Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 5

< January 4 January 6 >

January 5

Category:I/O Chips

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:Input/output integrated circuits. ~ Rob13Talk 01:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:I/O Chips to Category:I/O chips
Nominator's rationale: "Chips" is a common noun and shouldn't be capitalized per WP:Categorization#Naming conventions. 99Electrons (talk) 21:28, 5 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:FPGA device

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:Field-programmable gate arrays. ~ Rob13Talk 01:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:FPGA device to Category:FPGAs
Nominator's rationale: The category's title is not the plural of the topic; the inclusion of "device" does not serve any purpose and makes the title unnecessary long. 99Electrons (talk) 21:26, 5 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:MOS Integrated Circuits

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) 22:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: MOS requires disambiguation from MOSFET-based ICs. Integrated circuit is also not a proper noun and shouldn't be capitalized. 99Electrons (talk) 21:13, 5 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:British princesses by marriage

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 without prejudice to any deletion discussion if that is the outcome of the husbands category. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To include people like Wallis Simpson who were married to British princes but not a princess themselves. Consistency with Category:Husbands of British princesses. DrKay (talk) 20:12, 5 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:Archbishops of Western Europe

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:Archbishops of Orthodox parishes of Russian tradition in Western Europe. ~ Rob13Talk 01:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Western Europe to Category:Archbishops of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe
Nominator's rationale: rename, more in line with article Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe and less ambiguous than current title. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
copy of discussion at CFDS
  • Weak support The target still has many possibilities for misinterpretation but I can't think of a better one. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Category:Archbishop of Orthodox parishes of Russian tradition in Western Europe. This seems to be what the archdiocese itself is using: [1] Place Clichy (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy: The title of the document to which this links actually provides Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe as the correct name. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: that is for the archdiocese, not the archbishop. On its own site, both variants (Russian churches and parishes of Russian tradition) seem to be used interchangeably, in the various languages used (English, French, Russian, Greek). However, the archbishop himself is seldom designed by his title, the titular see (e.g. Comane) or the title of patriarchal exarch being also used. However, the link provided does use a title, which I believe is stable enough in time. Remember that this organisation has history dating back to 1921 ( mostly under names including parishes of Russian tradition in Western Europe) whereas the name using Russian churches seems to be specific to the latest period (ca. 1999-2018). Place Clichy (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, let's then keep it to Category:Archbishop of Orthodox parishes of Russian tradition in Western Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. I overlooked this too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 23 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:Scottish expatriate sportspeople in England

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: speedy delete per WP:G7. Created in error by me as part of an AWB run while diffusing expatriate sportspeople. Thanks for spotting it, @EchetusXe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Scottish expatriate sportspeople in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The parent category states "This category should only list Scottish people in England prior to the Acts of Union 1707". There will not be many, if any, sportspeople from this period and the category is currently empty EchetusXe 15:35, 5 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:Dutch academic researchers

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 and merge. ~ Rob13Talk 01:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only nationality subcategory of Category:Researchers. There is a well populated category tree of academics. Academics are not always researchers, but most of them are, and there are subcats for administrators. Many of these articles are about people who are notable for reasons other than their academic research. Rathfelder (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and merge. According to the header of Category:Academics: an academic does peer-reviewed research and/or teaches in post-secondary education. Many articles in Category:Dutch academic researchers do not mention anything at all about research or teaching, and in fact nearly all of the articles in this category are about politicians. So that requires quite a bit of purging before merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - the ones I've looked at seem very dubious. Eg a host of categories has been added to the very slim article Ivo Samkalden via unsourced additions to the infobox such as this. Oculi (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge these are extremely similar. This category is not useful. Natureium (talk) 01:53, 19 February 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:Stadiums in St. Louis

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) 07:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the description at Category:Stadiums we don't categorise stadiums by geography, it's done via the Category:Sports venues hierarchy, and there's already an extensive set of categories at Category:Sports venues in St. Louis‎ Le Deluge (talk) 12:15, 5 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:Miniature wargames

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_1#Category:Miniature_wargames. ~ Rob13Talk 01:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates the extensive Category:Miniatures games‎ hierarchy, which is a daughter of Category:Wargames Le Deluge (talk) 11:36, 5 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.

Churches by city (Europe, dual merge)

