Contents

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 22

August 22[edit]

Category:Eponymous food[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering 09:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Eponyms. Please pass the salt. DexDor ^(talk) 20:55, 22 August 2018 (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:Animals and plants named after David Attenborough[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering 09:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Animals and plants named after David Attenborough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't group together similar topics.  See previous discussions e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_5#Category:Plants_named_after_people.  For info: There is David_Attenborough#Species_named_in_Attenborough's_honour. DexDor ^(talk) 19:35, 22 August 2018 (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:1993 establishments in the Palestinian territories[edit]

The result of the discussion was: there is consensus to merge, but not a strong consensus on which way. The balance of opinion favoured a reverse merge to the "Palestinian territories" categories, so that is what will be done. This is without prejudice to a rename proposal to use the "Civil Administration area" and "Israeli Military Governorate" terminology for these categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1993 establishments in the Palestinian territoriestoCategory:1993 establishments in the Israeli Civil Administration area
• Propose merging Category:1992 establishments in the Palestinian territoriestoCategory:1992 establishments in the Israeli Civil Administration area
• Propose merging Category:1991 establishments in the Palestinian territoriestoCategory:1991 establishments in the Israeli Civil Administration area
• Propose merging Category:1990 establishments in the Palestinian territoriestoCategory:1990 establishments in the Israeli Civil Administration area
• Propose merging Category:1987 establishments in the Palestinian territoriestoCategory:1987 establishments in the Israeli Civil Administration area
• Propose merging Category:1986 establishments in the Palestinian territoriestoCategory:1986 establishments in the Israeli Civil Administration area
• Propose merging Category:1984 establishments in the Palestinian territoriestoCategory:1984 establishments in the Israeli Civil Administration area
• Propose merging Category:1983 establishments in the Palestinian territoriestoCategory:1983 establishments in the Israeli Civil Administration area
• Propose merging Category:1982 establishments in the Palestinian territoriestoCategory:1982 establishments in the Israeli Military Governorate

Nominator's rationale: Consequent to the rename of 2013-present categories from Palestinian territoriestoState of Palestine, there should also be no anachronistic use of Palestinian territories prior to when the term was in use; the UN utilized the name "Palestinian territories" from 1999 (adopted as part of ISO 3166-2) to early 2013 to refer to A,B,C areas controlled or otherwise supervised by the Palestinian National Authority; for the convenience we can also add 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 to Palestinian territories scope (before the official UN use, but the same de-facto PNA entity). The actual entity in control of the regarded territory from 1982 to March 1994 was the Israeli Civil Administration, which already has a comprehensive tree of establishment years.GreyShark (dibra) 14:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both seriestoCategory:1993 establishments in the West Bank and Gaza etc. I agree that this is a mess, with two parallel series. I do not think we can have "Palestinian territories" before the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, (I think) as a result of the Oslo peace process, but the "Israeli Civil Administration area" seems to imply spurious legitimacy to Israeli occupation. I do not recall the term being regularly used in the media at the time. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that West Bank and Gaza Strip is a disambig page, not an article.GreyShark (dibra) 16:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Either we should have everything since 1967 under the tree "Palestinian territories", or it should be done as suggested by Greyshark09. In absence of anyone proposing the former, then I'll conditionally support this. Number 57 16:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Common practice is to use the current name of a place for geographical designation, not an older one. Therefore if bringing "everything" under any tree, it should be under "State of Palestine", not "Palestinian territories". This term is the geographical designation for the area. Place Clichy (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with hesitance of Peterkingiron about "Israeli Civil Administration area". Unless a better alternative is offered, let's just keep the current name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: do you mean your support the rename proposal to "Israeli Civil Administration area" or your want to keep the "establishments Palestinian territories" for 1982-93 period?GreyShark (dibra) 09:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: you may favour "reverse merge" rather than "keep". – Fayenatic London 14:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, I should have noticed that myself, in the very first place every pair of categories needs to be combined. In the second place I would prefer reverse merging over merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Laurel Lodged, Fayenatic london, Black Falcon, Place Clichy, and Carlossuarez46: - participants of August discussion and July discussion, who have not yet been summoned here.GreyShark (dibra) 07:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge one way or the other. These are part of the hierarchy for historical categories corresponding to the location of the current entity State of Palestine. My initial preference is to use "Palestinian territories" for 1967 to 2012 per Number 57, including the preceding Category:Establishments in the Israeli Military Governorate, as this would be commonly understood, despite the anachronism. Like Peterkingiron I don't recall "Israeli Civil Administration area", and when I came across that category hierarchy (which was set up by the nominator) I did not easily understand what it covered. The term that I remember from those times was "Israeli-occupied territories", and perhaps we could use that name instead, even if it brings in some establishments in the Golan Heights and Sinai for relevant years. (I commend Greyshark09 for bringing this forward – we do need clarity and consistency here, and for that we need consensus.) – Fayenatic London 14:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge these categories as nominated, because of the clear duplicate. I think all post-1948 chronology categories may be brought under Years in the State of Palestine, using any historical name only in context. Place Clichy (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2018 (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:California Genocide[edit]

