Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 13

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; merge contents to Category:Alternative Internet DNS services. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:OpenNIC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry; not obvious why this has it’s own category, it would make sense in the parent one, so upmerge with that and delete. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:50, 13 September 2015 (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.

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 (category was still empty at close). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lithuanian Youtube Personalities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete as the appropriate category already exists as Category:Lithuanian YouTubers. Tassedethe (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Support The entire Category:YouTubers by nationality tree was ill conceived. Support this merge. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2015 (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.

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:Squamish people (individuals). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Skwxwu7mesh people to Category:Squamish people

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Subject lead is Squamish people, seems only appropriate that the categories should follow.Labattblueboy (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support/Broader Conversation "Skwxwu7mesh" shows up in other categories and articles, although Squamish is more prominent, and it looks like both are on the tribal web site. I support this nomination to match the main article but a broader conversation is probably warranted. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Talk:Squamish people#Requested_move_2 contains a RM related to the Skwxwu7mesh vs. Squamish naming.--Labattblueboy (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the target category carries a hatnote because it is ambiguous. Categories should not be ambiguous. There's a Squamish, B.C. which also has a people category, making the target category a bad name -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Category:People from Squamish, British Columbia‎ to refelct that diference.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which the target category is ambiguous with. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge, but open to suggestions on renaming. It is standard to separate articles on biographies from articles on the ethnic group as a whole. The talk page explains that the nominated category was suggested by various editors at CFD 2014 Feb 19. Although the discussion got out of hand and there was no consensus to rename the parent, in my view there was sufficient support to go ahead and create this sub-cat for individual biographies. Normally "X people" would be the category name for biographies (e.g. Category:Ojibwe people within Category:Ojibwe), but in this case Squamish people is required as the name of the article about the indigenous group, to avoid ambiguity, so the parent category rightly follows that name. – Fayenatic London 13:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The template uses "Squamish (Sḵwx̱wú7mesh)" as a sort of compromise. If they naming is repeatedly contested, I'd be open to such an approach but, again, that would need to start with a consensus at the article level and the categories should blindly follow. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As Fayenatic london says, merging would confound the people (group) with some people (individuals). I would query whether "Skwxwu7mesh" is English orthography. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the original category is kept in any form, it should be renamed to include the diacritics on the K and X. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 08:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This was an introduction of an unreadable name by people who ignored guidelines to use English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The category for the people as a group and the category for individual people should probably use the same terminology, not be mixed as it is here. Perhaps a rename to Category:Squamish people (individuals) would be appropriate here? I oppose merging the categories as proposed per Fayenatic, as it would mix the bio articles with the general articles about the group. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't personally see the need for a qualifier, but I could support Category:Squamish people (individuals).--Labattblueboy (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sole reason the qualifier is needed in this case because Category:Squamish people is being used for articles about the people, i.e., non-individuals. Another alternative would be to use Category:Squamish people for individuals and use Category:Squamish people (group) for the broader category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support renaming to Category:Squamish people (individuals). This would leave the name of parent Category:Squamish people matching its main article. – Fayenatic London 09:32, 5 October 2015 (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.

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) 02:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose delete of Category:Dukes of Lothier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT with Category:Dukes of Brabant‎. As the article Duke of Lothier explains, this concerns an honorific title of the Dukes of Brabant. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. It's handy to have the article, but the category is redundant.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems to have been an alternative title of the Dukes of Brabant from 1150. Before that it seems to refer to the Dukes of Lower Lorraine. If so, should it not be made into a dab-category for those two? Sorry, I am not good on my history of that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Dukes of Lower Lorraine is a category on its own. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too much overlap with other categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2015 (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.

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: do not rename; this is without prejudice to a nomination for deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional victims of child abuse to Category:Fictional child abuse survivors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. My proposed naming, seems similar and less complicated than the former. NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't that disqualify fictional characters that died from child abuse? Charles Essie (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivial. Even minor "abuse" seems to be lumped together - these are fictional characters; the fact that we have no real abuse victims categories demonstrates the trivial nature of this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, minor abuse is still abuse. Secondly, maybe we should have a category for real victims of child abuse. Charles Essie (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Child abuse is a recurring theme in fiction, but not all victims are "survivors". I have no idea, however, what is a category about incest in fiction doing as a subcategory of this. Incest is not limited to children. Dimadick (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, so I'm going to remove the incest category. Charles Essie (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Charles Essie, including the comment about real victims. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 08:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- I agree with others. Fiction is capable of dealing with the situation, where the abuse ends in murder. Fact finds that less easy to address. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categories are not meant to categorize every possible aspect of a characters backstory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2015 (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.

