Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 9

February 9

Category:Prospect Peremohy

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This street in Kyiv, Ukraine was renamed to Prospect Beresteiskyi today by the Kyiv city council. I renamed the article on Prospect Beresteiskyi already. I think this is not a controversial renaming since, outside Ukraine, this is not a world wide known driveway... Nevertheless I could not requests for speedy renaming since the Wikipedia article on Prospect Beresteiskyi is only named this way for a few hours when I made this nomination.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:39, 9 February 2023 (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:Ancient Rhodian philosophers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 17#Category:Ancient Rhodian philosophers

Category:Presocratic philosophical literature

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: dual merge Category:Presocratic philosophical literature to Category:Ancient Greek philosophical literature and Category:Presocratic philosophy, and Category:Classical Greek philosophical literature to Category:Ancient Greek philosophical literature and Category:Classical Greek philosophy; no consensus on Category:Hellenistic philosophical literature or Category:Ancient Roman philosophical literature. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination. The merits may become clearer now that William Allen Simpson has created Category:Classical Latin philosophical literature. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
  • We don't have "Roman". Few of these were denizens of the city of Rome, so the category would be deleted. Why the heck would we segregate literature by content from Greek and Latin? Are you arguing that those are "pagan literature"?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only the first of these categories was tagged. Now tagging the others.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 09:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:05, 9 February 2023 (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:Critics of Marxism

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: purge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OPINIONCAT, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, potentially includes both marxists, anti-marxists, etc. and is usually not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person. - car chasm (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Defining and also useful for navigation. On the point above about "potentially includes both marxists, anti-marxists", indeed it does, as to criticize something is a quite different function from offering uncritical support or opposition to it. Moonraker (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2023 (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:Varsity FC players

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Varsity FC players to Category:Nautsa’mawt FC players
Nominator's rationale: The club recently changed its name from "Varsity FC" to "Nautsa’mawt FC".[1][2] — AFC Vixen 🦊 17:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be Category:Nautsa'mawt FC players per MOS:CURLY? Or is there an exception for whichever language this is that I'm unaware of? QuietHere (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name is written in the Halkomelem language, in which the typographic apostrophe is sometimes used as a substitute for a glottal stop in writing. See Halkomelem § Comparison. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's the latter. Thanks for letting me know! Your proposal has my support. QuietHere (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy support. This is common convention when a sports team changes their name. RedPatch (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've seen the news, too, and I definitely back this decision. Oltrepier (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2023 (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:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground

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/upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very recently created category that does not meet WP:CATDEFINING. While stations can generally be said to be above or below ground, they are not commonly and consistently referred to as such. AFAICT, these were all recently created by a single editor without discussion.
  • Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground is a misnomer. If above ground, then not underground.
  • Category:Underground rapid transit stations located underground is unsurprisingly redundant.
Delete where already categorized by line. Upmerge where the stations are not already in another subcategory.
Final batch after recent:
  1. Deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 2#Category:SkyTrain (Vancouver) stations located above ground
  2. Deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 11#Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground
  3. Deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 12#Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground
  4. Deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 23#Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground
  5. Deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground in the United States
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per abundant precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's rationale of WP:CATDEFINING. And also since "Underground rapid transit stations located above ground" is self-contradictory: how can an underground station be above ground? I believe what is actually trying to be communicated is that there are rapid transit systems that some might classify as "underground" that have some stations which are above ground. But I suspect very strongly that attempting to clearly delineate which systems are "underground" or not, not to mention which stations on those systems are "underground" or not, is impossible. Just thinking of Metro Vancouver's SkyTrain, I can think of at least two stations that are not entirely above ground, even though parts of them are. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think the issue of whether a station is above-ground or underground can be handled on Wikidata, as well as in the articles about the stations themselves. However, whether a rapid transit station is above-ground or underground isn't a defining characteristic, unlike its location, which is almost always defining.
    In response to @Joeyconnick, the categories probably were named that way to harmonize with Category:Underground rapid transit stations (which is not a subject of this CFD). That category is itself a mess because not all rapid transit systems are underground, it only includes select rapid transit systems, and Category:Rapid transit stations by country and its subcategories already exist. However, I'll leave that conundrum for another CFD. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2023 (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:Historians of ancient Rome

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 19:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories have similar scope and should probably be merged; the latter name is more consistent with the names of similar categories (t · c) buidhe 05:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the first include people studying pre-Empire Rome, and the latter include those studying the Eastern Roman Empire after the West's collapse? And aren't those separate categories? Perhaps I'm completey mistaken but they sound like they're covering different things that just have significant, but far from majority, overlap. QuietHere (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Aidan721 basically answering my question exactly above (we wrote our comments at the same time so I didn't see theirs 'til after mine was posted), I'm also voting oppose. QuietHere (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aidan721, QuietHere Wouldn't your comments suggest a merge to the first category (historians of ancient Rome), as Category:Historians of the Byzantine Empire already exists and shouldn't be duplicated? Alternately, the scopes could be made non-overlapping by splitting to Category:Historians of the Roman Kingdom and Category:Historians of the Roman Republic while keeping the empire category (scoped to exclude Byzantium). However, this would only be appropriate if the distinction between these is defining for individual modern historians. (t · c) buidhe 06:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support the reverse merge. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 10 February 2023 (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:Coin Coin albums

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) Qwerfjkltalk 19:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Without any other extant album articles at this time, Category:Matana Roberts albums exists solely to contain this category which serves essentially the same purpose. And even if the artist had more album articles, I don't see a purpose in separating this series from the rest except to put these in Category:Concept albums by artist, a category on the verge of being removed itself. QuietHere (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2023 (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/2023_February_9&oldid=1141492974"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 9, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.