The result of the discussion was: renametoCategory:California genocide. – Fayenatic London 13:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete, per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining characteristics. The category was created and populated by a brand new user (the first edit was to create the cat, other edits to populate it). They added for example Spanish missions in California for which the genocide is not a defined characteristics. Massacre articles should be categorized as massacres. Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Category seems very well defined, and "genocide" is indeed applied to the Spanish period by Indians. The Mission system was explicitly for the purpose of eradicating native religion and employed forced labor and kidnapping. San Francisco's Mission Dolores had a survival rate an order of magnitude worse than Dachau's. Sparafucil (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I blocked the creator of a category as a sockpuppet.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the implication of "brand new user" right away. But on its own merits, is there a rationale for renaming a subcategory of Category:Native American genocide?Sparafucil (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, renametoCategory:California genocide per main article California genocide. I do not have a clear view on deletion, the nominator could have a point that Category:Massacres of Native Americans should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: California really is a separate chapter. The issue then seems to be the Category:Native American genocide/Category:Massacres of Native Americans/Category:Ethnic cleansing in North America fork, and I would note that mainstream historians are no longer squeamish about the g word, which is inclusive of Cultural genocide. Sparafucil (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, but rename to California genocide This has a main article and enough content to retain as a useful navigation aid Hmains (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2018 (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:Barony of Veligosti[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 13:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Barony of VeligostitoCategory:Baronies of the Principality of Achaea

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, unneeded category layer as it only contains an eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Constantine ✍ 09:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete -- the sub cat is already in Category:Barons of the Principality of Achaea, which should perhaps be cross-referenced to the parent to this one Category:Baronies of the Principality of Achaea. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right about the subcat, but at least upmerge the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2018 (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:Barony of Vostitsa[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 13:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Barony of VostitsatoCategory:Baronies of the Principality of Achaea and Category:Aigio

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, unneeded category layer as there is only an eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Constantine ✍ 09:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Just delete -- the sub cat is already in Category:Barons of the Principality of Achaea, which should perhaps be cross-referenced to the parent to this one Category:Baronies of the Principality of Achaea. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right about the subcat, but at least upmerge the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2018 (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:Ken Dodd[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Category for the late English comedian. The only members are the Ken Dodd article itself and a non-free image File:Ken Dodd with a glass of milk, circa 1959.jpg which looks like it's ripe for deletion itself. Potentially, there's one other article (Tears (Ken Dodd song) which could have the category, but this is overkill. Calton | Talk 01:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Even with the addition of Tears (Ken Dodd song), Happiness (Bill Anderson song), L'arca di Noè (song), and Diddy Men it would still be a questionable category. No prejudice against re-creation if the number of potential articles grows further, though. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. However, the category isn't tagged as up for deletion, so let's do this the right way, guys. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done added the tag. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2018 (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:Songs written by Ant Whiting[edit]

