Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 19

< January 18 January 20 >

January 19

Category:16th-century executions by Italy

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:16th-century executions by Italian states. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:16th-century executions by Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Nobody was executed by Italy in the 16th century. It didnt exist. Rathfelder (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle per nom, but merge to Category:16th-century executions. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:16th-century executions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:16th-century executions by Italian states, or otherwise Category:16th-century executions in Italy. Note that the parent Category:People executed by Italy includes subcategories for the various predecessor states of modern Italy: Category:People executed by Florence, Category:People executed by the Republic of Genoa, Category:People executed by the Duchy of Milan, Category:People executed by the Duchy of Modena and Reggio, Category:People executed by the Kingdom of Naples, Category:People executed by the Papal States, Category:People executed by the Kingdom of Sicily, Category:People executed by the Republic of Venice. There is little ambiguity of what the scope of this category is, just like sibling categories for 16th-century executions by Austria, Germany, Poland or Russia, other countries which had a very different form in the 16th century. Place Clichy (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:16th-century executions by Italian states, or otherwise Category:16th-century executions in Italy per PC. Also the sub-states should be nominated for renaming to "People executed in the Kingdom of Foo". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept somehow, I would rather prefer Category:16th-century executions by the Papal States and move the few articles not related to the Papal States to Category:16th-century executions after all. "By Italian states" is too vague and we do not use "in" for any siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well we probably should do - Category:16th-century executions by Germany has exactly the same issues, as do others in the tree. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is also a nonsense category. In theory it could be Category:16th-century executions by the Holy Roman Empire except that the Holy Roman Emperor did not have much power outside his own lands. E.g. there is no involvement by the emperor with the execution of Marco Bragadino. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doesn't it make more sense to convert the whole tree to "in" not "by"? Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regardless, I would still prefer "in the Papal States". Note that a number of these executions relates to religious matters. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • This does not require CfD: anyone can create thinner categories for the actual states involved, in the entire tree. It does require some work though. Place Clichy (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Renaming the Germany category into Holy Roman Empire would actually worsen the problem, as the involvement of the Empire itself was probably very small in matters of secular justice of the sovereign states within it. However the loose definition of Germany allows several topics to fall under a simple umbrella term widely understood and consistent with other historical eras. Place Clichy (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That Italy didn't exist in the 16th century is a nonsense myth - as a geographical region it has existed for well over 2,000 years, longer than Germany etc. We have dozens of medieval & Renaissance Italian categories. A rename to Category:16th-century executions in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seems simplest, & does the job. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to to Category:16th-century executions by Italian states per Laurel Lodged; Italy existed per Johnbod in the same way Europe existed, but alas Italy - like Europe - didn't execute anybody. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This, and some of those listed above by Place Clichy give the impression that these executions were performed by or for the named states - which did not then exist. That's a different matter from categories which relate to the territory now occupied by those states. When it comes to executions political authority seems more defining than geography. Rathfelder (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I said they existed in much different form, but they did exist. Terms like Germany, Austria, Russia, Poland or, for that matter, Turkey, can perfectly be used to describe early modern states, despite the differences in borders and political regime, and were used in the era for this purpose. The trouble with Italy is that there was nothing looking like an state of Italy, although there were Italian people, Italian wars etc. INDENTing your replies would make discussion easier. Place Clichy (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:16th-century executions by Italian states There were many Italian states in the 16th century, but not a unified Italian states. Dimadick (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there is clearly no support for merging which I suggested earlier, I am also okay with Category:16th-century executions by Italian states. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- I prefer "in Italy" but the other option would also do. Italy is defined quite easily by being south of the Alps. There were a myriad of states, so that using this as a regional description is OK. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 23 January 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:High school students who committed suicide

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 to Category:Youth suicides. Closed with the discussion immediately below this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:High school students who committed suicide to Category:Youth suicides or Category:Adolescent suicides
Nominator's rationale: merge, the categories seemingly have the same scope. The merge target depends on the outcome of the discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Youth suicides — not the same scope, they are by education. Recently, I'd proposed renaming these to Youth Suicides (matching main article), but folks didn't support it. Therefore, I'd divided by age and education, as seemed to be desired. Happy that folks have seen the light.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to whichever target category is still standing. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Youth suicides. Their age is the one which defines the group, not their identity as students. I doubt there is a clear connection between their school life and the suicide. Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to adolescent suicides. I think we should cut at age 18, not 21. Either way, college students can and often are over 21. Of the years I was an undergrad college student, 4 of them I was at least 22-years-old. There are huge numbers of so-called "non-traditional students", so this is something to keep in mind. I see no particular reason to distinguish a 13-year-old who commits suicide in high school, a youth who commits sucide the summer before he starts high-school, a high school student who commits sucide, and a 17-year-old who commits suicide the summer after he graduated high school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 25 January 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:Adolescent suicides

