Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 18

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 17 March 19 >

March 18

1983_establishments_in_India_by_state_or_union_territory

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 21:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a placeholder section for categories tagged on 18 March with an incorrect link. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_15#1983_establishments_in_India_by_state_and_union_territory. – Fayenatic London 07:45, 19 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:People from Delphi

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: keep. – Fayenatic London 20:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, even more because Dora Kaminsky had a house in Delphi but did not actually live there, and Dimitrios Psarros was born in Chryso, another village though in the neighbourhood of Delphi, and had a military career entirely unrelated to his place of birth. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delphi is a quite significant town (it being probably the most sacred site of Ancient Greece). In Dora Kaminsky's case, saying "she had a home there" implies she lived there. --Antondimak (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And apparently I was wrong on the article. I'll defer to others on this one. -01:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delphi, the ancient town, was indeed humble in size, so this is never going to get to the size of a category about Athens. But also I think not unreasonable to expect some growth. Tried to Google for a few more people to add, but was thwarted by the fact that Delphi is *so famous* for so many other things that the origins of modestly notable historical people get drowned, so couldn't ballpark who else might be added. In addition, I think we should endeavor inasmuch as possible to have our categorization resemble the existing categorization of these people as evidenced by their historical names used by scholars to refer to them ("Timasitheus of Delphi" vs "Ameinias the Phocian"). Ford MF (talk) 17:52, 5 March 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) 23:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from what I can tell, "Delphi" specifically refers to a city from antiquity the area around which no longer heavily inhabited, so it would be anachronistic to place anyone from antiquity into a category about a modern subdivision. That being said it does seem like two of the four individuals in the category at the moment are actually contemporary.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have no problems to have persons from Ancient Greece and contemporaries side by side, it's a cat of location! Dephi seems a useful historical name not so Phoics which nobody knows but local citizens. --Just N. (talk) 21:40, 23 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:Midrange apparat of the Communist Party of the Soviet 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: delete. – Fayenatic London 15:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem to be terribly defining for those bio articles included. If we want to preserve the party affiliation, it could be merged to the (quite large) Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members. If kept, should this not be renamed to Category:Midrange apparatchiks of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union per apparatchik? Pinging participants in the speedy discussion Marcocapelle, Fayenatic london. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Based on the current name of the category that would be wrong, because they supposedly were communist party officials (i.e. politicians) rather than civil servants. However, I still think the category should be deleted altogether, as the people in this category either are better categorized as a politician already, or their having been a party official is trivial considering they are notable for another reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dominica Roman Catholic bishops

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:Roman Catholic bishops in Dominica. The sole content is now Category:20th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Dominica‎, so although there was support for Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Roseau, this seems to be the best option here. This is without prejudice to creating Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Roseau. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Samoan Roman Catholic bishops

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:Roman Catholic bishops of Samoa–Pago Pago. The main concern seems to be applying "American Samoan" to these articles. This resolves that problem. (I'm using the style "Samoa–Pago Pago" to match the article Roman Catholic Diocese of Samoa–Pago Pago.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editors are ignoring how racially charged all such designations are. To call someone Samoan just because they happened to live in Samoa for a few years for a job is a major insult and an add on to the inherent insults of colonialism. The fact that those of us who work to make sure that Wikipedia does not reinforce needlessly colonialist narratives are attacked for it should cause those who recklessly attack us for trying to remove these colonialist categorization schemes that under value indigenous people to pause. The whole category tree of bishops has been implemented with reckless disregard for the actual meaning of nationality tags.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bishop of a diocese is not a job for a few years, it is often a lifelong appointment and if it is in another country it should be considered as a matter of emigration. Also note that we categorize neither by race nor by strictly legal citizenship. There is not much wrong with Samoan if someone has permanently settled there. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 19 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:Battle family

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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Woodruff family

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. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pratt–Romney family

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: split as nominated. – Fayenatic London 20:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bennion–Eyring family

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. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hinckley–Bitner family

