Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 15

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) 20:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:William Tryon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category populated by eponymous article; top categories used by said articles as well. GELongstreet (talk) 23:23, 15 June 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.

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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Alien abduction phenomenon to Category:Alien abduction

Nominator's rationale: "Phenomenon" as used in science is an existence claim. There is no evidence that an alien abduction has ever happened. WP:NPOV would demand removing "phenomenon" as a word to avoid. jps (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Support. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The main article is alien abduction. Dimadick (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Absolutely, —PaleoNeonate – 07:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's my birthday. Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move, but only because of the article title. "Phenomenon" is not exclusively used in the hard sciences; in the social sciences, it can describe the appearance of interest in a topic and a resulting subculture. In the latter sense, there's definitely an alien abduction phenomenon: we see the idea as absurd, but we've heard of this concept before, because people have been talking about the idea for almost 60 years, and alien-abduction believers get studied by mainstream scholars, e.g. the article cites a Harvard study saying that people who believe they have been abducted by aliens usually have previous New Age beliefs, a vivid fantasy life, and suffer from sleep paralysis. Please don't force hard-sciences terminology at the expense of the social sciences. Nyttend (talk) 11:04, 20 June 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.

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. MER-C 09:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jewish South African anti-apartheid activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by religion, nationality, and profession. TM 11:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we also have Category:White South African anti-apartheid activists and I doubt if it is fair to say that this is an 'unrelated' intersection with ethnicity. Besides, if the category is not kept, it should be merged to its parent categories rather than deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Keep - As a minority, South African Jews played a crucial role in the anti-apartheid struggle, far out of proportion to their numbers in the White population. Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is an intersection with an adequate population to be kept. If there were only a few people listed, I would have voted the other way. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 16 June 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.

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. There is redundancy here, but one set is part of categories by island, and the other is part of categories by census division. Both hierarchies have their uses. This is one of many cases where our practice of building categories by more than one criterion results in one layer holding only a sub-cat that's part of another layer. – Fayenatic London 07:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Manitoulin Island to Category:Manitoulin District
• Propose merging Category:Populated places in Manitoulin Island to Category:Populated places in Manitoulin District
• Propose merging Category:Communities in Manitoulin Island to Category:Communities in Manitoulin District
• Propose merging Category:Lakes of Manitoulin Island to Category:Lakes of Manitoulin District
• Propose merging Category:Rivers of Manitoulin Island to Category:Rivers of Manitoulin District
• Propose merging Category:People from Manitoulin Island to Category:People from Manitoulin District

