Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

October 24

Category:Zaporizhia Raion

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. MER-C 14:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Zaporizhia Raion to Category:Zaporizhzhia Raion

Nominator's rationale: This is the subregion of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, and both are named after their main city Zaporizhzhia (the Ukrainian names translated use an adjective form of the city’s name, literally “Zaporizhzhian raion” and “Zaporizhzhian oblast”). —Michael Z. 19:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency. (t · c) buidhe 21:22, 26 October 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:China templates

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. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:China templates to Category:Greater China templates

Nominator's rationale: use nomenclature of the article Greater China to avoid confusion between Category:China templates, Category:People's Republic of China templates, and Category:Republic of China (Taiwan) templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, proposal is inconsistent with categorization by country. Category:Republic of China (Taiwan) templates should be removed as a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 25 October 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:Girl Scouts who have earned the Gold Award

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 14:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Girl Scouts who have earned the Gold Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD, this is non-defining. User:Namiba 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:OCAWARD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The gold award is a notable achievement for the recipient, but not enough to make it WP notable and certainly not to fall inot the exception in WP:OCAWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:OCAWARD - listifying might be appropriate. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list in the main article. DexDor^(talk) 17:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is analogous to Category:Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). Gender equity is important. Philly jawn (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE, WP:RGW. DexDor^(talk) 17:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to deleting that as well. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Philly jawn: Since there is now an open nomination to delete the Eagles Scout category, does that change your iVote here? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining (e.g. for Nina Vasan). This can be covered in the relevant text (where it can be referenced), but isn't needed as a category. DexDor^(talk) 17:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the high standard of WP:OCAWARD. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:OCAWARD, which requires the award be a defining characteristic of the notable person. No one is notable simply for earning the award. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 02:26, 30 October 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:People educated at The Scots College

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: Move to Option B: People educated at Scots College (Sydney). Unanimous move to Option B ends a long discussion on different threads after the RM ended in no consensus. (non-admin closure) SportingFlyer T·C 15:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People educated at The Scots College to Category:People educated at the Scots College (Sydney) (option A) or Category:People educated at Scots College (Sydney) (option B)

Nominator's rationale: rename per article title Scots College (Sydney) (without capitalized The). This nomination was opposed for speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

copy of CFDS discussion

Category:People educated at The Scots College to Category:People educated at the Scots College (Sydney) – C2D per Scots College (Sydney) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Good Olfactory: judging by usage within the article Scots College (Sydney) and its citations, and List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney), I think this should use capital T on The, i.e. Category:People educated at The Scots College (Sydney). – Fayenatic London 09:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Good Olfactory and Fayenatic london: IMO the "The" should only use capital T, if it's part of the title (which it currently isn't). Another possibility is to remove it completely, and rename this to Category:People educated at Scots College (Sydney). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Armbrust, Good Olfactory, and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option C, rename to Category:People educated at The Scots College (Sydney) per usage & citations within the main article and List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney). The article probably deserves a RM to move it back to "The", from which it was moved without discussion in 2015.[1]. – Fayenatic London 14:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option B at least as long as the main article is at Scots College (Sydney) without the definite article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has a formal RM discussion in progress at Talk:Scots College (Sydney). – Fayenatic London 12:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defer To match the outcome of the RM discussion, whether I agree with it or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: The RM was closed as no consensus, and thus the main article remains at Scots College (Sydney). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Option B it is, then. – Fayenatic London 12:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the original speedy nominator, I am okay with option B. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 9 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:China events templates

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 14#Category:China events templates

Small Japan categories

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 14:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Kamiyama, Tokushima (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Sanagōchi, Tokushima (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These were previously nominated for deletion on 2 July as WP:SMALLCAT; some pages were added, and the CFDs were closed by non-admin user:Buidhe, in good faith but apparently without checking the contents. I came across them while following up closures at CFD July 27, and removed some of the member pages – in particular, national highways that are mentioned in articles on towns/villages should not also be categorised by those small places. After removing those, only three pages remain in each of these categories, so I am re-nominating them for discussion. Pinging Nihonjoe as a courtesy. – Fayenatic London 09:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Merging is not needed, all articles are already in a Tokushima subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, stop disparaging Buidhe by claiming he didn't bother to check the contents of the categories, Fayenatic london. That's rude and uncalled for. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Buidhe: I do beg your pardon. I was thinking that you could have taken account of this detailed comment by BrownHairedGirl, in one of the similar nominations on that page. However, I have checked the timing, and that comment was only added after your closes on that page, so I was wrong. Just above that comment there was a shorter one by Marcocapelle, that national routes do not belong in such categories, but you might well have missed that, or not realised its wider implications. Anyway, I did not mean to be rude, nor to discourage you from helping out again at CFD. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that BHG (and maybe others...there were some nominated by others, IIRC) nominated a whole pile of them at once, it would be easy for Buidhe to have missed it. Walls of text can sometimes blur together. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:02, 27 October 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:Video games based on Biker Mice from Mars

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 to Category:Biker Mice from Mars and Category:Video games based on animated television series. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Video games based on Biker Mice from Mars to Category:Biker Mice from Mars

Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, possibly also to Category:Video games based on animated television series (dual merge). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SMALLCAT does not appply when there is an established category tree. (Also just going "SMALLCAT" as rationale isn't good form - explain *why* please.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMALLCAT does apply, as this is a hugely incomplete tree by television series. The SMALLCAT exception applies when editors may reasonably expect every subcategory to exist, e.g. in a tree by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Merge for Now to Category:Video games based on animated television series with no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:27, 1 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:LDS Business College faculty

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 both. MER-C 14:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LDS Business College faculty to Category:Ensign College faculty

Nominator's rationale: School renamed as of September 1, 2020. Article about college moved to Ensign College Naraht (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's also Category:LDS Business College alumni. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator agrees that the alumni cat should be moved as well.Naraht (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged that category and directed it to this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REname both. There is a long precedent on this for renamed college. The rename needs to be reflected in the category headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 25 October 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:Meteorological institutes affiliated with universities

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. MER-C 14:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Meteorological institutes affiliated with universities to Category:Meteorological research institutes

Nominator's rationale: rename, a slighty shorter title, alignment with parent Category:Research institutes and a slightly broader scope (no mandatory affiliation with a university). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- There will not be enough non-university ones to merit having a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to where? DexDor^(talk) 11:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. DexDor^(talk) 11:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Oculi (talk) 20:15, 24 October 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:ITU Radio Regulations

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, with some of the contents upmerged to Category:International Telecommunication Union. Category:Radio stations and systems ITU and Category:Radiocommunication services ITU were not nominated, so they are in Category:International Telecommunication Union. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:ITU Radio Regulations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: listify as standardization isn't a defining feature of the children articles. fgnievinski (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski: if this is deleted, what should happen with the two subcategories? They belong somewhere in the telecommunications tree, don't they? Or should they be deleted too? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest listifying and deleting as well. fgnievinski (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski: fair enough, then you should tag and list these too. I suppose the rationale is the same (WP:NONDEF)? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with upmerge of those articles/subcats that are specifically about the ITU to the ITU category. This is not an appropriate way to categorize articles such as Effective radiated power and Electromagnetic interference. DexDor^(talk) 11:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, so delete after manual check - to be listed at WP:CFDWM. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 25 October 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:Deaths by firearm in Balochistan

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. MER-C 14:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deaths by firearm in Balochistan to Category:Deaths by firearm in Balochistan, Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2C. This article should name "Balochistan, Pakistan" instead of "Balochistan". Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to both parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck earlier vote, the category has apparently been populated in the mean time. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The province of Balochistan, Pakistan should be disambiguated from the region of Balochistan, which covers areas of Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan. Dimadick (talk) 10:48, 25 October 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:Roman Catholic Diocese of Lydda and Ramla

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. MER-C 14:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Lydda and Ramla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles. The main article Roman Catholic Diocese of Lydda and Ramla is already in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the Crusader states so merging is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There were more than one bishops of Lydda and Ramla, so the category can easily be expanded. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Meanwhile I created an article for the second bishop, Roger. Further four articles could easily be created. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can create Category:Bishops of Lydda and Ramla when every bishop has his own article. But I can't imagine many more topic articles to come. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine more topic articles about the parishes, clerics of the bishopric. Furthermore, Lydda was also an Orthodox see. Borsoka (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parishes and priests are hardly ever notable. The fact that Lydda was also an Orthodox see is irrelevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Or rename) -- As a crusader diocese, I suspect this had a short life. We do not need a separate "bishops" category; if anything, this might be repurposed as such, with the diocese becoming the main article. However, Category:Latin bishops of Lydda and Ramla might be better still. "Roman" is certainly not needed in the name. It may always remain a small category, but that cannot be helped. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 25 October 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:Astronomy image articles

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. Consensus against this merge. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Astronomy image articles to Category:Astronomy images

Nominator's rationale: It doesn't make sense nowadays to have "articles" in the name of a content category to distinguish it from media files (which should really be on Commons anyway). Merging would be a good solution. Mike Peel (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Peel, to keep current Category:Astronomy images in tact, propose renaming Category:Astronomy images to Category:Wikipedia astronomy images first and then renaming Category:Astronomy image articles to Category:Astronomy images. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it would be impossible to host them all on Commons, they do not all have compatible licenses -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge These categories are not at all the same thing, and should not be merged. Neutral on renaming. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I oppose merge, per my message above and Pppery. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:00, 25 October 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:Fauna of the Pacific Northwest

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 10:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fauna of the Pacific Northwest to Category:Endemic fauna of the Pacific Northwest

Nominator's rationale: This (created with no parent categories) category has been populated (only I think) with animals endemic to that region so that's probably what it's meant to be. We should try to avoid having a plethora of non-endemic overlapping categories as it results in very incomplete categories. Parent categories and the word "only" should be added. Note: A category of the same name was CFDed in January and the same outcome as that discussion is also an option. DexDor^(talk) 07:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, rename per nom. I have added two parent and five subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I shall rename it to Endemic fauna of the Pacific Northwest. User:Chewitt99 —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chewitt99: please do not undertake unilateral action. An uninvolved closer of the discussion will implement the consensus result. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. It now looks like a respectable category after Marcocapelle's additions. Oculi (talk) 20:45, 24 October 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.