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 for now. – Fayenatic London 20:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Hinckley–Bitner family to Category:Hinckley family
  • Nominator's rationale This is not a unified family. This is just using the fact that Bryant S. Hinckley and Joseph L. Wirthlin married half sisters to connect every relative of either man, and we only do not have to add Wirthlin because the only notable relatives of Joseph L. Wirthlin the creator decided to include were his sons by said marriage. On the Hinckley side we include sibblings and parents of Bryant S. Hinckley, as well as children. I am less than convinced there is actually enough to justify the Hinckley family as a cohesive unit, but at least there we would limit it to people with clear biological relations. The inclusion of Neal A. Maxwell beacuse his wife was somehow related to the Hinckley's also seems a bit off to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am less than convinced we need this category at all. It has been almost a month and no one seems to want to weight in at all. These family categories have lead to some bizarre categories. The extreme is Category:Dudley–Winthrop family, which seeks to claim John D. Rockefeller, Herber Hoover, John Kerry, Bill Gates and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. were all part of the same family. This is a huge abuse of any meaningful use of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kimball–Snow–Woolley family

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. – Fayenatic London 20:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wells–Bennett–Grant family

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. – Fayenatic London 20:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Wells–Bennett–Grant family
  • Nominator's rationale This is a true mess. There is no coherent family here, even after I deleted 3 articles with no shown relationship at all. We start with two men who were prominent in leaders in all aspects of life in Utah Territory, Jedediah M. Grant and Daniel H. Wells. Both were polygamist, and had large numbers of children. We include anyone who is a descendant of either, and anyone who married a descendant of either. We tack of Bennett only because the most prominent person politically in this family in the 21st-century was Senator Bob Bennett of Utah. We run these together because Jedediah M. Grant's most notable son Heber J. Grant married Emily Harris Grant, a daughter of Daniel H. Wells, as one of his three wives. So this is two families joined together, but with lots of people only connected by marriage tacked in. This is at best 2 families, and tacking in people by marriage makes this even more messy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At worst this should be Category:Wells family and Category:Grant family. However I am unconvinced we need these categories, especially since most of the Wells share a common father.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. As long as Wells–Bennett–Grant family exists, the category should not be broken into separate families. I'm not so sure the category is needed since we have the article, but there does seem to be an awful lot of these types of categories for families. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a total junk argument. That is an unsourced article. As in no sources at all. This is the stupidies argument ever, and a total insult to the effort I put into creating this nomination. It in no way addresses the issues of linking people like Frederick J. Pack and Emeline B. Wells. Their relation, Wells husband had by another wife a daughter who married the uncle of Pack's wife. How in the world can anyone believe that it is at all logical to place them in the same family? The idea we would keep such a category because an unsourced article exists destroys any and all meaning to verrifiability in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't attacking or insulting you through my !vote, and I'd prefer it if we could keep the dialogue elevated above the level of calling things "junk argument[s]" and "stupidies [sic] argument ever", etc. Doing that just alienates people you are trying to convince. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional oppose. The article is up for deletion too. If and only if valid arguments are offered to keep the article, the category should be kept too. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean the article with 0 sources. Do editors here ever read these things. Why do I even bother explaining how disparate and unrelated the actual entries are when people will just ignore that and go about imposing false policies with no evidence of anything. The notion that Frederick J. Pack and Emeline B. Wells as part of the same family is super ludicrous. Pack's wife's father's half-brother was married to Wells' husband's daughter by a different wife. This is just plain a ludicrous claim to a family relationship. It is shoddy and wronghead categorization in the extreme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just thought of something else. This category treats Robert F. Bennett as if he were the only notable grandson of Heber J. Grant. This is clearly not the case. Gordon A. Madsen was a state legislator, assistant attorney general, and even without that might well have made enough contributions as legal scholar and editor on the Joseph Smith papers project to be notable. Yet most would agree Gordon Madsen is less notable than his late brother Truman G. Madsen. I would argue that during his life time Madsen was one of the 5 most influential non-general authorities in issues related to doctrine and theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I first read a book by Madsen back in about 1993 but had no clue he was a grandson of Heber J. Grant until about a year ago. Yet Madsen was raised in a section of Salt Lake City's Avenues at the time affectionataly called "Grantsville" because Heber J. Grant and his daughters (all his sons died in infancy) and their families all lived in a very close area within just a few blocks there. I almost think we could write a well sourced article on Family of Heber J. Grant, but we should do this before creating a category. I also will point out both this category and the especially the backing article treat political actions as real and important, and religious leadership positions as of no consequence. This is clearly the philosophy of the New York Times, but it does not reflect actual reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears the article has been deleted so there is no longer any argument to keep this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no objection to deletion now because the article has been deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 28 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:Aldrich family

