Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 17

< September 16 September 18 >

September 17

Category:City Girls

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:City Girls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No need for this eponymous category. Linking between the subcategories already provides sufficient navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:58, 17 September 2020 (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:Neighborhoods in Kiev

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: procedural close. bibliomaniac15 01:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Talk:Kyiv Starzoner (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, inconsistent with Category:Kiev and the rest of the category tree. If renamed, it should be done in conjunction. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Main article Kiev/Kyiv has been the subject of endless failed attempts at RM for years plagued by political motivations and off-wiki canvassing. The last one somehow managed to pass through, but I wouldn't be surprised if it i somehow overturned soon. Place Clichy (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, this discussion can be closed, the nominated category is part of the whole set that is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_18#Kyiv. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2020 (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:Government of Kiev

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: procedural close. bibliomaniac15 01:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Either rename the category to Category:Kyiv City State Administration or Category:Government of Kyiv per Talk:Kyiv Starzoner (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, inconsistent with Category:Kiev and the rest of the category tree. If renamed, it should be done in conjunction. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Main article Kiev/Kyiv has been the subject of endless failed attempts at RM for years plagued by political motivations and off-wiki canvassing. The last one somehow managed to pass through, but I wouldn't be surprised if it i somehow overturned soon. Place Clichy (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, this discussion can be closed, the nominated category is part of the whole set that is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_18#Kyiv. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2020 (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:African-American journalists of Omaha, Nebraska

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS, this is over-categorization by race, occupation, and city. User:Namiba 18:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by creator: I created this category because many individual journalists had been (mis-)categorized in Category:African-American newspapers published in Omaha, Nebraska. It would be best to notify the person who did that work and understand their perspective prior to making a final decision and undoing their work. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, there is no tree of African-American people by city. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are lots of trees of white people by city; just because there are no current trees doesn't mean there can't be. If "over-categorization" is a genuine concern, there are plenty of other places to start hacking away rather than here. There are clearly enough African American journalists in Omaha to justify the category. Freechild (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of trees of white people by city: like where? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:OCEGRS as a trivial intersection. Categories of white people by city would, of course, probably be just as trivial. Place Clichy (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep -- This is an intersection with 12 members, which is enough to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, WP:SMALLCAT is not the only policy that exists. As I and others have said, the matter here is WP:OCEGRS and not SMALLCAT.--User:Namiba 20:17, 21 September 2020 (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:Czech World War II flying aces

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) 18:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What's the purpose of having two categories about World War II flying aces for the same country? Czechoslovak is the most accurate descriptor, so I would suggest merging the two cats into that category. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:06, 17 September 2020 (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:South African football templates

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) 18:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate template category for Soccer in South Africa. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all such RSA categories should use soccer, not football, per Soccer in South Africa. Oculi (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oculi, the consensus to use the word "soccer" is obvious at the talk page of the article, but could you please clarify what you mean by "RSA categories"? —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RSA: Republic of South Africa. Oculi (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2020 (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:Member states of the Council of 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: no consensus to delete, but there is consensus to remove the country suncategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not all international organizations are WP:DEFINING for member states; indeed, most are not. Is the Council of Europe? I picked five countries at random, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, Poland, Estonia, and Greece. Two of these mention the organization once in the text, Estonia and Germany do not mention it at all in the running text of the article; Bosnia mentions in the lead but not in the body, and never explains why its membership is significant. (t · c) buidhe 12:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but for articles only, not eponymous subcategories, per WP:EPONCAT. The Council of Europe is an extremely notable organisation and belonging to it is defining, as the fuzz about the suspension/exclusion of countries e.g. Belarus and Russia would indicate. It is the organisation behind the European Court of Human Rights, the Flag of Europe (Europe) and the Anthem of Europe. Membership is also the par by which one usually considers a country to be located in Europe, seen the inefficiency of geographical definition for this purpose. Ideally though, dedicated articles in the form of Greece in the Council of Europe could be placed in this category. Place Clichy (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I wrote that article (Greece in the Council of Europe), and I agree that the Council of Europe is very important and does many notable things. However, I don't think it meets the threshold of being defining for member states according to the current definition, "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" (t · c) buidhe 14:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Almost all European countries are members. Membership is certainly notable. I wonder whether the briefer Category:Council of Europe members might not be better "states" is redundant because only countries can join. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but for articles only/Purge subcats Per Place Clichy above. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2020 (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:Etruscan history

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) 11:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Everything about Etruscans in history. There is little reason to single out these 2 articles and 1 subcategory. Place Clichy (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as long as the scope is limited to the ancient Etruscans, not the later history of Tuscany. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2020 (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:New Jersey Supreme Court justices

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:Justices of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. A follow-up nomination of this tree should also be conducted soon. bibliomaniac15 02:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:New Jersey Supreme Court justices to Category:Supreme Court of New Jersey justices
Nominator's rationale: To match Supreme Court of New Jersey, Category:Supreme Court of New Jersey, and List of justices of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. All other forms use "Supreme Court of New Jersey", not "New Jersey Supreme Court". (This proposal was processed via WP:CFDS but a user objected to the change after the fact.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the objection about? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • See here. A user said "it sounds wrong". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue, as I see it, is whether we are considering this strictly as "institution"-justice, or "state"-"Supreme Court justice". The more natural construction, in my view, is the latter. If we are going to use the formal name of the institution, then the construction should be "Justices of the"-"institution". Compare the remaining subcategories of Category:State supreme court judges in the United States by state. BD2412 T 02:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Justices of the Supreme Court of New Jersey sounds like the best format. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nom as a bogus construction. I would support New Jersey Supreme Court justices/judges or Justices/judges of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Place Clichy (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now agree that a "Justices of the... [institution]" would be the be best name for all categories in this group. I also note that Commons has an awful "Supreme court justices of..." formulation which I will change to match whatever is settled on here. BD2412 T 17:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this would solve the issue well. Perhaps a broad nomination is in order. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would definitely agree with that. I think that a "Justices of..." formulation works with every formulation of court names. BD2412 T 01:58, 25 September 2020 (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:Artificial satellites orbiting Earth

