Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 18

< November 17	November 19 >

November 18

Category:1972 Andes flight disaster

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 with redirect to match the main article. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1972 Andes flight disaster to Category:Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 (over redirect)

Nominator's rationale: The main article for this topic is Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, so this would be renaming to match. Most categories and articles for airline disasters are named after the flight: Category:Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Category:Pan Am Flight 103‎, Category:American Airlines Flight 77, Category:United Airlines Flight 93, Category:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but leave redirect, which might become parent for a number of accidents in the Andes. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I doubt there was more than one notable flight disaster in the Andes in 1972. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support To match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television shows based on radio shows

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Television shows based on radio shows to Category:Television shows based on works, Category:Works based on radio programs
Propose renaming Category:Television series based on radio shows to Category:Television series based on radio series

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge intermediate layer. Rename one that wrongly used the TV "shows" word for radio; others in Category:Works based on radio programs use "based on radio series". – Fayenatic London 22:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support We do not have a category Category:Radio shows which could serve as a parent to it. The main category is Category:Radio programs. Dimadick (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Powerful women

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) 01:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Powerful women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: How, exactly, does one define a "powerful" woman? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV category with ill-defined inclusion criteria. It currently includes 1 businesswoman, 1 politician, and three singers. Dimadick (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Superpowered women? Hell no. Textbook WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, close per WP:SNOW ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambiguous category with no clear parameters. Outside this particular discussion but taking a look at the creating-editor's contributions am thinking this is an attempt to shoehorn a particular subject into this newly-created category. Shearonink (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Black English comedians

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. The fact that the articles describe the people as "Black British" is compelling. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Black English comedians to Category:Black British comedians

Nominator's rationale: Although they are all from England every article describes its subject as a Black British comedian. Rathfelder (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This would remove them from the category tree on Category:English comedians. And it has the implication that you can't be English if you are black. Dimadick (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably you cant become English by migration these days. You can only become British. But this doesnt need to remove them from the category tree on Category:English comedians. I think if there are any Welsh, Scottish or NI black comedians they would want to be in those categories. Rathfelder (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per longstanding split of UK people by constituent nation. Note that several other similar "Black English" categories exist. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To my best understanding, Black British is an accepted ethnicity while Black English is not. If that is correct then the nomination is also correct. Of course Dimadick is right, it should be a dual merge, also to Category:English comedians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe the rest of Category:Black English people by occupation should go too? But as all the black comedians are English I dont see why Category:Black English comedians cant be a subcategory of Category:English comedians. Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

??? You proposed to merge Category:Black English comedians, right? Are you now proposing to keep Category:Black English comedians as a subcategory of Category:English comedians? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I want Category:Black British comedians to be a sub category of Category:English comedians. I suspect all the other Black British people are also English, or at least live in England. There do not appear to be any Scots or Welsh people in the Black British categories outside the Scots and Welsh subcategories. This is, as far as the occupational categories go, unconnected to the longstanding split of UK people by constituent nation. Its an ethnic label. Rathfelder (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But that is with the current content. Ultimately Category:Black British comedians can contain Scots and Welsh comedians, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But then what happens with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Black Welsh people by occupation and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Black Scottish people by occupation? Grutness...wha? 02:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be upmerged to their respective parent categories as well. That is, I am assuming that Black Welsh and Black Scottish aren't accepted ethnicities either. The two articles seem a case of WP:SYNTH. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont remember Shirley Bassey ever being described as Black Welsh.Rathfelder (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think the rest of Category:Black English people by occupation should go too. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OCEGRS, no indication their races make them funnier or less funny. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, the entire ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:People by occupation and ethnicity category needs a serious look, especially ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Comedians by ethnicity. Grutness...wha? 02:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  - I agree. Both ethnicity and descent are used very loosely, and often with no support in the actual articles. Both are very context specific, and subjective. I think we should be much more cautious about using them. Rathfelder (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Black British" is an accepted ethnic category. What the opponents seem to want would be Category:Black comedians from England, but I do not think that makes a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither their blackness nor their Englishness is inherent to their funniness. Triple intersections are usually a bad idea. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think for many of them being black is an important part of their act. Rathfelder (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge This is too fine a gradation. Whether the target is justifiable should be brought up with a discussion that has noticfied the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Carroll College (Montana)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 18#Category:Carroll College (Montana)

Category:Albums by drag queens

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 28#Category:Albums by drag queens

Category:Albums released by a tax scam label

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. MER-C 19:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Albums released by a tax scam label (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:POV, WP:OR. Not even sure what this is. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Koavf: I was curious and went down the rabbit hole: both Guinness Records (record label) and Tiger Lily Records were indeed tax scams. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, category is based on a trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These albums could easily be released elsewhere on non-scam labels. The labels being tax scams is a defining characteristic of the labels, not the albums themselves. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 18:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Order of Mapungubwe

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. MER-C 19:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting Category:Order of Mapungubwe

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT and the spirit of WP:C2F, one eponymous article

The only thing in this category is the main article, Order of Mapungubwe, and an image that is already in the infobox of that same article so this doesn't aid navigation. A separate list of winners would theoretically create a 2nd article but I can't imagine a 3rd, 4th or 5th article so the growth potential here is limited. I already added categories to the two items so no upmerge is needed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order of Christ (Brazil)

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. MER-C 19:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Christ (Brazil)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:OCAWARD and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)

The Order of Christ (Brazil) was an award originally from the Brazilian monarchy and later, after they were deposed, became an award for the pretenders to the throne. 15 of the 18 biographies are already categorized somewhere under Category:Brazilian nobility, the other three articles (1, 2, 3) are already well categorized under other Brazilian topics. The vast majority of these articles mention the award in passing as part of a list of other honors so it doesn't seem defining. Finally, there was a schism in the non-ruling family which has lead to competing entities issuing the same award causing disagreements about who is a true recipient. I expanded this section of the main article so all contents are now listified. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.