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. Closed with the discussion immediately above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the categories seemingly have the same scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — not the same scope, they are by age. Recently, I'd proposed renaming these to Youth Suicides (matching main article), but folks didn't support it. Therefore, I'd divided by age and education, as seemed to be desired. All the children turned out to be adolescents. Happy that folks have seen the light.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine/Lean Toward "Adolescent"under "Youth" These cover the same areas and should be merged. Fine with either name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A problem is that the other student category Category:College students who committed suicide are not usually adolescent. Youth fits them all comfortably.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That college example and the main article mentioned changed my mind. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:52, 24 January 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:People educated at Kings College Budo

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) 01:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These look as though they are intended to be the same category to me. The wikipage for the school to which the category corresponds, King's College Budo, has an apostrophe in the title. Dsp13 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 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:Country subdivisions

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:Administrative divisions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D.
This is uncontroversial, and all the ongoing discussions were completed.
This a compound neologism by banned User:Tobias Conradi, who used 150+ sockpuppets over 5+ years to spam this all over wikipedia, one of the worst cases ever seen. One of the sockpuppets was User:Country subdivision. Before coming here, he'd been banned at the German wikipedia. These were all supposed to be fixed (and many articles were simply deleted), but sadly others linger a decade later. It is so easy to mass create categories, and so much harder to fix them.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • Category:Country subdivisions to Category:Administrative division – C2D Administrative division, the "types of " are a subcategory.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose speedy. I am sympathetic to the name change, but this is not uncontroversial and there are ongoing discussions about this. It needs a full discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Administrative division seems to me a most unsatisfactory name. Administrative division of what? I expect there are medium sized businesses which have an administrative division. And is it a topic category or a set category (in which case it should be plural)? (Here is one in Oklahoma. Another in a university.) Country subdivision in contrast is much clearer and usages outside wikipedia are easily found: eg www.iso.org. Oculi (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please consult a textbook, or even a dictionary. By definition, a "subdivision" is smaller than a "division". See also a few online examples, taken from the first page of search (there are hundreds of pages of examples):
    1. "County, internal territorial and administrative division in the United Kingdom, United States, and other English-speaking countries." (britannica)
    2. "A HISTORY OF RUSSIAN ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES (XVIII - XX centuries) "The history of administrative division now is not only the matter of pure academic interest...."
    3. Library of Congress Maps "Administrative and Political Divisions"
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, beware of WP:CIRCULAR sourcing. Many references to "country subdivision" (as opposed to "county subdivision") are likely taken from wikipedia. Remember, this has been circulating for over 10 years, because the wikijanitors didn't promptly clean up after Conradi was banished.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have consulted a dictionary. "[ C or U ] any of the parts into which something is divided" (Cambridge). 'Country subdivision' seems exactly right (regardless of the status of any editors). I concede that the US meaning is different ("an area containing a large number of houses or apartments built close together at the same time") but then I am in the UK. Oculi (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop WP:GASLIGHTING. That citation is not useful, as you are only checking "subdivision". Moreover disingenuous, as a quick search of that specific dictionary shows (among 20 examples):
  1. The administrative division of the colony was designed to rule the population as effectively as possible through the chieftaincies already in place. (From the Cambridge English Corpus)
  2. This revolution led to a new administrative division of the country, 3 with provinces, divisions (d'partements), sub-divisions (arrondissements), and districts. (From the Cambridge English Corpus)
  3. Any legal questions raised by an inspector at any time, in relation to a specific case, or otherwise, would come to a departmental lawyer from the administrative division responsible. (From the Hansard archive)
  • As a UK resident, you might consult the political science and/or geography departments of your alma mater. After all, these English terms "administrative division" and "political division" originated in Britain, and were promulgated worldwide over many years.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking up in the Oxford and Collins British English dictionaries, both consider the words division and subdivision to apply both to the action of dividing and the result of this action, the prefix sub- applying to a second division of something that is already divided. In this regard, using the term subdivision to entities under countries is correct, because countries and borders do indeed divide something, Humankind. However as a non-native English speaker I will trust your analysis that administrative division is a better umbrella term in the present case. Place Clichy (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't have access to a Collins. The Michigan copy of OED has 104,650 full text results of the exact phrase "administrative division", at least two (on the first page) may be of immediate interest to some folks:
  • United Kingdom, administrative divisions (Published 1988)
  • Census of India, 1951
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note that this is supposed to be the topic category, while "Types of ..." would be the set category. That would also be "(political geography)". Technically.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle per WP:C2D; with a preference for plural Category:Administrative divisions. A common outcome is also needed for the subcategories such as Category:Types of country subdivisions below and the many in Category:Country subdivisions by country which are not currently nominated. Place Clichy (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminder that your previous nomination is the reason that we don't have Category:Administrative divisions, now a redirect. This is the topic category, so it should be singular.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually the set category (diffused in Category:Country subdivisions by country, Category:Country subdivisions by continent, Category:Country subdivisions by administrative level etc.) and needs the plural if renamed to Category:Administrative divisions. The topic category is currently Category:Types of country subdivisions, with topic articles about the various types of counties, satrapies, districts, provinces etc. Place Clichy (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We are having some kind of misunderstanding of topic and set categories. This has the main article that describes the topic, thus it is the parent topic category. It contains various sets, such as Lists or, Types of, by country, etc. Perhaps you desire a completely different organization?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it wiser (maybe for now) to keep the scope of the current categories as they are now, which does not work so bad, and focus on substituting the term of country subdivision by that of administrative division. That's the core issue, per the discussions about the main article Administrative division. Also you seem to be the only one in this discussion to consider that the top category (presently at Category:Country subdivisions) is a topic category. Fighting too many fights at the same time will lead to a WP:TRAINWRECK. Place Clichy (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT of Category:Administrative divisions (political geography). How is it a topic? It's a set so needs to be plural. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plural or not is a relatively minor issue, but almost every subcategory in this tree is a set category (Category:States of the United States etc.), so it is more natural when the top category is also in plural. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is also a subcat of the set category Category:Administrative territorial entities via Category:Administrative territorial entities by type. A subset of a set category is a set category. A set category can easily have a main article, which could also be the main article for a topic category. Oculi (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, per @Place Clichy, Marcocapelle, and Laurel Lodged: to avoid TRAINWRECK I'll add the plural alternative as well, and we can argue about set versus topic at a later time. Currently, it has only two articles, one of which is the main topic, and a heap of categories to be renamed accordingly later.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as effectuating decisions already made (and correctly IMO) to move away from "country subdivision" toward "administrative division". -- I note with some amusement that a Google search on "country subdivisions" india yields a results page headed (by Google) "Administrative Divisions / India". Same thing with Nigeria, Peru, Japan, Turkey, and probably most other nations. Kestenbaum (talk) 01:45, 26 January 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:Exoplanets discovered by HatNet