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) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Because artificial satellite redirects to satellite. fgnievinski (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as we presumably wish to exclude the moon. Oculi (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Aligns with the naming scheme currently used in the articles, in which the primary article is "Satellite" and the non-primary one is "natural satellite". The majority of people will assume "satellite" refers to an artificial satellite, and rarely would speak of the Moon as a "satellite" in typical parlance.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, even if the moon would be added to the category it would do no harm. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2020 (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:Sumerian epic heroes

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 rename. – Fayenatic London 09:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: deleting, there are a few deities in this category that presumably do not belong here, but other than that the category is largely a duplication of Category:Sumerian rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge as rename per the amended nomination. Place Clichy (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support revised nom -- However it is a bit much to ask the closing admin to do this. I would suggest that the nom or a supporter creates and adds target categories to all articles. When that has been done the present category can be eliminated by merging or deleting. This procedure ensures that we do not orphan articles. The article that I sampled was a legendary first Sumerian king. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, upon closure this discussion may be listed at WP:CFDWM. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2020 (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:Hardys

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: listify and delete. The list will be added to Hardy (hill). – Fayenatic London 10:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Hardys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Hardys of England
  • Propose deleting Category:Hardys of Northern Ireland
  • Propose deleting Category:Hardys of Scotland
  • Propose deleting Category:Hardys of Wales
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining - few (if any) of the articles (e.g. Snowdon) use the term "hardy" and some (e.g. North Walney) don't mention the height of the "hill".  I don't propose to listify this as the categories (even after having been padded out with redirects) only contain a fraction of the complete list - it would be better for any list to be created directly from a RS. DexDor (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. A Hardy is a clearly defined geographical feature: a mountain, hill or high point in the United Kingdom which is the highest point in a hill range, island or county. The list was compiled by Ian Hardy in the 1990s and is recognised by the Ordnance Survey, the Long Distance Walkers Assocation and leading outdoor magazines.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Bermicourt (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Hardy, Ian. High Points (1997). Potters Bar, Hertfordshire: Ian Hardy.
  2. ^ Hardy, Ian. High Points (1999) 2nd Edition. Potters Bar, Hertfordshire: Ian Hardy.
  3. ^ Hardy, Ian, MVO. The Hardys - The UK's High Points (2010) 3rd Edition. Potters Bar, Hertfordshire: Ian Hardy. ISBN 978-0-9565533-3-1 (internet version, http://www.thehardys.org/), ISBN 978-0-9565533-5-5 (DVD version).
  4. ^ Long Distance Walkers Association. http://www.ldwa.org.uk/ Hillwalkers Register 3
  5. ^ Long Distance Walkers Association. Strider Magazine (April 1999 p.20)
  6. ^ Long Distance Walkers Association. Strider Magazine (August 2010 p.15)
  7. ^ Bagging Munros, Peaks and the Wainwrights at ordnancesurvey.co.uk. Accessed on 15 Mar 2013.
  8. ^ Country Walking Magazine (November 1997 p.72)
  9. ^ Country Walking Magazine (May 2002 p.113)
  10. ^ Country Walking Magazine (November 2010 Things to Do)
  11. ^ The Great Outdoors Magazine (January 1998 p.13)
  12. ^ The Great Outdoors Magazine (July 1999 p.12)
This isn't about whether the term has a definition; it's about it being a non-defining characteristic for categorization. DexDor (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename e.g. to Category:Highest points of hill ranges in England per WP:COMMONNAME: the term "hardy" is seldom used in the articles in this category. I have no opinion about possible deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Some in these categories wouldn't fit that - e.g. North Walney is a nature reserve that's just a few feet above sea level. DexDor (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, some may need to be purged then. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify, per nominator's suggestion. Though interesting, it isn't a common geographical term, but named after the author of a list in a book. Sionk (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. The term is not defining for individual articles and not usually mentioned. A list should be created directly from a RS, as the nom states. Oculi (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify per nom. I see no evidence that this is a defining feature, which is a pretty high bar. (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. The original list seems to be more notable that the hilltops themselves grouped together. The fact that this "type of high point" does not seem to exist in any other country, even as culturally close as Ireland, the Shetlands, the Channel Islands, Australia or Canada says a lot about the non-notable and non-defining character of being a "hardy". Place Clichy (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and then delete -- This appears to be a category invented by an author (Ian Hardy) about 30 years ago. We appear to be about to embark on another round of local government reform in England, where subdivision will result in even more Hardys. I regard this as an obscure category, where a list (or lists) will work much better than a category. We may need four lists (one for each home nation) or even more, such as one per English region. A category for lists of Hardys might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2020 (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/2020_September_17&oldid=987106599"