Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 23

< April 22 April 24 >

April 23

Category:Degrassi High episodes

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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It wouldn't make sense for a category to be for only random episodes of a show so it would make the most sense for it to be a list of episodes for the show DemonStalker (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2021 (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:Films about mobile phones

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This can allow a relatively small category actually fit in the scope of telephones, landlines basic phones and smartphones ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does this nominaton confuse the medium with the message? While the use of telephony may be prominent in the films, is telephony per se the essence of those films? Would it be more accurate to say that telephone instruments were merely instruments to convey messages about deeper truths? The film "French Connection" was notable for its car chases, but was it about chases or cars? Was it not just a cops & robbers thriller that was notable for its car chases? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel Lodged, That is redundant as none of The French Connection films are even included in the category and a larger scope can better fit possible or undiscovered films that have a majority of their films dedicated to phones that are not mobile such as landline or fixed phones. The point of these subject based movie categories is to fit films with other films that share related plot characteristics or details. And to prove my point better, there are films in this category currently that does not fit the current scope. Films such as Phone Booth (film) and One Missed Call (2003 film) are included when a Phone Booth is not a mobile phone by definition and One Missed Call is mainly about telephones which are not considered mobile phones.ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, (only) if a number of articles exist about films about landlines a parent Category:Films about phones may be created. However I share Laurel Lodged's doubt regarding the existence of those films. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Laurel Lodged. --Just N. (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my nomination rationale ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators may not support their own nomination. Incidentally, a better title, if it is retained, is "films that share related plot characteristics involving telephone instruments". Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2021 (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.

All vice presidents categories

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. This is in line with MOS:JOBTITLES, not contradictory to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: rename, conforms to MOS:JOBTITLES. Woko Sapien (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - concur with rationale: 'Vice President of Yugoslavia'‎ is a title and should be capitalised, whereas 'vice presidents of Yugoslavia'‎ is not a title. This argument has been used frequently at cfd. As for the hyphens, these should follow usage in the specific country or place, eg Vice-President of Botswana. Oculi (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment am undecided as to the merits of the nomination, but if it proceeds, the inconsistency in the use of hyphens should be eliminated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:JOBTITLES. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. In MOS:JOBTITLES Vice president is explicit. --Just N. (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Oculi. Tamwin (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- "Vice-President" is the correct capitalisation "Vice-president" is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2021 (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.

Administrative territorial entities

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: rename, there is no need to insert "administrative" in the category name, and it is sometimes not very accurate either (e.g. in case of regions as a subcategory of Category:Administrative territorial entities by type). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not all territorial entities are used for administration (see Barony (Ireland)). Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Or is there any trip-wire I'd have failed to see? --Just N. (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2021 (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.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)

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 and merge as nominated. ✗plicit 08:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This scheme is a bit of a mess. The head category should not be a generic, pluralized category; it should be named after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa). The abbreviation in the subcategories should be expanded. The category for testimony should make it clear that it is for individuals who testified at the commission. The category for committees should be merged to the one for people as there are no articles about TRC Committees and the category contains TRC people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' I'm not an insider of SA history, but am I wrong about supposing that there were indeed a lot of local/regional Truth and Reconciliation commissions? If so, the article name could be misleading b/c it's not one and only one (central national) TRC which constituted the process. Nevertheless the article (name) would be a sum up of those TRC meetings all over the land? --Just N. (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have never heard of there being local or regional ones. If there were, there are no WP articles about them, as far as I can see. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the nominator. The South African TRC was indeed a singular institution (although it held hearings in different locations). - htonl (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for a nom who just wants something straightened out. Yes! Do it! --Lockley (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2021 (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.

