Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 19 January 21 >

January 20

[edit]

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of train stations

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer, all subcategories (except for one redirect which shouldn't be categorized anyway) are named "Wikipedia requested images of ..." '* Pppery * it has begun... 23:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 16:20, 21 January 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:Roman Catholic presidents of the United States

[edit]
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) 00:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS and WP:SMALLCAT. Category only including John F. Kennedy, and the recently sworn in President Biden. While I agree that certain religions can be semi-defining in some cases for large groups of politicians, this specific religion is too small for its own individual category. It's possible this category can be renamed to Category: American Roman Catholic Politicians to cover a bigger page scope for now. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:43, 20 January 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 of Shanghainese descent

[edit]
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) 00:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, a non-defining characteristic, sometimes mentioned in passing, sometimes not at all (e.g. Joyce Cheng). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is follow-up on this nomination, @Johnpacklambert, Carlossuarez46, William Allen Simpson, Fayenatic london, and Place Clichy: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Prisencolin: Our article on Shanghai says "Originally a fishing village and market town, Shanghai grew in importance in the 19th century due to trade and its favorable port location." From a fishing village to millions of people only happens through movement of people. So whatever ethnicity you want to put on "Shangainese" it's only about a hundred years deep. So someone whose family moved to Shanghai in 1901 and left in 1949 is no more "Shanghainese" than someone whos family moved to Boston and lived there for a similar period. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shanghainese" as a term is often is a more recognizable stand-in term for the peoples of of surrounding provinces of Jiangsu and Zhejiang (which many people in Shanghai have ancestral origins).--Prisencolin (talk)
  • Delete both per nom, not an ethnicity.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Categories for Cantonese, and some southern provinces with their own languages (called 'dialects' - but actually quite different from Mandarin) might have ethnic descent categories, but not Shanghai. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are entire books on written on the subject of Shanghainese emigres in Hong Kong, hopefully the closing admin considers this before any of the knee-jerk delete votes in this thread.
    • Wong, Siu-lun (1988). Emigrant Entrepreneurs: Shanghai Industrialists in Hong Kong. Department of Sociology and Director Social Sciences Research Centre Wong Siu-Lun.
    • Goodstadt, Leo F. (2010), "The Shanghainese: Colonial Allies, Colonial Heirs", Uneasy Partners: The Conflict Between Public Interest and Private Profit in Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, ISBN 978-988-8028-09-2

--Prisencolin (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • This just means that Shanghainese people in Hong Kong is a perfectly valid article, it does not imply anything about the definingness of the category characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not definitive as opposed to the hundreds of other descent categories out there? Give me a break, a few of the sources out there even gives a list of people akin to that in the category. This category is actually more definitive than the majority of descent categories out there. Most if not all the people in this list are connected to the business community, and the politicians and entertainers on the list undoubted used their connection (guanxi) to the Shanghainese emigree community to achieve success in their fields. The example given in the first post of Joyce Cheng is actually a highly illustrative of this: Chen's mother Lydia Sum began her career with Shaw Brothers pictures, a company originally formed in Shanghai and known to work with people from the Yangtze Delta Region (founder Run Run Shaw did not even speak Cantonese for years). Further, ancestral homes were a common item to fill on identity forms in Hong Kong prior to 1997 (and remains commonplace in Mainland China today, so there is even a legal basis for "Shanghaineseness" among certain Hongkongers.
          Bottom line is If you delete this category you are depriving readers of a clean method of navigation that only the category system can provide. (copy edits for some spelling/grammar errors)--Prisencolin (talk) 19:54, 27 January 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:Korean-American fashion designers

[edit]
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:American people of Korean descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Looking at the sources, this appears to be a studied intersection but the name does not match the consensus. User:Namiba 16:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is where we disagree. Only those notable for being American women of Korean descent should be in that category. Adding these egregiously non-notable trivial intersections anywhere else is a violation of our expectations. If you personally want to find and categorize the notable individuals, that's not an automated process.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:19, 22 January 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 librarians of Korean descent

[edit]
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. 00:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCEGRS. User:Namiba 15:31, 20 January 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 sportspeople of Syrian descent

[edit]
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; not clear if there is consensus to not merge and delete outright, so I am defaulting to merge to preserve the categorization information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCEGRS. This is not an intersection consistently recognized in sources. User:Namiba 14:48, 20 January 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:Yacht rock