Nominator's rationale: Although the Manitoulin District does technically include some smaller islands besides just Manitoulin Island itself, it does not actually do so in a way that would justify having two separate category trees for the island and the district. There is one smaller island (Cockburn) that it itself incorporated as a resort municipality in its own right, but just has summer cottages on it with no permanent year-round population, no notable residents to categorize, and no independently notable geographic things on it; one island (Barrie) has a few permanent residents living on it, but is part of an on-island town rather than its own independent thing, and doesn't have any notable residents or geographic things on it either; and no other island in the district has any residents or communities or lakes or rivers on it to categorize at all.
So for all intents and purposes, the island effectively is the district, because there are virtually no off-island things to stay in any of the district categories at all: no off-island rivers; no off-island lakes; no off-island people; just one off-island "community" that's really just a marina rather than an independently notable place, and thus just has a redirect rather than an actual article. So the island categories aren't really based on a genuinely defining distinction, but really just function as a superfluous extra step between the district categories and virtually all of their actual content, because across all six of these categories combined there's just one off-island redirect to categorize as "in/from/of district but not in/from/of island".
I previously nominated the populated places and communities subcategories for deletion, at a time when those were the only ones that actually existed at all, but the creator managed to short-circuit the discussion by building out the rest of this tree after the original discussion was already underway, so that it post facto turned into "deleting these would be a partial depopulation of the Manitoulin Island tree" -- but that's not actually the kind of editing behaviour we should be rewarding: people should not be allowed to immunize their content against discussion just by building out new parent trees that didn't exist yet at the time of nomination, so that they become protected by my "failure" to also nominate parent categories that did not exist to be nominated.
We simply don't need to maintain separate categories for the island content and the district content, if there's no non-island content to be left in the district categories at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I previously nominated the populated places and communities subcategories for deletion, at a time when those were the only ones that actually existed at all, but the creator managed to short-circuit the discussion by building out the rest of this tree after the original discussion was already underway, so that it post facto turned into "deleting these would be a partial depopulation of the Manitoulin Island tree" -- but that's not actually the kind of editing behaviour we should be rewarding". I think you'll find that that is incorrect. I created Category:Manitoulin Island first, then the subcats, and you nominated two of the subcats (Category:Populated places in Manitoulin Island and Category:Communities in Manitoulin Island) for deletion here almost 3 hours after I created the first category, and after the other categories had been populated. There was no "building out the rest of this tree after the original discussion was already underway".--Mhockey (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I compare this with what happened to Taiwan categories where some editors objected to the inclusion of other islands off the coast of the main one. The island is clearly the main part of the archipelago. The objection can probably be adequately dealt with by having a headnote explaining that the category relates to the whole group of islands. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that you've completely missed the actual problem here: there is zero off-island content to be in any of the parent district categories at all. There is not a single off-island river, not a single off-island lake, not a single off-island community, and not a single off-island person to be left in the "district" level categories — "district" and "island" are redundant layers of categorization here, because if island stuff is subcatted down a layer then there's not a single off-island topic left to categorize in any of these district-level categories at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the previous CFD is here. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Bearcat: Isn't Cockburn Island (Ontario) part of the district as a separate island? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but the issue is that it has nothing on it to be categorized as a populated place, a community, a lake or a river in the district — and it's not an island people live on year-round, but an island where some people have summer cottages but don't live for the rest of the year, so it has no notable people from it to be categorized as people from the district. It's a moot point, because across all six of these categories combined it gives us just one redirect to be categorized, semi-wrongly as a "community" when it's really just a public marina — it has zero notable things on it and zero notable people from it, so if we set Manitoulin Island apart as its own separate subcategory scheme there's nothing on Cockburn (or any of the other small islands) left to categorize at the district level at all. I already explained all of this in my nomination statement in the first place, so asking me about Cockburn isn't dropping the mic when I already addressed Cockburn in the first place. The Manitoulin District has zero communities, zero populated places, zero rivers, zero lakes and zero people who are in or from any island but Manitoulin Island itself, so categorizing the district and the island as two separate category schemes is just redundant, and causes the district categories to serve as nothing but single-item SMALLCAT wrappers for the island categories, with nothing else that can be added to them at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per additional explanation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is not true that there is nothing in Manitoulin District which is not on Manitoulin Island (which is why we have two articles), and yes there has been at least one notable person from Manitoulin District who was not born on Manitoulin Island (although the nominator takes the view that because he later became mayor of a place on Manitoulin Island he should be categorised as from the island and not from the district - see this diff). Is there enough distinction between the island and the district to have separate categories for the island? I would say yes. Manitoulin Island is the largest lake island in the world, unusual for having lakes on the island, and even one lake which has its island (an island on a lake on an island on a lake). I came to this because I knew that fact, but wanted to find the names of the lakes on the island. Most large islands have their own categories, which make it easy to find facts such as that, but Manitoulin Island did not. So I fixed that. It is a useful finding aid, which is what categories are for. A category for a census division does not do the job, particularly if the user is not familiar with the organization of local government in Ontario.--Mhockey (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (edited --Mhockey (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Firstly, you're misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that there is nothing in the Manitoulin District that isn't on Manitoulin Island — the non-Manitoulin islands themselves exist, for starters. But none of the non-Manitoulin islands have any rivers or lakes or named communities on them to be categorized separately from the island-level categories at all. There are zero district-but-not-island rivers, there are zero district-but-not-island lakes, there are zero district-but-not-island communities. It's not that there's nothing at all; it's that there's nothing that fits any of these categories at all.

And we also do not categorize people as being solely "from" their birthplaces, to the exclusion of places they moved to later in life — John Gordon Lane lived in Gore Bay as an adult and became mayor there, and then went on to clinch NPOL notability by getting elected to the provincial legislature while living in Gore Bay, so he is from the island in a meaningful and defining way regardless of the fact that he happened to be born off-island.

So I'm correct that island-level categories are simply redundant to district-level categories in these instances: not because they're the same thing, but because there are no off-island things to be filed in any of these categories. A category for Category:Islands of Manitoulin District, which could include Manitoulin and Goat and Cockburn and Treasure, would be a reasonable thing to have — but as rivers, lakes, people and communities go, none of the other three islands have even one of any of those things at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 21 May 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.

