Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 27

< January 26	January 28 >

January 27

Category:Khatibs of National Mosque of Bangladesh

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:Bangladeshi imams , without prejudice to re-creation if and when there are enough articles to populate it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Khatibs of National Mosque of Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT —swpb^T 17:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I am not sure if this should be kept or not. Khatib is the head of a mosque and Bangladesh has a single national mosque. So there has been a few of them but so far only two have articles. I created the Cat.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Bangladeshi imams without prejudice to recreating the category when substantially more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2017 (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:Salaries of the office-holders

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:Salaries of office-holders and Category:Income of sportspeople. The second contains NBA salary cap which is not a list, so the other suggested name "lists…" does not fit. – Fayenatic London 22:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Salaries of the office-holders to Category:Salaries of office-holders
Propose renaming Category:Salaries of the sportspeople to Category:Salaries of sportspeople (added 29 January)

Nominator's rationale: No reason for the definite article "the" to be present in this category name. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and I took the liberty to add the sibling category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer - Category:Lists of salaries of office-holders as more precise. Category:Lists of sportspeople by income might be better for the second, as their incomes are not necessarily all "salary", particularly where there is personal sponsorship. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding 'list' here is questionable. Although all articles contain a list, they are often substantially more than just a list. Agree with comment on income of sportspeople, leads to alternative Category:Income of sportspeople. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2017 (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:Films directed by Ben Addelman and Samir Mallal

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Films directed by Ben Addelman and Samir Mallal to Category:Films directed by Ben Addelman and Category:Films directed by Samir Mallal

Nominator's rationale: Separate articles > separate categories. Per Ben's article, these two don't exclusively work in a pair, so there is no need for a single category. ^Avic _ennasis @ 14:18, 29 Tevet 5777 / 14:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objection at all, as category creator. Good catch. Support. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom Even when directors collaborate for lengthy periods, that does not mean they do not also have individual projects. Dimadick (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2017 (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:Irrigation in Ibiza

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Irrigation in Ibiza to Category:Irrigation in Spain

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 1 entry and unlikely to have more. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:06, 27 January 2017 (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:Greek mythological hero cult

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Greek mythological hero cult to Category:Greek mythological heroes (over redirect)

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, it is a set category, not a topic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom The content is about the heroes themselves, not about specific elements of their cult. Dimadick (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2017 (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:The My Hero Project

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:The My Hero Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, these people aren't notable because they are a hero, instead they have deserved this hero title for something they were notable for already. Move eponymous article to Category:Hero. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created the category and would like it to stay, but I understand the points calling for it's deletion.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typically a bad idea to include recent or living people in a subcategory of Heroes which deals with the characters from mythology and legend. Dimadick (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eleanor Roosevelt is my hero, but this award isn't defining RevelationDirect (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2017 (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:UK Singles Chart number-two singles

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:UK Singles Chart number-two singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Perfect example of WP:Overcategorization. There is no inherent notability in not reaching the top of a music chart. What is next, singles that only reached number three? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a big pile of number 2s. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We categorize songs by their peak chart position only where that peak position is #1, and not for any other chart position. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2017 (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:Fictional hermaphroditic species

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 6 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fictional hermaphroditic species to Category:Fictional single-sex races

Nominator's rationale: Neither category has a lot of entries and they are redundant. JDDJS (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think merging them is a good idea. There is a significant physiological difference between Hermaphrodites and a single-sex race. Since they are both small probably upmerge both to Category:Fictional species and races. Twiceuponatime (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative proposal to merge both categories to Category:Fictional species and races, per WP:SMALLCAT. I've also tagged Category:Fictional single-sex races for that purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger a Hermaphrodite organism has "reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes". That does not mean that the entire race is single-sex. The relevant article gives as an example the Amphiprioninae (clownfish). A "reproductive male" can later change sex and become the female of its "harem". Dimadick (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But does this apply to the two articles that are in this category? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One is about a species, the other about an individual character. Dimadick (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean does it apply that the species and the character in this category can later change gender? That was your point, after all. The article Hutt (Star Wars) says they reproduce without sex, that doesn't quite imply a possible change of gender, even less it implies hermaphroditism. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added Hermat which more clearly belongs, albeit being less noticeable. – Fayenatic London 08:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't solve the WP:SMALLCAT issue though. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I expect that there is potential for this category to grow, given the level of cultural interest in gender issues. I have also added Trill symbiont, a species that melds with hosts of either gender. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Fictional species and races as far as I can tell this only has 2 articles that really belong here. The article on Jabba the Hutt does not belong, since it is not meant to categorize articles on fictional individuals who are hermaphoditic, but to categorize articles on species that are such, so articles on characters do not belong here at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2017 (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:Fictional intellectuals

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 08:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fictional intellectuals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: What qualifies somebody as an intellectual is a matter of opinion. Is just being smart enough to qualify as an intellectual? Is somebody who is stupid but thinks that they are smart and intellectual? What about people that are really stupid in some aspects but really smart in other aspects? JDDJS (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Too vague to be useful, but beware of leaving orphans. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article on the term intellectual gives three definitions of the term:
- Type 1: An individual who "is erudite, and develops abstract ideas and theories".
- Type 2: "a professional who produces cultural capital, as in philosophy, literary criticism, sociology, law, medicine, science"
- Type 3: "an artist who writes, composes, paints".Dimadick (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as redundant, we can classify (fictional) people by their actual occupation or educational background; "intellectual" doesn't add anything to that. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2017 (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:Interactions between humans and fish

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Interactions between humans and fish to Category:Fish and humans

Nominator's rationale: The distinction is vague. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Vague distinction. Dimadick (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2017 (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.