Holocaust denying media

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 use "denial", but rename with hyphen per WP:C2A. ✗plicit 08:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Holocaust denying books to Category:Holocaust denial books (over redirect)
  • Propose renaming Category:Holocaust denying websites to Category:Holocaust denial websites
Nominator's rationale: Why not just "Holocaust denial" media, rather than "Holocaust denying"? The parent category is Category:Holocaust denial. (If kept, rename to Category:Holocaust-denying books and Category:Holocaust-denying websites.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support more consistent. (t · c) buidhe 04:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 'Denial' sounds more obscure than 'denying'. Not at all an improvement! --Just N. (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the new title it becomes clearer that Holocaust denial is the central theme of these books. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose, grammatically, “denial” sounds less clear than “denying”. Paleontologist99 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support basically per the nom. Anecdotally, holocaust denial is the most frequent term I've run across for this pseudohistory. Holocaust denial is, unsurprisingly, full of references to holocaust denial and no mentions of holocaust denying; I don't believe this has come about because of a concerted effort by editors to obscure the language. If this proposal fails, I join Good Ol'factory in then recommending that we rename to Holocaust-denying for grammatical reasons. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose, “Holocaust denial media” not only lacks clarity, it just doesn’t roll off the tongue well. Sergei zavorotko (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is unclear about it, and why doesn't it roll of the tongue well? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, to me "Holocaust denial books" sounds like books on the subject of Holocaust denial, and Holocaust denial websites sounds like they are tracking incidents of Holocaust denial, or are otherwise about the subject. "Holocaust denying" at least makes it clear that the books and websites themselves are denying the holocaust. Similarly if someone was a "holocaust denial teacher" I'd think they were teaching the subject, whereas a "holocaust denying teacher" is a teacher who denies the holocaust. Spokoyni (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok there are apparently different interpretations possible with the proposed name. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't looked into any of this, but just from a word usage perspective, a "Holocaust denial book" sounds like a scholarly text which discusses the topic of Holocaust denial, while "Holocaust denying book" sounds like a book in which the author denies the Holocaust. So I guess the category name should probably be whichever of these the category's members reflect. - jc37 18:44, 9 May 2021 (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:Recipients of the Order of the White Eagle (Russia)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nondefining Russian Empire award. Checked several recipients at random and they all had it listed with other awards. Not at all defining for Otto von Bismarck, Nicholas II of Russia, Napoleon III, etc. (t · c) buidhe 02:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete About evenly split between Russian nobles and foreign leaders. The articles don't treat it as defining for either. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: All of the category contents are now listified within the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major state honour usually awarded to citizens of Russia. Clearly defining. Ludicrous nomination and suggests that some editors are determined to delete all categories for awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant award in the Russian empire (highest-ranking for non-Christian subjects). Furius (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant award that conferred important distinctions on its recipients. There is a very real problem that the criteria for nominating is by reading a few of the biographies listed, rather than any academic understanding of what the awards are and what roles they played in their recipients lives. Our biographies are inherently non-reliable sources, often incomplete and of varying quality. To make judgements based on them regarding 'defining' is WP:OR, and a serious lack of competence. Spokoyni (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2021 (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:Recipients of the Order of St. Anna

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nondefining Russian Empire award. All the bios that I randomly checked, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg, Radko Dimitriev, Maksud Alikhanov, Duke Adolf Friedrich of Mecklenburg, Samuel Hoare, 1st Viscount Templewood, Jacques-Joachim Trotti, marquis de La Chétardie, Hovhannes Hakhverdyan, and others, either list it in an award section or not at all. (t · c) buidhe 02:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The articles I clicked through had more Russian biographies than Buidhe's but the result was the same: a passing reference in a list of award with no hint as to why they might have received it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I listified the category contents in the main article, Order of Saint Anna, for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major state honour usually awarded to citizens of Russia and which ennobled its recipients. Clearly defining. Ludicrous nomination and suggests that some editors are determined to delete all categories for awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Necrothesp, at least until such time as we get rid of all award categories. The fact that receiving the award altered awardees' legal status is significant here. As with the award categories nominated the day before, looking at the Russian language wiki categories shows that the bias toward foreigners isn't real. Furius (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant award that conferred important distinctions on its recipients. There is a very real problem that the criteria for nominating is by reading a few of the biographies listed, rather than any academic understanding of what the awards are and what roles they played in their recipients lives. Our biographies are inherently non-reliable sources, often incomplete and of varying quality. To make judgements based on them regarding 'defining' is WP:OR, and a serious lack of competence. Spokoyni (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A significant and major state honour. User:Spokoyni sums up nicely the keep argument. A very bizarre nomination. StickyWicket (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's useful and significant to know that the subject of a biography was smiled on by the imperial Russian government. User:Spokoyni makes a very good point about the faulty argument for deletion. --Lockley (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2021 (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:Anthony family (Susan B. Anthony)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 29#Category:Anthony family (Susan B. Anthony)

Category:ABB Group

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D. Kayplates (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, article has been moved after RM. @Kayplates: in this case you could have used the speedy procedure, just for info. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2021 (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.