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) 01:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Correct capitalization, see HATNet Project. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 16:47, 19 January 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:Universities and colleges in Historical Germany

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#Category:Universities and colleges in Historical Germany

Category:Types of country subdivisions

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 discussion was closed with this one to result in a uniform outcome. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D.
As suggested during closing of:
This a compound neologism by banned User:Tobias Conradi, who used 150+ sockpuppets over 5+ years to spam this all over wikipedia, one of the worst cases ever seen. One of the sockpuppets was User:Country subdivision. Before coming here, he'd been banned at the German wikipedia. These were all supposed to be fixed (and many articles were simply deleted), but sadly others linger a decade later. It is so easy to mass create categories, and so much harder to fix them.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose as is. This nomination has no meaning if not nominated together with parent Category:Country subdivisions and other subcategories. You need to put together a bundled nomination following the quite simple steps at WP:CFD#HOWTO, rather than multiple discussions. Do not hesitate to ask for help if this is an issue. Place Clichy (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the parent above, that was already at Speedy C2D. You and only you opposed. There is no reason whatsoever to start a WP:TRAINWRECK.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm only trying to help. You'll get the expected result more easily with a clean bundled nomination. Place Clichy (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been more help for the C2D to be speedy. That's why we have C2D — and speedy. This just made the process longer and thereby fraught with error potential from WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to Category:Types of administrative divisions (using plural) per WP:C2D now that Category:Country subdivisions was nominated above, expecting a common outcome to both discussions (and for the many subcategories). Place Clichy (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Types" is already plural, so that would be a plural plural. This is the set category. Thanks for clarifying.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for goodness sake Carlos, none of those examples are administrative divisions. Some are political divisions, a separate tree. Most are geographic regions, and we already have that completely separate tree.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad point, as nothing Carlos listed is in this category. You mention 2 that already are miscategorized, proving the point that this is poorly named. Apparently, editors are confused.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to explain in previous discussions: Regions, Political divisions, and Administrative divisions are separate, but related. They are "side-by-side", and can be overlapping. In general terms Regions subsumes the others, and most (but not all) Administrative divisions are wholly inside Political divisions. A strict heirarchy would be Region >>> Political >>> Administrative, but I'm against a strict heirarchy as that's harder to make workable. We already have a parent, Category:Geography by location.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrigation district and Police area are not currently miscategorized because they are country divisions. They will be miscategorized after renaming to Category:Types of administrative divisions so that is why we need a new parent category. Which, by the way, does not mean that I am opposing the nomination! Just flagging an issue that can be solved afterwards. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 23 January 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:Songs written by Johnny "Country" Mathis