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 all. As this is the most thorough discussion on these church nominations, and the arguments made across several of them are the same, I am taking this one as "authoritative" for the moment. While BHG's arguments have merit, it seems clear that they were not convincing to other editors here. In particular, several other editors reasonably argued that they do not see any substantial potential for growth in these categories. ~ Rob13Talk 05:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: dual merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the above categories only contain 1 and/or 1 subcategory. See also this earlier nomination which is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to all categories which are currently small. It is for cats which "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
The nom offers no explanation of why there there might not be more notable churches in these cities. e.g., is @Marcocapelle really claiming that the ancient city of Antwerp doesn't have more notable churches? And what about Trier, a city dating back to Roman times where Trier#Main_sights lists five churches? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antwerp and Trier are typically cities with a large Roman Catholic subcategory and very few other churches. For navigation it is more efficient to go straight from Buildings and structures to Roman Catholic churches instead of needing to pass a nearly empty Churches category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, WP:SMALLCAT provides two contradictory criteria, in the second line it says "no realistic potential for growth" which is in my view considerably more relaxing than "by their very definition". On another day we may have a discussion about the guideline itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, just follow the interwiki link to de:Kategorie:Kirchengebäude in Trier. Plenty of articles there on non-Roman Catholic churches, which require only translation. Are you seriously saying that there is "no realistic potential" that someone will translate two or three of those articles?
No need even to speak German to get this going. Google translate will provide enough to make a stub with a please-translate tag {{Expand German|topic=struct|articlename on German-lang wp}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: I followed the link and found a second non-Catholic church in the German category, namely Evangelische Kirche (Trier-Ehrang) which however is barely notable. Regarding the main Protestant church of Trier, note that the German article Konstantinbasilika strongly overlaps with the already existing English article Aula Palatina so that does not count as a potential additional article. This does not convince that any time soon we will have a handful of non-Catholic churches in Trier. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, I'm not sure on what basis you assert that the is barely notable. The fact that it currently has only 2 refs is a property of the article, not of the topic.
Whatever your intention here, the effect of this merger is that non-Catholic churches in Trier will not be categorised as churches within Category:Trier. That is not an NPOV outcome.
This whole process of trying to rip out layers of container categories is fundamentally mistaken, because it pointlessly disrupts the consistency of the category system. That makes it harder to maintain and to navigate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consistent tree of churches by populated place anyway. Most populated places are way too small for a separate churches category. This nomination simplifies the process of navigating within a populated place tree, and it does so with a dual merge so that no information gets lost. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not by populated place, but it is reasonably thorough by city.
By removing this layer from cities where we do already have a reasonable number of articles per city, a reader looking at the set of churches-by-city categories would get the false impression that there are few or no articles on churches in that city.
The category stem is a directional lattice based on consistency. Removing parts of that lattice because the article structure is underdeveloped undermines one of the pillars of that consistency principle, with no advantage to readers or editors. It is a pointless, disruptive make-work, both now and in the future when those categories are needed. See WP:DEMOLISH. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally disagree that it is reasonably thorough by city. Perhaps that will apply to the United Kingdom and Ireland, which I am not even certain of, but even in a nearby country like the Netherlands (nearby to the UK, that is) there are only 9 cities with a churches category which means it is highly exceptional.
Another issue is the use of the category system so that is a high level discussion. The most important benefit of it is to navigate easily between related articles. In this case, with a modest Roman Catholic churches category in Trier, the proposal will not hinder navigating from Basilica of St. Paulinus, Trier to Liebfrauenkirche, Trier easily by using Category:Roman Catholic churches in Trier. And on the other hand if you are on Aula Palatina, before and after the merge you will need to use Category:Protestant churches in Rhineland-Palatinate in order to find the most nearby other Protestant churches. So the proposal is not disruptive, and as explained before, it simplifies the navigation within the city of Trier, so it most certainly also not pointless. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's disingenuous, @Marcocapelle. This nomination is about removing a geographical subset of churches, and your example is about a denominational category. You have made an apples-and-oranges comparison.
I'm sure you are well aware that Aula Palatina is currently in Category:Churches in Trier. If your proposal was adopted, there would be no clear category path from Aula Palatina to other churches in that city. That is disruptive.
I don't object in principle to removing the bottom layer of a category tree when it has been split too finely. But what you are doing here is removing an intermediate layer, which is disruptive to navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It it is too obvious that there is no difference in easy navigation to get from Aula Palatina to Roman Catholic churches in Trier before and after the merger. Before the merger you navigate within Category:Churches in Trier, after the merger you navigate within Category:Buildings and structures in Trier. So again it is not disruptive, it is just simplifying things in a region that is mainly Catholic and I have proposed the same for regions that are mainly Protestant (e.g. in Rostock). There is nothing wrong with removing an intermediate layer if done well, i.e. with a dual or triple merge if needed, especially nothing wrong in a case like this where there is no consistent tree anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how a nomination that has dual or triple merge targets can be disruptive to an intermediate scheme. We are not going to see a massive increase in notable Protestant churches in Trier that would warrant the creation of a category to contain them and the Catholic ones. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any navigational problem with the proposal either. There are too many municipalities to claim every city needs a category under WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Overly granular categories given the current (and reasonably anticipated) article count. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The vast majority of church buidlings, period, are non-notable. We should only have by city categories of these types when they are clearly justified which these are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 6 February 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.

Churches by city (Europe, 1 merge target)

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 all per this concurrent CfD with similar arguments. ~ Rob13Talk 05:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the above categories only contain 1 and/or 1 subcategory. In these cases a second merge target "churches in country" or "churches in region" has not been specified because the content is already in the tree of it. For example, the content of Category:Churches in Bamberg is already included in Category:Roman Catholic churches in Bavaria so it does not require merging to Category:Churches in Bavaria. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to all categories which are currently small. It is for cats which "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
I checked the first 7 categories nominated. All but one of those has a a subcat for churches of other denominations (in 5 of those 6 cases, RC churches). Whatever your intention here, the effect of this merger is that non-Catholic churches in those cities will not be categorised as churches within Category:Trier. That is not an NPOV outcome. (If your aim was to promote the hardline Catholic view that non-Catholic churches are not "real" churches, this would be a good way of doing it).
This whole process of trying to rip out layers of container categories is fundamentally mistaken, because it pointlessly disrupts the consistency of the category system. That makes it harder to maintain and to navigate.
By removing this layer from cities where we do already have a reasonable number of articles per city, a reader looking at the set of churches-by-city categories would get the false impression that there are few or no articles on churches in that city.
The category system is a directional lattice based on consistency. Removing intermediate parts of that lattice because the article structure is underdeveloped undermines one of the pillars of that consistency principle, with no advantage to readers or editors. It is a pointless, disruptive make-work, both now and in the future when those categories are needed. See WP:DEMOLISH. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is continued at length in the nomination above. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Overly granular categories given the current (and reasonably anticipated) article count. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support smallcat does apply here because the vast majority of church buildings are not notable. In general the articles we have are close to the number we will ever have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 6 February 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_5&oldid=885598891"