Réunionnais people

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 12:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:People from Réunion to Category:Réunionnais people

plus 37 subcategories

Nominator's rationale: The convention of Category:People by nationality is "Fooian people", using the demonymic form. In the past we have made exceptions only for special cases such as Category:People from Georgia (country) (where "Georgian" is ambiguous both with the US state and the Georgian era), and for Category:People from Northern Ireland (where the demonym "Northern Irish" is non-neutral and rejected by a majority).

In this case, "Réunionnais" is the standard demonymic form, and there is no good reason not to use it. The term may be unfamiliar, but so are the demonyms for many other small or impoverished places, and we use many which are much less obvious than this one: e.g. Cat:Burkinabé people (Burkina Faso), Cat:Sammarinese people (San Marino), Cat:Malagasy people (Madagascar), and Cat:Sahrawi people (Western Sahara).

Any unfamiliarity can be accommodated simply by retaining all the redirects which will be created by these moves, so for example entering "Slaves from Réunion" into WP:HOTCAT will still work. And adopting the standard demonymic form will allow the use of the the standard classification templates such as {{Fooian people}} to assist navigation.

I know that in a previous Réunionnais CFD (2014 September 6), some editors expressed a preference for abandoning the demonymic form entirely. I would support that (with a preference for the inclusive "People of FooPlace" as used on commons, e.g. commons:Category:People of the United States) if it was used for all nationalities ... but for now, the convention is demonymic, and all sorts of maintenance hassles are created by non-standard category names such as this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All categories are now tagged, in these edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per convention in most of Category:People by region in France. (And this cfd was a bizarre decision, Guadeloopy even.) Oculi (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oculi:, there are two category trees at play here: nationality, and French departments/regions. Like Guadeloupe, Réunion fits into both groups, as a non-sovereign nation, so the Guadeloupe decision you cite is a good precedent. Scotland, Wales, the Faroe Islands, Hong Kong, Macau, the Falkland Islands, Curacao, Aruba, the Cook Islands, Niue, and many other non-sovereign nations also use the demonymic form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Down with demonymic tyranny. Down with neologisms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. If you want to change the naming convention for people by nationality, then WP:RFC is thataway. I would support a change, but unless and until a change is agreed, the convention stands.
2. A national demonym is not a neologism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Guadaloupean" is most certainly a neologism outside the wiki microcosm. Google, over 5 years, shows ZERO hits for it. See here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what sources ngrams uses, but "Guadeloupean" is widely used in realiable sources. The claim that it's a neologism is plain false.

Google Books shows hundreds of uses of "Guadeloupean", and JSTOR has >659 hits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No comment regarding the tree; delete Category:People of Thai descent from Réunion as empty. (The two articles previously populating the category were miscategorised.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same comment as in the similar Gibraltar discussion a few days earlier: it seems like a case of WP:AINT, since we already have exceptions on "Fooian people" anyway we might also keep this one as is. People from Réunion sounds much better. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcocapelle: WP:NCCAT goes to great lengths to explain the importance of consistency, and it defines limited exceptions. The general principle of category naming is to minimise (and preferably eliminate) exceptions, rather than to shrug our shoulders. We need a substantive reason to keep an exception, rather than retaining it by default.
  I am not hearing any substantive reasons to keep the current title, but there are substantive reasons to favour consistency: it makes it easier to navigate categories if they are consistently named, and consistent naming makes it easier apply classification templates to facilitate navigation. Consistent naming also makes it easy to use tools such as simple AWB modules to maintain the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course I recognize the importance of consistency in general. But for this tree, as we already allow exceptions, I can't imagine that a few more exceptions would cause additional harm. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- one is about birth/residence; the other about nationality. Expatriates do not necessarily become nationals. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: Sorry, but that is completely wrong. In Wikipedia nationality categories, both "Fooian people" and "people from Foo" have exactly the same scope; they are just two ways of labelling the same thing. Expatriates are explicitly categorised by using that word in combination with whichever naming format is used for that country, by substituting the word "people" with the "word expatriates" e.g. Category:Expatriates from Northern Ireland or Category:Croatian expatriates, and all the others in Category:Expatriates by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on the move, which looks unlikely to go ahead, but should it be the English "Réunionese" rather than the French "Réunionnais"? Number 5 7 10:07, 21 February 2017 (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.