[edit]
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) 00:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not useful to have a category for a musical genre invented as a joke, about which there is no consensus what falls within its stylistic bounds - even among self-styled experts. The current population of the category reflects the confusion (e.g., "Take it Easy", which the inventors of the term "yacht rock" will go to their graves insisting is not yacht rock). Fundamentally unverifiable, because subjective, and so unsuited to category sorting. Chubbles (talk) 13:06, 20 January 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:Cenla Broadcasting

[edit]
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) 01:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Company owns a bunch of stations in one radio market but is not notable enough for a category. The company article was prodded and the company navbox TfD'd in 2019, and if I was aware of this category when I did the prod, this would have been CfD'd then. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:32, 20 January 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:Destroyed landmarks in the United Kingdom

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, these are all buildings and structures, the category does not distinguish itself from its parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up see this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I looked at the contents to see if there was anything that was not a "building or structure"; and there was not. There is scope for a sub-category for destroyed prehistoric remains, covering megaliths, stone circles, etc. The distinction between destroyed (e.g. by enemy action or fire) and demolished does not seem to me a real one. Furthermore, I would question whether some were landmarks: they seems more like notable former buildings. In UK one can sometimes give road directions as to turning at certain pubs at road junctions, but are gthose pubs truly landmarks? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 24 January 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:Nazis who served in World War I

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure they all serve in the German military during World War I?--User:Namiba 14:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The German category is a parent, so heritage is already implied, even though not always correct. 22 are in Category:Austro-Hungarian military personnel of World War I, list available with this Petscan request. Out of 210 other members, 109 are already at the root of the target category, and 25 others in a subcategory (redundancy removed). Another 32 are in Category:Recipients of the Iron Cross (1914), which was in principle not awarded to either civilians or non-Germans. An additional 18 are in Category:20th-century Freikorps personnel, in principle all Germans. The remaining 26 (Friedrich Bethge, Ernst Biberstein, Werner von Blomberg, Philipp Bouhler, Ernst Buchner (curator), Josef Bürckel, Walther von Corswant, Rudolf Diels, Artur Dinter, Wilhelm Grimm (Nazi politician), Heinrich Haake, Otto Hellmuth, Paul Hoenscher, Karl Holz (Nazi), Wilhelm Koppe, Robert Ley, Arthur Nebe, Erich Neumann (politician), Wilhelm Ritterbusch, Ludwig Ruckdeschel, Josef Terboven, Fritz Wächtler, Adolf Wagner, Josef Wagner (Gauleiter), Gustav Adolf von Wulffen and Falk Zipperer) were all Germans in 1914-18. Only the 22 Autro-Hungarians should therefore not be merged to the target category imho. Place Clichy (talk) 23:50, 20 January 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:National Hockey League Ice Dancers squads

[edit]
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) 00:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Ice Dancers, the term "Ice Dancers" is not in use (and it's unclear whether it was ever in use). The current category consists of cheerleading squads of NHL teams. Pichpich (talk) 01:54, 20 January 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 Wen-Hu

[edit]
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) 00:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lowest one still above the sash
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of Wen-Hu was a military award from the Republic of China awarded to foreign recipients. The high ranking British, U.S. and Japanese officials that make up this category are about evenly split between those that mention the award in passing and those that don't mention it at all, so it doesn't seem defining. (British Missionary William Edward Soothill is the sole exception here since he was not high ranking and the article discusses the reason for winning the award.) Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka Giichi can be seen here with the award. All of the category contents are now listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow, nice catch for the illustration. This should your great knowledge in medals and decorations. I would probably not go as far as to define the award as one awarded to foreign recipients – even if some foreigners received it, it is quite a leap to infer that it was primarily created to honour visiting diplomats and not a domestic award that was also used for this purpose. However there is no indication in the main article of how meaningful this Chinese WWI decoration was. Place Clichy (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. This award was given to (non-notable) Chinese recipients. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 21 January 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 Carol I

[edit]
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) 00:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders visited the Kingdom of Romania, or vice versa, the Order of Carol I was given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Farouk of Egypt, Leopold II of Belgium and Edward VIII are not remotely defined by this award. The only Romanian recipients are royalty and a few high ranking officials. The category contents are located right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 20 January 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_January_20&oldid=1006468211"