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) DannyS712 (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Singapore to Category:Singaporean people

Nominator's rationale: No consistent with other national categories. Not functioning as intended. The explanation says "This category is for people who are not Singapore citizens but who were born in Singapore or who are resident in Singapore." Most of the articles are actually about Singapore citizens (as far as it is possible to tell, as there is rarely any explicit mention of citizenship), or people who have moved away from Singapore. I would propose to sort them out into emigrants or expatriates if appropriate.

There has been an earlier discussion on this issue: Wikipedia:Categories for_discussion/Log/2017 March_20#Category:Singaporean people. Inspection of the category shows that it has not worked as intended. Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both - per the previous 2 discussions. Ibrahim of Johor is from Singapore, long before there was a nationality Singaporean. Oculi (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, I can understand that the difference is not maintainable. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• cMerge as per above 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 10:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both - per the previous 2 discussions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• To say a person is "from Singapore" is often taken to mean they are no longer there.Rathfelder (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per the nom. These two categories are redundant and placement in each appears to be WP:OR. Further work could be done to create a new sub-category for Singaporean emigrants in the combined category at any editors' own discretion. @Oculi That Ibrahim of Johor was from Singapore long before it became a nationality means nothing. Placing him in the category Singaporean people is consistent with historians naming residents of the Eastern Roman Empire Byzantines, even though if you went back in time to talk to them, those same residents would tell you they were Romans and would have no idea what you were talking about with this Byzantine Empire stuff. They didn't call themselves or their empire that. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both but possibly think deeper. The question is not that Ibrahim of Johor was not known in his time as Singaporean, the problem is that the label assigns to him a nationality in an ahistorical way. The example is not calling a physician working in 1033 in Constantinople "Byzantine" on the grounds he would have insisted he was a citizen of the still extant Roman Empire, it is calling him Turkish because a physician living and working in the same house he lived in 1033 today would be Turkish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not categorizing Michael Psellos as Turkish. We may need to break this category down based on the power in control over Singapore at the time, but straight up merger as proposed here is unwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ibrahim of Johor died in 1959, Singapore was made an indepdnet nation in 1965. A better example is Temenggong Abdul Jamal who ruled over Singapore, and whose grandson allowed the British to establish a post there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep If someone categorize all the current articles properly this could be a meaningful distinction, however if noone is willing to do this work the lower maintenance merger would be preferable. --Trialpears (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Its no good sorting this out if the names of the categories are misleading. The problem will just recur. As it already has. We need to bear in mind how less experienced editors will interpret the names. Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 17 September 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.

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. MER-C 09:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:18th-century church buildings by decade to Category:18th-century churches by decade
• Category:17th-century church buildings by decade to Category:17th-century churches by decade
• Category:16th-century church buildings by decade to Category:16th-century churches by decade
• Category:15th-century church buildings by decade to Category:15th-century churches by decade

