Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 28

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< February 27 March 1 >

February 28

edit

Category:Zionist Women

edit
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: manual upmerge to Category:Zionists, Category:Women activists and Category:Jewish women as appropriate. – Fayenatic London 12:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The capitalization needs to be fixed if the name is kept. Rather than putting this through a speedy rename, I thought I'd bring it here to determine which is preferable, Category:Zionist women or Category:Women Zionists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 28 February 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:Bishops by nationality

edit
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/rename as a first step; there is agreement that further work/nominations will be required. Pinging Rathfelder. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For bishops location is far more significant than nationality, and its not clear what nationality is meant - is it the nationality of individual bishops, or the nationality of the diocese? What is clear is that these two categories confuse many editors. There will need to be considerable adjustments to the subcategories if this is agreed. I think Bishops in Foo is clearer than Fooish bishops. For individuals where their nationality is significant, and different from location, we could use Fooish clergy. Rathfelder (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are a lot more bishops: see Category:American bishops. This nom, if fully implemented, would clog up cfd for an eternity. I think a bishop is both 'fooish' and 'in bar': John Sentamu is Ugandan (and presumably British) and seems reasonably categorised. (I expect a bishop in a country will be obliged to become a citizen thereof.) Oculi (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between these trees really is in people who migrated from the country of birth to the country where they became a bishop. As nominator pointed out in another discussion, "FOOIAN bishop" for the country of birth is factually wrong. Having said that, this nomination does not take the right order imho. We cannot merge e.g.Category:Eastern Orthodox bishops by nationality when we have not dissolved its by-nationality subcategories yet or when we are not dissolving them simultaneously with the top category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that this is quite a complex undertaking, but there seems to be a good deal of agreement that it is desireable. I think the main argument for me is that the categories are not self explanatory and so dont work as two separate hierarchies. The vast majority of the nationality categories I've looked at (and these may be unrepresentative, but still a significant number) are largely populated by expatriate/emigrant clergy categorised by their diocese. Some of them stay for good and some go back home. Not a single one has mentioned citizenship. I certainly dont see any suggestion that they are obliged to change their citizenship. John Sentamu is unusual in that he came from Africa to the UK and so is notable for that. Thousands went the other way and were therefore not notable as migrants. Rathfelder (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We should aim mainly to have categories of the target type, which tend to be categories of bishops by diocese, where they served, which is what is important. There is also scope for categories for individual bishops by national origin where this is not where they were serving. This applies to missionary bishops in Africa (often British for Anglicans; Irish for Catholics), including a recent Dean of Lichfield, who had been a bishop somewhere in Africa; earlier there were a lot more. John Sentamu was (I think) ordained while in exile; I expect that he was naturalised British. There was also a Bishop of Rochester, who was a convert from Islam and probably of Pakistani extraction. These are worth picking out by having a separate tree for bishops serving other than in the country of their birth (or something like that). However, this is probably a case that will have to be kept open when there is an agreed solution, for manual alteration of categories in such multi-national cases: it can only be closed when some one can assure us that all cases such as Sentamu's have been appropriately recategorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This goes against my votes in all previous, similar nominations. But I've come round to seeing that nationality is too problematic and that geography (of the diocese) is much more reliable. Let us cater for Irish men who go to Australia and become bishops there or Englishmen who go to Darkest Africa and become bishops there as exceptions with suitable "Ex pat bishops of Foo" categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whatever is picked, please make it time-period agnostic and differentiate between ethnicity and citizenship. Imagine a subject of the Hapsburg Monarchy who was an ethnic Ukrainian and became a priest in in Poland and later a bishop in the the Soviet Union before escaping to Canada, not serving as bishop there but becoming a Canadian citizen, then retiring to the USA but never becoming an American citizen. This person could be called a Austrian- Ukrainian- Polish- Soviet-, Canadian- or American- bishop, but with a slightly different meaning in each case (birthplace, ethnicity, citizenship, place of work while bishop, etc.). Be clear which one you intend! --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • think we should deal primarily with denomination and location, as far as bishops go. I dont think you can become a bishop without being a priest first, at least not in modern times, so if we want to categorise them by nationality or ethnicity they can be dealt with that way. NB in the 19th century, at least in the Anglican churches, almost all bishops outside the UK were expatriates. The notable ones are the first bishops of local origin. I've been through more than a thousand articles about bishops now and not a single one has said anything about changing nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the nom. is well done as I think the diocese is more important than the citizenship of the bishop. However, we have parallel trees for the Roman Catholics: Category:Roman Catholic bishops by nationality (which is presumably by citizenship, and which subcategories can also be subcategories of nationality by occupation, etc.) and Category:Roman Catholic bishops by country (which is presumably by diocese and can be put as subcategories of people from type categories). I think that creating that parallel for the other denominations is preferable per Rathfelder's comment (excluding ethnicity) and merging Category:Roman Catholic bishops by country to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese makes clear that it is where they minister not what papers they carry that is being categorized. And make the other denominations match that formulation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with Carlossuarez46 but I havent done much work on other denominations yet. There could be significant differences. But more importantly I dont want this exercise to become impossibly large and complex. Rathfelder (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking of examining individual countries and nationalities to see what the implications would be. The three denomination categories above for renaming should be relatively straightforward, as should most small countries, but I suspect the USA and the Roman Catholic Church may be more difficult. For many smaller countries we can just rename Fooish bishops to Bishops in Foo. If the principle is agreed this can be done speedily. Then we will need to think about the implications for other sorts of Christian clergy. Sadly I dont get the impression that most editors who write ecclesiastical articles are very interested in categorisation, which is a pity as I certainly dont regard myself as an expert in this area. Rathfelder (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok then support despite my earlier objection against the wrong order of nominating. The situation of having a nationality and a country category of the same country as siblings will only be temporary. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this too. It also avoids the use of demonyns which I abhor. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose If we want to do this we need to nominate both these and all the child categories as a group. If we are going to go for the targets we need to rename all the child categories to use in, and we need to do this all at once and have all the categories tagged so as many people as possible will be notified. We cannot do this to the parent and not rename the child categories to conform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont think that is a practical possibility. Nor do I think it necessary. Because "Nationality" is ambiguous in this context - its not clear whether it is supposed to be the nationality of the bishop or of the diocese - most of the subcategories are a mix of the two, and far more are the nationality of the diocese than of the individual (where they are different). The point of the nomination is to try and unscramble the mess.