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 (category has remained empty). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Destroyed landmarks in Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; "Demolished buildings and structures in Belgium" and "Former buildings and structures in Belgium" already exist. Tridek Sep (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tridek Sep: The category is empty. Do you know what was in it? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, two articles were in this category: Coudenberg and Maison du Peuple. Tridek Sep (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the former articles in this category are clearly about buildings, no need to categorize them as "landmarks". Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree that a "landmarks" cat sits ill under a "buildings" cat. Leaving that aside, is there enough of a difference between a "demolished" building" and a "destroyed" one to make this better as a rename rather thsn a delete? (and this is not a one-off but part of a large cat tree: "Destroyed landmarks of Foo" is very commonly a subcat of "Demolished buildings and structures of Foo"). Eustachiusz (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  In regards to the two articles that were in it, one was destroyed by fire, and the other was demolished and replaced. In this case, the category could be deleted. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to "Demolished buildings and structures". I do not think that a landmarks tree is useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2015 (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.

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) 02:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Alam family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not notable enough to make a category about it. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With 3 items, I don't think this aids navigation at this point. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I know nothing of this Alam family, but there is also an Indian family of the name, who were Indian princes in Bihar, and some of whom have been prominent in Indian politics. I note that one of the Pakistani family was born in Calcutta, so that he may well be part of that family. I knowledge of this comes from a friend who is one of that family. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough articles to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2015 (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.

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: RfC has closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme.

Background: see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_30#1st_to_6th_century_BC_deaths. The categories have been merged based on consensus but an editor who hadn't participated in the discussion notified that the delete was against guidelines that hadn't been taken into consideration during the CfD discussion. A DRV followed with 'no consensus' as outcome (implying that the merging has not been reverted). Now the RfC has been set up to re-discuss the issue while also considering the respective guidelines. Please join this RfC, especially if you have done so in the original discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cross-link! RevelationDirect (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2015 (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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 23:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose rename of Category:16th century in Belgium‎ to Category:16th century in the Southern Netherlands
• Propose rename of Category:17th century in Belgium‎ to Category:17th century in the Southern Netherlands
• Propose rename of Category:18th century in Belgium‎ to Category:18th century in the Southern Netherlands
• Propose rename of Category:1800s in Belgium‎ to Category:1800s in the Southern Netherlands
• Propose rename of Category:1810s in Belgium‎ to Category:1810s in the Southern Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: rename since in these periods the geographical area of the Southern Netherlands was, roughly, identical to current Belgium and Luxembourg. At least it also covers the prince-bishopric of Liège, which was not part of the Habsburg (Spanish, Austrian) Netherlands. Suggest to keep Luxembourg categories of these periods as they are, but make them child categories of Southern Netherlands in addition. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Current names are ahistorical. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The question then becomes what to do with the 15th, 14th, 13th, centuries ... --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Burgundian Netherlands ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Burgundian Netherlands can't be a contemporary substitute for pre-16th-century Belgium since not all counties and duchies in current Belgium belonged to it all the time. However, as with all countries, we can just maintain the 21st-century name as the category name in case history goes so far back that a contemporary substitute cannot meaningfully be defined. Which is clearly the case with Belgium before the 16th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Burgundian Netherlands will work for most of what is now Belgium for roughly 1450-1480, but it still leaves a fair amount out, and isn't really useful at all pre-1420. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- We might have specified Spanish Netherlands and then Austrian Netherlands, but they were not specifically Spanish until the death of the Emperor Charles V, and were not separate from the other Netherlands until the Spanish took control of them towards the beginning of the 80 years war. Burgundian Netherlands might be appropriate for the 15th century. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Belgium is an anachronistic term at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2015 (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.