ACW Confederate units

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:Units and formations of the Confederate States Army from Alabama format. There wasn't a strong consensus for this, but it seems to be the best option based on the discussions. This discussion was closed in conjunction with this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming the following:
  • Category:Alabama Confederate Civil War regiments to Category:Alabama Confederate Civil War units
  • Category:Arizona Territory Civil War regiments‎ to Category:Arizona Territory Civil War units
  • Category:Arkansas Confederate Civil War regiments to Category:Arkansas Confederate Civil War units
  • Category:Florida Civil War regiments to Category:Florida Confederate Civil War units
  • Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Confederate Civil War regiments to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Confederate Civil War units
  • Category:Indian Territory Civil War regiments to Category:Indian Territory Confederate Civil War units
  • Category:Kentucky Confederate Civil War regiments to Category:Kentucky Confederate Civil War units
  • Category:Louisiana Confederate Civil War regiments to Category:Louisiana Confederate Civil War units
  • Category:Maryland Confederate Civil War regiments to Category:Maryland Confederate Civil War units
  • Category:Mississippi Civil War regiments to Category:Mississippi Civil War units
  • Category:Missouri Confederate Civil War regiments to Category:Missouri Confederate Civil War units
  • Category:North Carolina Confederate Civil War regiments to Category:North Carolina Confederate Civil War units
  • Category:South Carolina Confederate Civil War regiments to Category:South Carolina Confederate Civil War units
  • Category:Tennessee Confederate Civil War regiments to Category:Tennessee Confederate Civil War units
  • Category:Texas Confederate Civil War regiments to Category:Texas Confederate Civil War units
  • Category:Virginia Civil War regiments to Category:Virginia Confederate Civil War units
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion. More inclusive noun; existing noun "regiments" doesn't adequately cover other unit types like battalions and batteries. I have proposed adding "Confederate" to one or two categories where Union units were raised in the location as well. BusterD (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - Whole category scheming here needs fixed. Shouldn't be named solely for regiments, as there are non-regiment units in there. Hog Farm Talk 01:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change proposed renaming Our naming conventions go "X of Y." See WP:MILMOS#CATNAME, "Intersection categories:" "The names of intersection categories generally follow the same conventions as above, with the name components of their parent categories placed in normal grammatical order (usually with period/war designations given after country/branch ones). This produces, for example, "Naval battles of the Early Modern period" (type and period) and "Airborne regiments of the United States Army in World War II" (type, size, branch, and war)."
Thus they should be, for example, Category:Units and formations of Florida in the American Civil War, which would have to have a Union subcategory, a Confederate subcategory, and within those, possibly depending on numbers of regiments, cavalry and infantry sub sub categories, plus categories if necessary for battalions, brigades, companies etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Buckshot06 makes excellent points. My poverty of experience with categorization is showing here. BusterD (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In response to comments made in several of these discussions I propose a new structure for new category names which better matches MILMOS: ex. Category:Military units of the Confederate States Army from Alabama. Comments? BusterD (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (1) Need to make sure the state and Union/Confederate categories fit into each other properly, so you have state Union/Confederate subcats when the state sent soldiers to both sides that properly fit into the highest level Union & Confederate subcats. (2) Suggest Category:Units and formations of the Confederate States Army from Alabama, otherwise will not bring in formations - divisions, brigades, corps - as opposed to units and subunits, regiments, battalions and smaller, and, also, 'Military' is superfluous - all units, formations, etc of the CSA from Alabama and everywhere else were inherently military by their nature, covered by the word 'Army'. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buckshot06, currently there are far more Military units... categories (234) than Units... categories (28). Some of the Military units... are things like Category:Military units and formations of the United States, where Military isn't superfluous, but that doesn't explain away the large number difference.
    We could rename everything to Military units... for consistency (and pay a small price in redundancy and wordiness) or establish a "Military only if it's not implied" rule. Which would you prefer? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am super well aware of the numbers there; doesn't make it right, so the second alternative. I am removing 'Military' from categories when cat names need to change on occasion. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2021 (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/2021_April_23&oldid=1027077976"