Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 14

< January 13 January 15 >

January 14

(State of) Palestine

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: Option A. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming either
OPTION A (State of Palestine)
87 more categories
or OPTION B (Palestine)
24 more
Nominator's rationale. To standardise on a consistent name in international relations categories for "Palestine"/"State of Palestine".
The head article is State of Palestine, where the opening line says "Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn), officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين‎ Dawlat Filasṭīn), is a de jure sovereign state in Western Asia".
I am aware that terminology in this area is highly contested, and I do not want to open any meta-debates about the terminology. However, it is absurd that we currently have inconsistent usage in international relations categories, leading to e.g. Category:Ambassadors of the State of Palestine to Turkey as a subcat of Category:Palestine–Turkey relations.
I don't have any particular preference about which formulation to use. However, I note that there are two other countries whose names are qualified on Wikipedia: Georgia (country) and the Republic of Macedonia. In each case, the qualified title is used consistently throught the international relations categories, e.g. as can be seen at Category:Foreign relations of Georgia (country) and Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that at least some of this falls within WP:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, and discretionary sanctions are applicable. So please everyone be on best behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Palestine) (e.g., Category:Foreign relations of the State of Palestine to Category:Foreign relations of Palestine) because "State of" makes the titles longer and more awkward, and is unnecessary (everybody knows what is meant by "Palestine"; few would ask "Do they mean foreign relations of the government of Palestine or the foreign relations of the Palestinian diaspora?"), and we can avoid the "State of" debate in our category titles. Mostly, though, if there is one thing we should all be able to agree about, it's the importance of consistency in category and article titles. I would also support (State of) if that was the community consensus, though my preference is (Palestine), but it should definitely be one or the other. Levivich (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely one or the other, with a weak preference for State of Palestine, per main article title State of Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option A per main article.--Darwinek (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option A: State of Palestine. It seems to me that this wording is absolutely required, because the term "Palestine" formerly (and for most of history) referred to the region known as Palestine. In other words, it is inherently ambiguous. Whereas, when it comes to Category names, there is no room for ambiguity. It really is that simple, IMHO. Anomalous+0 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A per Anomalous+0's argument. These categories aren't for the whole history of Palestine, just the modern state. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. While State of Palestine is preferable to Palestine alone for the main article and category to describe the country, expressions like Foreign relations of Palestine or Ambassador of Palestine are not ambiguous. Take for instance this CfD where Category:Foreign relations of Ireland was preferred over alternative names such as Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland or Foreign relations of Ireland (country), precisely because it is not ambiguous. Place Clichy (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A - in line with previous discussions and the fact those cats refer to category:State of Palestine (Category:Palestine is a disambig cat).GreyShark (dibra) 19:07, 27 January 2019 (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 needing help

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category, which is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia articles with missing information, contains only a project page and the subcategory Category:Articles containing predictions or speculation‎, which itself would be better categorized in Category:Wikipedia articles with content issues. Thus the merger proposal, which is really just moving Category:Articles containing predictions or speculation‎ then then deleting this category. Bsherr (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2019 (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:Bubbles

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match parent page Bubble (physics). (Not eligible for C2D since Bubble (physics) was recently subject to a move request that resulted in "no consensus".) Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2019 (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:France–Israel topics

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) 05:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:France–Israel topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: not part of any series, wholly redundant to Category:France–Israel relations. No need to merge, because all its contents are already appropriately categorised. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 14 January 2019 (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.