Nominator's rationale: to be consistent with (i) parents e.g. Category:18th-century churches, (ii) siblings e.g. Category:12th-century churches by decade, Category:19th-century churches by decade, and (iii) sub-cats e.g. Category:Churches completed in the 1700s. I acknowledge that there are valid reasons for disagreeing over whether categories should use "churches" or "church buildings", and that the denominational hierarchies use "church buildings" (e.g. Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings) to distinguish them from organisational divisions (Category:Eastern Orthodox Church bodies). However, there is no reason for these four categories to be left inconsistent with the surrounding hierarchy. C18 & C19 C17 somehow got left out of the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_1#Churches/Church_buildings; C15 & C16 were created after that discussion. – Fayenatic London 11:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support just for consistency reasons. In fact we shouldn't use churches at all, as too ambiguous, and instead keep to denominations on the one hand and church buildings on the other hand. Agree with Place Clichy in the speedy discussion that a reverse merge of the entire by decade tree would have been preferable. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency. Oculi (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is wrong to leave these categories as just "churches" as many readers will interpret them to mean the congregations or the institutions rather than the real intent which is the bricks and mortar buildings. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - consistency cannot really be argued when the use of church buildings is quite prevalent even in this part of the category tree, see 18th-century Eastern Orthodox church buildings, 18th-century Oriental Orthodox church buildings, 18th-century Roman Catholic church buildings. In the present case, the main argument put forward in favour of using churches (that such articles are about local congregations rather than about buildings) does not stand for historical church buildings, so I guess a reverse renaming of parent categories (such as Category:18th-century churches to Category:18th-century church buildings) would be preferable, as churches is ambiguous for church bodies. Place Clichy (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Place Clichy: as I explained in the nomination, church buildings is only prevalent in the categories sub-divided by denomination, in order to distinguish from church bodies. In this part of the category tree, i.e. all churches (buildings) by century/ by decade, "churches" is used consistently, except for these two that were overlooked in 2015 and two that were subsequently added. – Fayenatic London 20:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fayenatic london: church buildings may be used in faith-specific denominations, but it may also be used elsewhere. If consistency needs to be improved, that would be reached by using church buildings across the table. Place Clichy (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Place Clichy and Laurel Lodged: There was already an enormous nomination & discussion on churches/church buildings in 2015, linked above. Looking back, I see that I too argued the case for "church buildings" in the by-date part of the hierarchy, in order to avoid ambiguity; but we lost that argument. The closer found consensus to use "churches" consistently. Resisting that consistency for a few holdout categories now seems to go against WP:POINT. – Fayenatic London 20:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That decision was plain wrong. I thought so at the time and my opinion has only hardened. It needs to be revisited. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I need to correct what I said about the parts of the category tree that use "church buildings" as opposed to "church bodies". As well as that distinction, I have realised that "Church buildings" is also used intentionally in parts of the "by century" hierarchy to distinguish buildings from the parallel hierarchy of Category:Christian congregations by century of establishment. Congregations are only analysed by century, not by decade, so there is no ambiguity over the decade categories. However, it may be worth submitting all the century and decade categories for churches (buildings) to a fresh CFD in order for them to made consistent. – Fayenatic London 22:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency, & as better anyway. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I support this change for consistency, and think it should be clear from the articles these categories are attached to that it has to do with church buildings, not denominations. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:29, 17 August 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.

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. MER-C 08:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Religion in Lille‎ to Category:Lille
• Propose merging Category:Religion in Marseille‎ to Category:Marseille withdrawn 15 June
• Propose merging Category:Religion in Nice to Category:Nice
• Propose merging Category:Religion in Poitiers‎ to Category:Poitiers
• Propose merging Category:Religion in Strasbourg‎ to Category:Strasbourg withdrawn 15 June
• Propose merging Category:Religion in Toulouse to Category:Toulouse

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, apart from Christianity (which already has its own tree) not much content can be expected for these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per emerging consensus on these matters. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Marseille and Strasbourg (2 articles + 1 sub-cat each); merge others. – Fayenatic London 15:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As the nominator, I withdraw Marseille and Strasbourg. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pruned nomination. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:39, 22 June 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.

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:Flags by subject. MER-C 16:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Flags by issue to Category:To be determined (See bulleted list below)

Nominator's rationale: It seems there is another subcat of Category:Categories by issue that has, well, issues. In this case it's that very word in the name that is the problem. It may be that the word "issue" has a very particular meaning in the world of flags. I honestly don't know, but in any event, it is entirely misleading in the name of this category, which doesn't even belong in the same parent as all of the other subcats of Category:Categories by issue. [After renaming, the parent should be changed as well, probably to Category:Categories by subject.] It's worth noting that the sister category on Wikimedia Commons uses the phrase "Flags by represented subject", so that is one possible name we could consider. Another possibility would be "Flags by subject" -- not perfect, but much simpler. Please feel free to suggest any other name that can do the job! Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was going to suggest Category:Categories by parameter (flippantly) but I see Stefanomione has beaten me to it. Oculi (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "by (represented) subject" since I cannot think of any better. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Further comment see below. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
• I just thought of two other variants that we might consider: "Flags by subject area" and "Flags by subject matter". Anomalous+0 (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• How about a bulleted list of renaming options:

1. "Flags by subject"
2. "Flags by subject area"
3. "Flags by subject matter"
4. "Flags by represented subject"

Anomalous+0 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment - it is odd that we don't have Category:Categories by subject as 'by subject' is a common subcat scheme. Of the above I prefer 'by subject' as this is in use (whereas the others are not, AFAIK). Oculi (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I should have said Category:Categories by topic, which as I recall includes categories using both terms (+some other similar terms as well). Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename, since "issue" is clearly wrong, without a clear preference for any of the four options. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to flags by subject, more indicative of the content. Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment: which alternative name? MER-C 10:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As we have to choose something, let's then take Category:Flags by subject as the shortest one. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:20, 15 June 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.