If the principle is agreed I am happy to work on individual countries and leave the top level mergers for a bit.Rathfelder (talk) 00:17, 10 March 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:Invincible Overlord songs

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 9 of the entries are redirects to the artist's page. The remaining entry Bathwater (song) is not a redirect, it is a song by No Doubt which was then remixed by Invincible Overlord. The redirects serve no navigational assistance, the question remains whether remixes should appear in the XXX songs category? Richhoncho (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – You're right. I apologize for even making this category in the first place. For the record, I only added Bathwater (song) because the remix charted in various territories, and I would not normally include those categories for song remixes. Carbrera (talk) 21:02, 28 February 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:Judges of the Tripura High Court

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Indian HC judges are called Justices technically. Judge is a term used for subordinate judiciary there. Rahul Bott (talk) 17:07, 28 February 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:Welsh Christian ministers

edit
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) 00:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A redundant duplication of scope. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category seems to include people whose title is 'minister' which is not the only title held by Protestant clergy (see Category:Welsh priests which includes the subcategory Category:Anglican priests and a bunch of folks who seem to be from other Protestant denominations. I don't think that a category for those folks who have a particular title (minister) vs. another analogous (priest or clergyman/clergywoman) one is appropriate per WP:SHAREDNAME. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated. They should already be individually categorized by denomination, no need for over-specialization. Don't see a need for distinguishing Anglicans from others at this level, but there is a well developed tree separating Protestants from various Catholic variants. While many evangelicals view Anglicans and Lutherans and Presbyterians as warmed over Catholics, we don't need to appease them here.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:33, 7 March 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.

People from Magnesia (regional unit)

edit
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Volos (125,000 people), Sourpi (3,000 people) and Zagora, Greece (2,000 people). The nomination includes Category:People from Milies with 5 people however the last one is actually from a village in the neighbourhood. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 28 February 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.