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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Songs written by Johnny "Country" Mathis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category contains one redirect only. No assistance to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found 3 pages to add. Oculi (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination Good work Oculi, you did what I should have done. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:24, 19 January 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:Extinct insect families

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Category:Extinct insect families

Category:Unity (game engine) games

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Category:Unity (game engine) games

Category:Pages with misplaced 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 as nominated. Everyone agreed they should be merged together; there were more in favour of doing this than a reverse merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The categories serve pretty much the same purpose, so upmerge. JsfasdF252 (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JsfasdF252 (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge might be simpler, as the latter is really a subset of the former, but the former is currently a subcategory of the latter. That is, they are all "misplaced".
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge They have the same purpose. For William Allen Simpson while semantically you are correct, after checking all uses every misplaced template is found by a namespace check. Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace makes it very clear why the page is there while Category:Pages with misplaced templates is less specific. --Trialpears (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I prefer semantic correctness. The rest will follow.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JsfasdF252 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Reverse Merge This !vote is probably not helpful since the disagreement seems to be over the target name and there is consensus that they should be combined. I can't conjure up an opinion on the naming though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't the name be prefaced with "Wikipedia"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are about a thousand maintenance categories beginning with "Pages",[1] compared to about 200 beginning with "Wikipedia pages". – Fayenatic London 11:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for reference, in case I or anybody else wants to work on them: several other Wikipedias have the same duplication. Wikidata links: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14405618 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7481922 – Fayenatic London 11:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My perspective on this is that merging these either way is preferable to having two different ones, but that Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace is a much better name since there are no other ways templates can be misplaced that is currently detected by any templates. It can also be confusing as my association from the title "Pages with misplaced templates" is that it would be template placed in the wrong part of the page such as hatnotes in the middle and stub sorting at the top. My outrageously bad metaphor here would be a "People in the royal society" being renamed to "Primates in the royal society"; both are correct and the second one is broader, but it is very unlikely that a chimpanzee will be admitted to the royal society and makes the title confusing since the name sounds like it would be filled with monkeys. Now you know why I'll never be an author. --Trialpears (talk) 12:09, 22 January 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.

Qajar Iran

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) 01:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: rename, these categories refer to the country (Qajar Iran), not to the ruling family (Qajar dynasty). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, good catch. – Fayenatic London 09:30, 22 January 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:Animated films directed by Live-action filmmakers

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Animated films directed by Live-action filmmakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem like a defining category. What makes one specifically a 'live-action filmmaker' beyond the fact that they directed a live-action film, and why is it notable if a live-action filmmaker directs an animated film? DonIago (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no rules restricting a filmmaker to a single medium or genre. Dimadick (talk) 13:42, 19 January 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:NFL International Series

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:NFL International Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete a category with a subcategory for teams that have participated (nominated also as a WP:PERFCAT, three venues (also indicative of WP:PERFCAT) and the article on the program. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 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:NFL International Series participants

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:NFL International Series participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete teams that have played a game outside the US during their season - not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:54, 19 January 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:Voroshilovgrad/Lugansk locomotives

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:Luhanskteplovoz locomotives. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Voroshilovgrad/Lugansk locomotives to Category:Voroshilovgrad/Luhansk locomotives
Nominator's rationale: As can be seen from Wikipedia redirecting Lugansk to Luhansk, the city's correct name to use in English text is Luhansk. Lugansk is the city's Russian-language name and correct only in text written in Russian. Dakkus (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 19 January 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:Destroyed landmarks in Latvia