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 Category:Fragaria species to Category:Fragaria; users free to create a Category:Strawberries subcategory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Upmerge Category:Fragaria species to Category:Fragaria (as creator/WP:C2E)
• Propose Renaming Category:Fragaria to Category:Strawberries

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COMMONNAME

"Fragaria" is the Latin name for the genus of plants that produce strawberries. I think that botany term makes sense for Category:Fragaria species (which I created) since most of those articles are also in Latin and the readers would be interested in the overall plant. But, for the parent category, most readers would be interested in strawberries as a fruit so having it under the common name would better aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Bogdangiuscaas the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree that the present set up is wrong. The hierarchy is:

– Category:Fragaria – under the name of entire genus

– Category:Fragaria species – by all precedent and consistency this should not exist; we never have categories like this for the species of a genus; species articles are categorized under the genus name

– various categories for strawberry-related topics, such as Category: Strawberry sodas

"Strawberries", as used in everyday language, are a subcategory of Fragaria. So a better category hierarchy would be:

– Category:Fragaria – for all articles related to the genus, both cultivated and wild species and uses

– Category:Strawberries – there could then be a single subcategory to hold all articles and subcategories related to cultivated Fragaria species

Category:Fragaria species should be deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note There is also Category:Orchid species to break down the Genus Orchidaceae with a parent Category:Plant species, neither of which I created. That wasn't a very big tree I added too so maybe it doesn't reflect consensus though. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus @Peter coxhead: If I understand correctly, we should Leave Category:Fragaria as is, Upmerge Category:Fragaria species to Category:Fragaria, and I'm Free to create a Category:Strawberries on my own as a subcategory of Category:Fragaria. Did I get that right? If so, I'm fine with that approach. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this seems the best approach to me, and unless anyone else comes along soon and dissents, go ahead. An example is Category:Vitis, with the subcategory Category:Grape. The other possibility is just to mix them all up as at Category:Citrus, but I think this is less helpful to readers. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I modified the nomination. (The current proposal is now eligible for a Speedy move but I'll leave the discussion here to avoid confusion.) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support modified proposal/"Consensus" above. Create Strawberries as a subcategory of Fragaria and categorize species in Fragaria. Plantdrew (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2015 (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.

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) 02:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Afghanistan to Category:Non-governmental organisations based in Afghanistan

Procedural nomination for a rename. Note that this also includes the child category, Category:Non-governmental organizations operating in Afghanistan; it would be absurd to rename one but not the other.

• AusLondonder nominated this for speedy, because it's a child of Category:Organisations based in Afghanistan, but I opposed it because it's also a child of Category:Non-governmental organizations. AusLondonder didn't offer a further reason for renaming (normally you don't need to), but my rationale was basically that, in the absence of national ties to a particular spelling, a national category should follow the broad topic's spelling. In other words, we should prefer the spelling of the broad topic's tree to the spelling of the country's tree in situations such as Afghanistan, where the country doesn't have a significant local variety of English (unlike Indian English and Pakistani English, there is no article on Afghan English or Afghani English) that we need to follow. So basically, since I think we should follow the topic tree instead of the country tree, we should continue using "Organizations" because the topic does, instead of renaming to "Organisations" because the non-WP:TIES country does. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems to me like it would be more difficult to have some country specific spelling preferences (US, UK, NZ) and have others that are subject specific (organizations, harbours in non-English speaking countries). Sure, our current approach gives preferences to countries that have no preference, but organisations and harbors don't have a preference as to how they're spelled either. But really, I don't mind your approach. Let's just pick a clear standard (yours, mine, someone else's) so that t AusLondonder's non-controversial renames can stay in WP:CFDS where they belong. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I re-read that, I sound a little grouchy but it's not directed at you. Based on our conversation at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Regional English Spellings with the WP:C2A and WP:C2C Speedy Criteria, I'm thinking rewriting WP:C2C is probably needed here.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming The relevant category tree is Category:Organisations based in Afghanistan. This is well established practice. Don't understand rationale for opposition. Re ties Afghanistan was a British protectorate AusLondonder (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming and agree with RevelationDirect that nominations like this should remain in WP:CFDS, whereas the spelling should obviously be based on country and not on topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- The obvious version of English to apply to Afghanistan is Indian English, which uses English orthography. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2015 (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.