Country-specific art films already included in the main category

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. This nomination is somewhat malformed, which I think has caused general confusion around this nomination. Rather than relisting and letting that confusion stand, I am making this close without prejudice against speedy renomination, provided such a nomination is formatted as-is standard. Feel free to ask on WT:CFD (or my user talk) if you need help formatting a nomination. ~ Rob13Talk 04:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose upmerging to Category:Art films (proposal edited by Betty Logan – if we delete these categories we want the articles they contain upmerged to the parent category first unless we intend to delete Category:Art films as well):
    • Category:Armenian art films
    • Category:Czech art films
    • Category:Greek art films
    • Category:Norwegian art films
    • Category:South Korean art films
    • Category:Romanian art films
Hoping I am adding this right. Basically, why do we need these subcategories when all films are already listed uneder Category:Art films?--87.71.94.101 (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per WP:NARROWCAT. The parent category (Category:Art films) is not a prolific genre and the intersection can be easily searched by using a category search e.g. incategory:"Art films" incategory:"Japanese films". Betty Logan (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of the original request and I support this proposal!--87.71.86.87 (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified creator. --Bsherr (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The conventional way of setting out CFD nominations is to show exactly what is proposed for each nominated category: "* Category:A to category:B". Where multiple merge targets are intended, they are listed as e.g. "* Category:C to category:D and Category:F". (see e.g. WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 12#Buildings_and_structures_by_city) This nomination is unclear about what is intended, so I would oppose it on those grounds alone. Also, these are intersection categories (e.g. Category:Greek art films is an intersection of Category:Art films and Category:Greek films), so I would expect that there would be a merger to both parent categories.
Substantively, I don't see any reason why Category:Art films shouldn't have at least some by-country subcats. For example, Category:Greek art films currenbtky contains 9 articles, and Petscan shows that it could contain 21 films
Similarly, the yet as-yet uncreated Category:German art films has 47 articles ready to be added to it.
@Betty Logan: I am not aware of any category ever being merged or deleted on the grounds that a complex search could replicate some of its functionality. I doubt that more than a tiny fraction of editors (let alone readers) know how to construct an "incategory:" search. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that regardless of whether editors know how to perform intersection searches or not intersection categories that just have a handful of entries serve little encyclopedia purpose per WP:NARROWCAT, and they just make organization more difficult to maintain. Some of these categories just have a single entry and certainly fall under NARROWCAT. The categories don't need to be upmerged to the country categories because they are non-diffusing categories and are present on all film articles per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Categorization#General_categorization. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: as I demonstrated above, Category:Greek art films is not a WP:NARROWCAT. Several other potential categories of "Fooian art films" are also not narrow, e.g. 15 British art films, 6 Spanish art films, 11 Soviet art films, 33 American art films, 57 French art films
If the nomination had selected categories which have little prospect of expansion, then I would probably support it. But the proposal above is indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC),[reply]
A category of a dozen or so films is a narrow category in my book. This is just adding layer upon layer of unnecessary categorization, and if somebody comes along and diffuses the main category to the child-categories (which is what usually ends up happening) then it becomes very tedious to search through them or print them out. I just don't see a compelling encyclopedic reason to separate out Greek art films from German art films. Category groupings should be built around the most likely groupings and this goes beyond that. This isn't like Japanese animation which has its own unique identity and is extensively documented. Betty Logan (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The usual threshold used at CFD for a viable category is 5 or 6 articles. In 13 years of regular CFD participation I have never seen a category of a dozen more deleted as "too small".
Diffusing films by-genre into nationality subcats is common practice in other genres. There are currently 475 films categorised as art films, so a dozen or so categories for the larger intersections seems to me to be a good and commonly-used way of breaking it up into more manageable chunks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Breaking these films into national sub-cats makes the parent category much more interesting and useful, IMHO. And the smallish size of some of the sub-cats is not at all unusual for category trees like this. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bsherr, Betty Logan, BrownHairedGirl, and Anomalous+0: Would a clearer consensus in this discussion be within reach if the Greek category is withdrawn from the nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would still like to see them all go (should be stated that I did not nominate the Romanian cat. and have no objections to it being withdrawn).--87.71.86.87 (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: it wouldn't prompt me to change my mind. AFAICS, this remains a multiply misconceived nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 29 January 2019 (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:Thai Chinese

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other categories under Category:Chinese diaspora by country, almost all of which use either Chinese diaspora in Foo or Chinese Fooian. While the main article is indeed at Thai Chinese, I don't think this should carry weight, because the series of articles are currently an inconsistent jumbled mix of Chinese Fooian and Fooian Chinese, which is confusing in itself. Renaming to Category:Chinese diaspora in Thailand would solve the ambiguity. Paul_012 (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2019 (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:INED

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. I will add the parent categories to the main article (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:INED (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No need for this category; only two articles, one of which is surely a case of WP:OVERCAT in any event. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just added one more article to the category, but I'm not sure if more articles can be found that can be added to meet the requirements to surpass WP:SMALLCAT. Steel1943 (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified creator. --Bsherr (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2019 (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/2019_January_14&oldid=886080324"