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 21:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed standardizing the convention for naming categories about encyclopedias in specific languages, as either "XXX encyclopedias" or "XXX-language encyclopedias".

Option A - rename categories currently using "XXX encyclopedias" to using "XXX-language encyclopedias"

1. Category:Albanian encyclopedias
2. Category:Belarusian encyclopedias
3. Category:Bengali encyclopedias

Option B - rename categories currently using "XXX-language encyclopedias" to using "XXX encyclopedias"

1. Category:Arabic-language encyclopedias
2. Category:Armenian-language encyclopedias
3. Category:Azerbaijani-language encyclopedias

Additionally, Category:Odia encyclopaedias has a typo (encyclopaedias) but I thought that it should be considered for either Odia or Odia-language.

I am currently tagging the categories. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All tagged. Pinging @Piotrus, who requested this CfR. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Through I've proposed CFD this, I think now that this is not as simple as name standardization. It is occasionally possible that in multi-language countries a Foo-encyclopedia wouldn't be at the same time a Foo-language encyclopedia. For example, "The four national languages of Switzerland are German, French, Italian and Romansh". What language(s) would Swiss encyclopedias be in? It is possible for both Foo encyclopedias and Foo-language encyclopedias categories to co-exist, but 99% times they are going to be identical. Through looking at this right now it seems like there's no overlap. Anyway, we have both the Category:Encyclopedias by country and Category:Encyclopedias by language. The latter is the problem, as it seems to have not just the Foo-language entries but also the Foo-entries. Ex. Category:Polish encyclopedias should not be present in the Category:Encyclopedias by language; instead we should create a Category:Polish-language encyclopedias - but please note that 100% of Polish encyclopedias are Polish-language encyclopedias (but to repeat, this is not redundant for all countries, as there's no Swiss language, for example, so while a Category:Swiss encyclopedias could exist, Category:Swiss-language encyclopedias shouldn't). So for now I'd suggest to remove the Foo-language entries from the Category:Encyclopedias by country, and as a second step, create the other language categories where it makes sense, on a 1 by 1 basis where it makes sense. I am not sure if this should be discussed here or on a category page, and if it can be automated, or will have to be done totally manually. What I mean by this is that we should, for example, create the Polish-language enc. category and populate it on all Polish enc. categories, and do it for all similar categories where applicable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly standardize, prefer option A. The nomination needs to be reformatted to the usual standard though, otherwise it cannot be processed. Part of this reformatting is specifying the right target categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Piotrus: pinging nominator, see above comment about formatting the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Standardize- I think it has to be Option A, "XXX-language encyclopedias". I find Japan Encyclopedia which appears to be Japanese but not Japanese-language (and French-language but not French, English-language but not English). Oculi (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally Oppose I think these are two different things and that we should have categories both for the language of encyclopedias (Category:xxx-language encyclopedias) and for the country of origin (Category:xxx encyclopedias); as outlined in Piotrus' comment above. It is important, for example, to categorise the Great Soviet Encyclopedia both as Russian language and as of the Soviet Union. I think "99%" overstates how often language and country of origin will overlap - especially for languages like English, French, and Russian. The case of the Japan Encyclopedia (which seems to have been published in France [1]) suggests we also need Category:encyclopedias on countryxxx, which would go in the Category:Specialized encyclopedias tree. Furius (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, at best we may reach a rough consensus on the principle (should we categorize by language, by country or both) but the execution can only be left to manual work. Perhaps the discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the comment by Piotrus; we don't want to go mixing encyclopedias written in Russian (which could be written in other countries, e.g. Kazakhstan) with encyclopedias published in Russia (which could be written in other languages, e.g. the Turkic languages of Siberia) with encyclopedias covering Russia (which could be written in any country or language). Standardization is important here, and "X-language encyclopedias" is necessary for the language category, but first we need to examine how these categories have been used so far. It might be worthwhile to use this CFD as a place to discuss encyclopedias by subject, language, and origin, and if we want to have separate trees for all of them, maybe we could just create a batch of categories now. If some turn out not to be used, e.g. all the Slovenian encyclopedias are written in French and published in Belgium, we can always C1-delete them later. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• PS, "encyclopaedia" is not a spelling error but an established spelling variant; see Encyclopaedia Britannica and coverage in spelling differences. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A Plus I have a sneaky regard for "encyclopaedia" so would love it to be a redirect ! Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:42, 22 June 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.

