Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< May 9 May 11 >

May 10

Category:People of the May Coup (Poland)

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, see also previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_20#Category:May_Coup_(Poland). – Fayenatic London 13:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to parent categories, this category merely contains two subcategories and nothing else, this is unhelpful for easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2017 (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:Deaf electronic musicians

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in Cat. JDDJS (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2017 (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:Removed Monuments and Memorials of the Confederate States of America

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) 05:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has just one entry; perhaps something more general like "Category:Removed monuments and memorials" would be helpful? --Another Believer (Talk) 17:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Orleans has announced publicly, recently, that three other similar monuments are to be removed within weeks. See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vigil-vs-removal-of-statue-of-confederate-president-jefferson-davis-in-new-orleans/ deisenbe (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete -- changed my vote Herostratus (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC) of kept rename to Defunct Confederate States of America monuments and memorials, rather than just "removed". Or possibly "former". (I think "defunct" is used a lot in our category names; whether "defunct" or "former" or "removed" or some other word best matches how our categories are named, maybe the closer will know and she can choose. I just think "removed" is slightly narrower than "defunct" -- what if wasn't removed but just fell apart in place or was painted over or whatever? As to nominator's point, there are surely more than one such monument that no longer exists?[reply]
I suggested "____ Confederate States of America monuments and memorials" rather than the current formulation mainly just to match the parent category, Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials; "of the" slightly gives the impression of "belonging to" and that would only cover those few memorials that existed in the CSA 1861-1865. Herostratus (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gramatically, a memorial can be former or removed, but it cannot be defunct. deisenbe (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, fair point. I mean it's arguable -- "defunct" can mean "no longer in use", so mayyyybe. But OK Former Confederate States of America monuments and memorials is fine too. Herostratus (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be wrong. They're not former or defunct. They've just hidden away.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are? My assumption that the category would cover all Confederate monuments and memorials which existed but now don't exist as memorials and monuments. Pieces of them may exist or they may be boxed up in storage (apparently this is the deal with the Liberty Monument) or whatever. We don't want to overcategorize into separate categories for those which were destroyed, those which have just fallen over, those which have been covered up, those in storage, and so forth. "Former" covers all that. "Former" covers a lot of things. Willie Mays is a "former" baseball player. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist on some level. It doesn't even mean he couldn't play in a baseball game if he wanted to. It just means he's not functioning as a baseball player in the sense that its commonly understood. Herostratus (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've just come up with another argument for deletion. We don't have Category:Former baseball players.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I have. Although we do have "defunct" categories for businesses etc. However, there's an even better argument for deletion: the category contained Liberty Monument (New Orleans). But that's not a Confederate monument after all. There is another, the Jeff Davis monument in New Orleans. But then that's the only one (that I know of), so then we'd have a one-article category. Not worthwhile. Change my vote to Delete, Harris. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although now I see that there might be two: There's the one in New Orleans to Jefferson Davis, and one in North Carolina to Lee, that they are planning to remove. But just planning, at this point. So no prejudice against re-creating the category when and if this goes thru. Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2017 (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:Celtic people

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 WP:SOFTDELETE due to low participation. I will redirect rather than delete the nominated category; note that the Wikidata pages https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6672875 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16803722 have too many other clashes to be merged. It appears to me that Category:Asturian people and Category:Galician people do not belong in Celts, so I will remove those. However, as well as those mentioned by Marcocapelle below, I will move Category:Brythonic Celts and Category:Celtic diaspora into the parent for now. – Fayenatic London 20:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH Category:Celts which has appropriate scope.

This category is problematic as it comes from a nationalist standpoint: there is no category on "Germanic people" or "Latin people" for the reasons I shall elaborate. For example, this category has as a sub-category "English people". Whatever genetic research says, the sheer fact is that nobody in England calls themselves a Celt, so to have every single English person of any heritage who ever existed within the category of "Celtic people" is absurd. Wales, Scotland and Ireland are historically places where Celts dominated, but that does not equal that every single person in the whole of their history is "Celtic". This is like saying all Mexicans are Aztecs. There may well be people in those countries who were born there, identify with those countries, but don't call themselves "Celts" because they've never considered it. By the same metric, Category:Brythonic Celts and Category:Gaels shouldn't contain any people or categories of people apart from in a historic sense. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 09:28, 10 May 2017 (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:Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union

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. ℯxplicit 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match article Brexit. I am putting this forward as a procedural nomination, since this was nominated for speedy renaming but opposed there. – Fayenatic London 09:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
Oppose speedy: 1. Ambiguity, per Brexit (disambiguation), particularly with the referendum. 2. There is a current discussion on the future of the Brexit article at Talk:Brexit#Need_to_split_this_article. Might be better to wait for the outcome of that discussion.--Mhockey (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhockey: there was consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brexit (disambiguation) that the term is not ambiguous. Also, that discussion at Talk:Brexit seems to have run out of steam. Do you withdraw your opposition? – Fayenatic London 15:29, 7 May 2017 (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:Dog songs

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) 05:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't know what a "dog song" is but I assume the category is intended for songs about dogs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rathfelder: Trouble is that a category is for "defined" attributes of the members, roughly speaking, something that is mentioned in the lead of the article. Nowhere in the text if there confirmation that the song is about a dog, Allmusic says the song is about "freedom" and "long walk." Most of these categories, as Carlossuarez46 says, are really pointless categories and adding "Me & You..." in any lyric based category is about as pointless as it gets.--Richhoncho (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments and precedents for deletion are worth further attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 07:56, 10 May 2017 (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:History of Al-Andalus by period

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. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, it just contains a single subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - redundant.GreyShark (dibra) 16:08, 11 May 2017 (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:Pearson and Darling buildings

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the related article Darling and Pearson, the firm was known primarily by that name. Accordingly, it follows that the category should use that format as well. —C.Fred (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2017 (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:Asian monarchs

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: don't merge this category on its own. The discussion should start at the level of Category:Monarchs. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both are substantially the same. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:24, 10 May 2017 (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:Asian kings

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: don't merge this category on its own. The discussion should start at the level of Category:Kings. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both are substantially the same. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:24, 10 May 2017 (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/2017_May_10&oldid=1136462441"