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) 10:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English nonjuror bishops

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: British nonjuror bishops. – Fayenatic London 18:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not all of them are English. Rathfelder (talk) 13:32, 18 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:Sites using OpenStreetMap data

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 - jc37 10:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: non-defining feature fgnievinski (talk) 02:28, 5 March 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) 01:58, 18 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:People associated with the London Business School

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. – Fayenatic London 18:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also:

It is my understanding that "London Business School" does not take a preceding "the" (much like, "Princeton University" and not "the Princeton University"). Usage in the article itself is inconsistent. BD2412 T 01:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The subcategories were not tagged until this relisting, so this should be listed for another seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem here goes back to at some point we let people claim that Alumni of Foo etc vs. Foo alumni was a US/British Englishvariation issue. The evidence I have seen does not at all support the claim that this is an issue of language variation. Instead it seems that tacking alumni etc at the end is just as common in Britain as in the US. The main variation seems to be Americans are sure that we have the University of Michigan, the University of Detroit and Harvard University. No American would call it Michigan University or Detroit University, and the University of Garvard is not going to be used either. In Britain there seems to be both Oxford University and University of Oxford used. The one exception in the US is the Cal States with interchangeable use of Long Beach State and Cal State Long Beach. I think this leads to British editors seeing our use of University of Oxford as an endorsement of formalism while Amerixan editors see it as the only possible way to go. Of course this does not quite answer why we can't just have Category:People of the University of London. Nor has anyone explained why Category:Employees of the University of London or Staff of the University of London will not do. I have a friend who worked 2 years in the business office of the dental school of the University of Detroit. If he later becomes a member of the state legislature are we going to categorize him by this?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Per nom. This usage is reflected in the main article. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:57, 23 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:Pop EPs

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 per initial nom. Apparently Category:Pop albums was also later tagged - no consensus on that - but no prejudice on a separate follow-up nom on that. - jc37 10:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar categories such as those for house music are called House music EPs. This would better match the genre's target article name. Additionally note that the album's category is called Pop music albums. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still oppose this change. Pop albums, pop EPs, pop songs are all appropriate names. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — although I'm getting a little tired of all these tiny distinctions in the pop music industry. When this was vinyl, an EP or LP was the album. Only after CDs had so many more tracks did we get this ever diminishing subcategorization. With streaming, albums, EPs, LPs, etc. are going the way of the dodo.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 10 March 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) 01:28, 18 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:Recipients of the Order of the Southern 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. I commend RevelationDirect for pre-emptively making lists in such cases. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:OCAWARD)
Brazil gives out a the Order of the Southern Cross as a general purpose award. The recipients fall into three categories:
I copied all the category contents into a collapsible list of recipients by class right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 18 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:Recipients of the Red Cross Medal (Prussia)

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. – Fayenatic London 10:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prussia issued the Red Cross Medal (Prussia) for special achievement in the service of the German Red Cross and assisting the sick either in peace or at war. The category starts out promisingly with Jakob Weis, a priest with the German Red Cross who voluntarily was interned as a POW to provide pastoral care. From there, the other 5 articles aren't remotely defined by the award: a prince of Bavaria, a future Nazi war criminal, an Austrian General, and 2 Austrian physicians who mention the award in passing with other honours. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 18 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_18&oldid=1022886846"