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. A strong consensus seems to be developing in the later discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Destroyed landmarks in Latvia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Landmarks is subjective, and the lone article in the category is already properly upmerged in Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Latvia. SportingFlyer T·C 00:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete — might as well be speedy, with the only entry already in the parent.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a member of Category:Destroyed landmarks by country. Dropping this category destroys the comprehensiveness of Category:Destroyed landmarks which is subdivided into countries. Or do you want to delete coverage of all the require some new weird category like Category:Destroyed landmarks in countries where there are only two or fewer currently known by Wikipedia editors as of December 2020, to round out the bigger country-based categories? Or what? I don't visit CFD very often, but isn't this completely basic about how categories are supposed to work? SportingFlyer, I have the impression we've agreed about a lot of things over many years, can you possibly please tell me what I'm missing? Please do ping me in any reply. --Doncram (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure - I've been catting a lot of buildings recently and have identified this category structure as a whole as subjective and duplicative, so have been doing the work to manually merge/nominate these as I get done with them. "Landmark" only has legal definition in a few countries, so being a "landmark" is not only not defining, but impossible to determine in most instances. Also "Destroyed landmarks by country" is almost always duplicative of either "Demolished buildings or structures in X" or "Buildings and structures destroyed during X event" categories. A bulk nomination ended in no consensus for a variety of reasons, including the fact Canada has a natural feature which was destroyed. SportingFlyer T·C 11:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective and this only has 1 article so it isn't aiding navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep that's what I'd like to say. Landmarks are important for orientation! Nominator is wrong in assuming it's mostly buildings and structures, there are lots of mountains and canyons and even old big trees that are landmarks and also frequently preservation of sites of historic interest. OTOH I see that's at the moment only one entry so the smallcat rule comes to mind. Hey RevelationDirect, on what factual basis are you that sure that the state of Latvia has no heritage conservation? If they have your subjectivity presumption would be completely wrong. Well, I'm afraid no one here (including me) has enough latvian language competence to prove or reject the heritage lists approach. Maybe in the depths of the European Union's translation efforts to support international cooperation could help? No, I don't know where to look for it. Difficult case. --Just N. (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure we can make exceptions for mountains and canyons and big trees. Assuming any of them are destroyed, and had officially been designated as landmsrks, perhaps with a sign, that can be photographed for posterity.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demolished buildings and structures in Latvia, whether or not on a heritage list, are in Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Latvia. That is not difficult to find at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Landmark is subjective. (Destroyed) landmark categories that merely serve as duplicates for notable buildings should be purged and/or deleted, in the interest of navigation. As it stands now, these destroyed landmarks categories have been filled with every synagogue destroyed by the Nazis, every destroyed building in Spain and in Kyiv, every former church either in Kosovo or burnt in the Great Fire of London, every either Albanian or Serbian cultural or religious site in Kosovo, etc. This does not seem consistent with the definition of landmark given in the dedicated article, but an indiscriminate collection of buildings. Place Clichy (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up see this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 24 January 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:International Triathlon Union world championships

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: not much discussion here, but we'll go with rename to Category:World championships of World Triathlon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:International Triathlon Union world championships to Category:World Triathlon championships
Nominator's rationale: International Triathlon Union underwent a rebranding and is now known as 'World Triathlon'. Cat renaming would reflect this. Also purposely excluding 'world' in the proposed renaming from the current 'world championships' to be more inclusive of any continental championships that would fall under the umbrella of World Triathlon (e.g. Europe Triathlon Championships). Previously failed C2D. BarkeepChat 17:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 19 January 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:Endemol Shine 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: merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Endemol Shine Group had been acquired by Banijay in July 2020 and the acquired company has absorbed. Ridwan97 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Category:Banijay Group could be possibly better? Just taking over the pure new naming has a disadvantage: all historical and personal memories of the old negative connotations are stripped away. The new name is without any connected meaning except for professional insiders. Adding Group could flag the fact also for non-insiders (most of our users are not insiders) that Banijay is another corporation. In case that Banijay Corp never ever uses "Banijay Group" well, then it's not an option and my proposal withdrawn. --Just N. (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per nom to match Banijay. The Alt Rename above is preferable to no change though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, this might stay as a history category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 19 January 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 Excellent Order of Independence

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Excellent Order of Independence
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SMALLCAT, WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of Independence (Iran) is an award that has only ever been issued 3 times but that rarity doesn't seem to translate to defining-ness: the articles list the award in the infobox but otherwise make no mention of it. These are all very high ranking Iranian officials (a Prime Minister, a First Vice President, and military Chief of Staff) who are already well categorized under Category:Prime Ministers of Iran, Category:First Vice Presidents of Iran and Category:Military chiefs of staff. The recipients are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 19 January 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 Kulm Cross

