subcategories. Earlier than that we do not need parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- largely redundant to Category:7th-century people etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 12 November 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.