People from Messenia

edit
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) 00:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case Kalamata (55,000 people), Messini (6,000 people), Gargalianoi (5,500 people) and Kyparissia‎ (6,000 people). The nomination includes Category:People from Koroni with 5 articles, however 2 of which are about people from villages in the neighbourhood. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The area from Koroni's center to Agios Georgios is continuously inhabited, just pointing it out for future reference. Falanthi does seem to be dependent on Koroni, but is a different settlement. --Antondimak (talk) 14:42, 28 February 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.

People from Pella (regional unit)

edit
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case Giannitsa (30,000 people), Edessa, Greece (19,000 people) and Aridaia (7,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pella has 20 members, most of them ancients, since it was the capital of ancient Macedonia. --Antondimak (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is from the same area, and that's how he is categorised. There are 20 people from Pella in Wikipedia (at least those currently categorised). I don't see how 19 of them being ancient makes the category non-viable. The reason the subcategory exists is to make this difference clearer, but it doesn't influence the parent category. --Antondimak (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what the problem is with the category right now. It doesn't have 1 member, it has 20. It's just that 19 of them are further categorised because of another similar attribute (the time during which they lived). It's like when we categorise people from a place based on their occupation. We don't delete the category later for being small, just because we created more subcategories and there are less direct members. (I also just translated the lead of an article about an MP from Pella, so Misirkov isn't alone anymore). --Antondimak (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even container categories are a thing, because it seems to be generally agreed that categories like this do aid navigation, but whatever. If it's necessary, merging "Ancient Pellans" to "People from Pella" would be better. --Antondimak (talk) 07:16, 2 March 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:Heterostracan incertae sedis

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 12#Category:Heterostracan incertae sedis

Category:Angiosperm incertae sedis

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 12#Category:Angiosperm incertae sedis

Category:Prokaryotes taxonomy

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grammar correction. This will also bring the category in line with Category:Eukaryote taxonomy and Category:Virus taxonomy, which use singular. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:10, 28 February 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:Spirituals

edit
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) 00:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly-created category that largely duplicates existing Category:African-American spiritual songs. There could be an argument for a C2D reverse merger given the main article is at Spirituals and starts with "Spirituals (also known as Negro spirituals, Spiritual music, or African-American spirituals)". However Spiritual is a dab so there is an anti-dab argument in favour of the longer title for the category. Le Deluge (talk) 12:04, 28 February 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:Canadian Anglican Church in North America members

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. All that was left to merge was Category:Canadian bishops of the Anglican Church in North America. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can see the church is called Anglican Church of Canada. Rathfelder (talk) 12:03, 28 February 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:Living assistant bishops in the Church of England

edit
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A temporary status. We dont have any other categories for living people by occupation. Rathfelder (talk) 10:42, 28 February 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 Military Karl-Friedrich Merit Order

edit
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD-All, WP:OVERLAPCAT-2, WP:TRIVIALCAT-3, WP:PERFCAT-4)
The Military Karl-Friedrich Merit Order was ostensibly a military award of the German Grand Duchy of Baden although its actual usage was broader:
1: Soldiers from Baden: I could imagine this group being defined by the award but, in practice, it get's mentioned in passing and the Iron Cross is more prominent (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
2: Local Royals: These are already under either Category:Princes of Baden or Category:Grand Dukes of Baden and are not defined by the award (8, 9, 10, 11).
3: Foreign Male Royals who Married into the Baden Royal Family: Not even close to being defining (12, 13, 14, 15).
4: De Facto Campaign Medal: Some foreign career soldiers fought briefly in Baden (16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21).
5: No Clear Connection to Baden: This isn't an outlier, the almost half of the articles mention the award but make no other mention of Baden. Maybe it was a diplomatic award, maybe it was given to allies, but whatever the reasons it's not defining because it doesn't even come up. (22-39)
There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any readers interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 28 February 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:Bialik Prize recipients

edit
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The city government of Tel Aviv, Israel gives out a pair of Bialik Prizes each year, one for Hebrew literature an one for Jewish thought. (The top career award for both specialties is likely the national Israel Prize, which has specific categories for both Hebrew literature and Jewish thought.) This local award is typically listed in passing with other honours so it doesn't seem defining in articles like Moshe Shamir, Moshe Idel or any others you want to click on. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 28 February 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_February_28&oldid=1015061266"