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 all. MER-C 09:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Companies by millennium of establishment
• Propose deleting Category:Companies established in the 1st millennium
• Propose deleting Category:Companies established in the 2nd millennium
• Propose deleting Category:Companies established in the 3rd millennium
• Propose deleting Category:Agriculture companies established in the 2nd millennium
• Propose deleting Category:Agriculture companies established in the 3rd millennium
• Propose deleting Category:Banks by millennium of establishment
• Propose deleting Category:Banks established in the 2nd millennium
• Propose deleting Category:Banks established in the 3rd millennium
• Propose deleting Category:Biotechnology companies by millennium of establishment
• Propose deleting Category:Biotechnology companies established in the 2nd millennium
• Propose deleting Category:Biotechnology companies established in the 3rd millennium

Nominator's rationale: delete as follow-up on this earlier discussion which has recently been closed as delete. The categories listed above are all siblings of the earlier deleted categories. There is no point in diffusing companies by millennium since nearly all articles (save two) are from the 2nd and 3rd millennium so we can easily diffuse companies just by century.

@Rathfelder, Anomalous+0, BDD, Hugo999, and Peterkingiron: pinging contributors to the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: these are mainly populated by {{EstcatCenturyType}}. If this nomination is approved, the template should be changed to make the millennium parameter optional. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Meco: (as creator of the template) and @Fayenatic london: would one of you be able to make that change if there is going to be consensus to delete these categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporary keep; no point in deleting a mostly harmless category that's likely to be recreated, per Fayenatic london. Nominator's correct in saying that there's no real need for this category, since virtually all companies worldwide date from the 2nd millennium or the 21st century, so once it's practical we should delete. But let's wait until the template is changed and any necessary debate has concluded; once that happens, delete away. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Marcocapelle, Meco, and Nyttend: I have changed the template as required. – Fayenatic London 12:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless someone objects, I say "delete away". Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: As Category:Organizations established in the 1st millennium etc are not being deleted, companies will still be part of Category:1st-millennium establishments etc via the century hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 13:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Marcocapelle: do you want to also nominate the half-dozen corresponding disestablishment cats in Category:Companies by millennium of disestablishment ? – Fayenatic London 15:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, thanks for pinging, below are the additional nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose deleting Category:Companies by millennium of disestablishment‎
• Propose deleting Category:Companies disestablished in the 2nd millennium
• Propose deleting Category:Companies disestablished in the 3rd millennium‎
• Propose deleting Category:Agriculture companies disestablished in the 3rd millennium
• Propose deleting Category:Banks by millennium of disestablishment‎
• Propose deleting Category:Banks disestablished in the 2nd millennium‎
• Propose deleting Category:Banks disestablished in the 3rd millennium‎

• Oppose doing anything with disestablishments. It's quite plausible that companies, especially banks (which can last a long time), will have their year of disestablishment documented precisely without their year of establishment known at all. I could perhaps support this as a separate nomination, with a solid explanation by the nominator why my concern shouldn't be concerning, but the situation's quite different and the two groups of categories should not be bundled. PS, look at list of oldest companies. All of the entries appear to have establishment dates (the list is companies predating 1700), so we can assume that there are plenty of other companies of similar age whose establishment isn't documented. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nyttend: please could you explain your concern about what will be lost? Companies will still be categorised by year of disestablishment, and these will still be navigable by decade and by century. It's only the millennium-level categories for companies which are being nominated. Moreover, e.g. Category:Organizations disestablished in the 2nd millennium will still be there over the century hierarchies. Why might we want to keep a millennium layer for companies, banks etc? – Fayenatic London 07:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In short, we overall have better disestablishment dates for companies than for establishment (if a company takes a while to become big, its founding might not be recorded, but its death will be), and the disestablishment dates should be spread out better over time. Grouping by millennium may be better when we have a wider time spread. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all such bloated millennium cats. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Millenium categories are pointless for anything which has not existed for at least 2000 years. Rathfelder (talk) 19:48, 22 June 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.

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. MER-C 08:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Coffee table books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT.

Coffee table book is a fuzzy term, often used pejoratively. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, frankly I was expecting to comment "support per WP:NONDEF" but after some googling I found that this is really a defining characteristic of these books, e.g. [2]. It looks good enough to overcome the fuzziness of the term. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Marcocapelle. Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Marcocapelle. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:45, 22 June 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.