Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 30

< December 29	December 31 >

December 30

Category:French Baroque gardeners

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:French Baroque garden designers. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:French Baroque gardeners to Category:French Baroque garden designers

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, all three articles are people who design gardens, not about people who do the weeding and mowing. In conjunction with renaming the category should also be reparented to Category:French landscape and garden designers instead of Category:French gardeners and Category:Baroque gardeners. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support The actual contents do not match the category title. Dimadick (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better solution indeed. --Just N. (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the target better describes the actual contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2022 (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:Horticulturists and gardeners

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:Horticulturists. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Horticulturists and gardeners to Category:Horticulturists

Nominator's rationale: rename in order to align with this earlier discussion. After the rename Category:Horticulturists will be the parent of Category:Gardeners, just like Category:Horticulture is the parent of Category:Gardening. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but merge page history. – Fayenatic London 07:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The change in scope seems reasonable to me. Dimadick (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Seems a better solution. --Just N. (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support' per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:09, 6 January 2022 (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:Naturalised citizens of the Republic of China

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:Naturalised citizens of Taiwan. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Naturalised citizens of the Republic of China to Category:Naturalised citizens of Taiwan

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with the country article, which is named Taiwan (while Republic of China is a redirect to it).--MonFrontieres (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Based on the name, I thought the category was for the Republic of China (1912–1949). Dimadick (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WP decided some years ago that the post-1945 polity should be called "Taiwan". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2022 (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:Golf drivers

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: Renamed according to the nominator's proposal. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Golf drivers to Category:Long drive golfers
Propose renaming Category:American golf drivers to Category:American long drive golfers
Propose renaming Category:Canadian golf drivers to Category:Canadian long drive golfers

Nominator's rationale: Such people are never referred to as "golf drivers". Propose renaming this and its sub-categories to "Long drive golfers" for clarity and accuracy. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. "Golf drivers" is just confusing. A driver is normally a club not a person. Nigej (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename not about golf clubs (batons) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2022 (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 Greenbrier

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. It seems to have been purged already, as the 14 biographies currently in the category all state a strong connection with The Greenbrier. – Fayenatic London 16:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People associated with The Greenbrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERCAT, specifically WP:NONDEFINING (the Greenbrier is almost never mentioned in the context of these people) and WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I created this category in an effort to better organize the contents of the overall category for The Greenbrier, as it mainly contained sporting events and personnel associated with The Greenbrier (including past executives, chefs, and golf pros). My intent was to separate out the people associated with The Greenbrier, and seek further consensus on whether to make an additional category for the resort’s sporting events. I am not opposed to deleting this category, and will support the resulting decision by my fellow editors. – West Virginian (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly not defining. We can't have a category for every person connected with every golf course. Nigej (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and repurpose -- Category:The Greenbrier people would be acceptable, limited to "past executives, chefs, and golf pros" etc employed there, but excluding those who merely play there or turn up to take part in or run tournaments. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and repurpose per Peterkingiron. --Just N. (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and repurpose per Peterkingiron and rename to Category:The Greenbrier people. That will bring the category in line with its siblings in the tree of Category:People by company. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2022 (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:1880s LGBT-related mass media

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. In this case no merging is required, as the sub-cat is already within the other parent hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 11:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:1880s LGBT-related mass media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty container category, no possibility for expansion. The first LGBT oriented periodical was in 1898. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This would leave the literature subcategory out of proper category tree. Dimadick (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subcategory will still remain part of Category:1880s in LGBT history. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to all (or most) parents, also 1870s and 1890s. This is an unnecessary level. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:10, 6 January 2022 (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:1870s LGBT-related mass media

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 11:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:1870s LGBT-related mass media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty container category, no possibility for expansion. The first LGBT oriented periodical was in 1898. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This would leave the literature subcategory out of proper category tree. Dimadick (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subcategory will still remain part of Category:1870s in LGBT history. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to all (or most) parents, also 1880s and 1890s. This is an unnecessary level. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2022 (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:Real closed field

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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 07:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Real closed field to Category:Real closed fields

Nominator's rationale: Is a set category, not a topic category. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the articles are not all closed fields; eg a ring is not a field. That is, it is a topic category. Oculi (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic (it is only defining for Real closed ring). Marcocapelle (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- categories are normally plural. No strong view on the merits of existence, but the main article lists examples of real closed fields. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my earlier vote, e.g. a superreal number is an example of a real closed field indeed, but in reverse "real closed field" is not a defining property of superreal numbers. So keeping the list in the article is perfectly fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2022 (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.