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Kulm Cross
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Kulm Cross was a Prussian medal, although none of the recipients in the category were Prussian or German. Instead of me telling you why this award is non-defining, I'm just gonna give you a line from the introduction to the main article:
"It was not awarded for any special act of courage or merit."
Ouch! There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 19 January 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:Pompeii (gens)

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) 01:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match with Category:Helvii (Romans): 'Pompeii' in Latin is masculine plural whereas 'gens' is feminine singular, so the current form is grammatically incorrect. That's what was argued in the discussion on the 'Helvii' category, and it resulted in the category having its current name. Avilich (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per reasons given.★Trekker (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- While the nom is grammatically correct in his analysis, I do not think this is a case where the two need to agree. "gens" is specific "Romans" is far too general. Rename Helvii to match, if that is a gens. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why should they not agree? Saying 'Helvii is a gens' is wrong, but 'Helvii are Romans' is correct. All Romans were members of a gens, so 'Romans' is no more broad than it needs to be. Avilich (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Language purists already agreed on the "(Romans)" qualifier to distinguish from "(Gauls)". This is a continuation of that decision. The parent is Category:Roman gentes, not "gens". Category:Pompeii is a disambiguation that will need to be updated.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: the two certainly do need to agree. You wouldn't have a category called "Nikola Tesla (women)" referring to the masculine singular Nikola Tesla. There are two logical names for this category: "Pompeia gens", matching the main article, or the current proposal. I think the former is preferable, but either is acceptable; the present name is not. P Aculeius (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Note that gentes is the plural of gens, in English and in Latin. It is also correct to call the family Pompeia gens (or gens Pompeia) which is singular and feminine, and to collectively call members of the family Pompeii which is masculine and plural, as we do for all categories for Roman families at Category:Roman gentes. The (gens) part here is only a disambiguator, which is needed because of ambiguous Category:Pompeii. In this regard, it is a better disambiguator than (Romans) because the latter is less precise, and the category explicitly refers to the gens. Place Clichy (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The level of precision is actually near identical: 'gens' is extremely broad since all Romans were members of a gens, and the concept of gens was not inclusive of non-Romans, aside from other Italians who were eventually incorporated into Roman society (strictly, the correct disambiguator would be 'gentiles', but that will be too easily confused with non-jews). Very few people will bat an eye and know that Pompeii is a plural word, and adding "Romans" helps with that. 'gens' will be just as foreign to most people. As I said before, "Pompeii is a gens" is wrong, but "Pompeii are Romans" is correct. Avilich (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps more importantly, we're dealing with a category. People aren't going to stumble into it from the main page or the search window; the only way they'll reach it without typing "category:" in the seach window is from an article about one or more of the gentiles, and since all of those are named Pompeius or Pompeia, the meaning shouldn't surprise anybody. To the extent we can envision someone confusing the plural of Pompeius with the city of Pompeii, hatnotes should be more than sufficient to direct readers to the appropriate articles—but it's unlikely anyone will arrive on the category page as the result of such confusion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No actual change in scope, but cleared category name. Dimadick (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why not the singular then, e.g. Category:Gens Pompeia or Category:Pompeia gens (after the article)? After all, categories for families and noble houses are usually named in the singluar, e.g. Category:Kennedy family or Category:House of Hanover, not Kennedys or Hanoverians. Place Clichy (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the convention already in place, you'd have to change all 244 categories to match that. Gentes are not dynasties or even necessarily families. These categories are about groups of people, so it's already technically correct to use the plural form "Julii", which (at least this one in particular) is probably just as common as calling it a gens. Avilich (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would probably be an improvement to rename these categories, and this would clarify their scope. In practice it makes very little difference to consider if a category about a group of people is about the group or about the people. Place Clichy (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This category and one or two others are only being renamed because they share a name with some other category: Pompeii, the town; Helvii, the ancient Swiss tribe. Normally there's no ambiguity. There's no people called "the Julii", only members of the Julia gens. Is a different format preferable for all similar categories? That's a matter of opinion—and a question that would need to be discussed elsewhere, not here. But it's not essential that all related categories have a perfectly consistent format—nor is it possible in most large groups. It doesn't hurt anything if some articles or some categories require additional disambiguation and others don't. P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 24 January 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_January_19&oldid=1138412484"