The result of the discussion was: keep without prejudice against starting a broader discussion about Category:Songs by songwriter. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: these three categories are unnecessary - songs written by Ant Whiting, albums produced by Ant Whiting, Song recordings produced by Ant Whiting. this artist is not very notable. does not warrant three categories! does not warrant a single one. one category only has 6 entries, four of which are rizzle kick songs. COI editors have aggressively permeated this artist's name throughout the project as far and wide as possible. time to reign it in. as an example, he has often only contributed to one song as part of a team and it has been added to his album credits (Albums produced by Ant Whiting). these categories were made as part of a vanity exercise and really aren't warranted. I propose all 3 are deleted and am listing them all Rayman60 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: These categories were originally nominated separately with the same rationale. I consolidated the three nominations into a single nomination for ease of discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No valid rationale supplied for deletion. 'I don't like the editors' work' and 'editors shouldn't work on one particular person' are not valid reasons. Each of the categories are part of established category schemes and I can see no valid reason to delete. If the nominator can find one, I'm happy to reconsider my opinion & !vote. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ant Whiting seems a perfectly valid article, and the categories could be OK. However I agree with the nom that Don't Know Why (SoundGirl song) should not be categorised under any of the 7 song-writers mentioned and the production by AW is not supported by the article. I didn't find any articles for which the contribution of AW is defining. Oculi (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi:. Interesting delete there.

Firstly the songwriters, the number of songwriters relate to the sampling in the song, not the amount of contribution a particular songwriter made. Whiting could have contributed (and owned) 90% of the credits and WP will never know, or maybe we should now delete the McCartney/Lennon cat because they didn't contribute equally to every song?

'Albums produced by' is a mess, because a producer does one track on an album and finishes up in this cat, but that is not something to be debated here.

'Songs produced by' is a reasonable category scheme and I still see no evidence supporting delete.

NB I will check every article and if I do see any that should not be in one of the categories, I will remove, as any editor is entitled to do.

--Richhoncho (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That is why the category is Category:Songs written by Lennon–McCartney. Dreamers (Rizzle Kicks song) does appear to be a perfectly valid member of Category:Song recordings produced by Ant Whiting. I would also concede that there are probably 1000s of Category:Songs written by XXX where XXX is one of very many listed contributors. Oculi (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oculi. I have been through the cats and removed one entry, so now we are at the point that in one post you say delete and a second you concede there are other cats with the same 'problems' that you see. Again, I repeat, there is no policy to delete these cats.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a completely fundamental policy to delete some of these, namely WP:Defining. Whereas any Lennon-McCartney song will include the writers in any competent 20-word summary, the 7 or 8 writers of Don't Know Why (SoundGirl song) will be mentioned as an aside if at all (eg in the infobox, unsourced, and not in the article at all). This applies to many other categories of form Category:Songs written by XXX which should never have been created in the first place and which should all be deleted or severely pruned. Oculi (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oculi. Songwriters are a defining part of a song. You are now trying to limit by number of songwriters, for which there is no policy, or, as far as I am aware, nor any similar restriction regarding cats. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly we disagree on this matter. If the songwriters are so important, why are they not sourced and mentioned prominently in the article? By way of contrast see eg Paperback Writer, Blowing in the wind, Wild Horses (The Rolling Stones song), Candle in the Wind where the relevant composer categories are clearly and properly established. Oculi (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The not mentioned argument is the same as unreferenced argument, doesn't make the subject less notable. If sources do list 2 or 200 songwriters, it is not WP's job to arbitrarily decide that only a specific number are applicable. That is your argument and there is no WP guidance to support you, every other source disagrees with you. It is not our to opine on how others do something. It is or it isn't, it's as simple as that. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there is a template {{Category unsourced}} which can be used to challenge unsourced categories on an article. – Fayenatic London 09:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, FWIW, I have now been through all 3 categories, and he is named as songwriter or producer in every article as per normal WP conventions. I removed two from the album cat this time and I think I removed one before. By all means if somebody wants to check my work, but there is absolutely no reason to single out these three categories for deletion without deleting the whole tree. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2018 (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:Humane Societies by country[edit]

The result of the discussion was: already renamed as nominated at close, but could be renominated for merging if desired. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Humane Societies by countrytoCategory:Humane societies by country

Nominator's rationale: "Category:Humane Societies by country" to "Category:Humane societies by country". The word "Societies" should not be capitalized the same as the main article Humane society. IQ125 (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• RenametoCategory:Humane societies. I originally moved and closed this as uncontroversial; however, it seems premature to have a by country category when there is not even a top-level Category:Humane societies. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Animal charities, I cannot discern a difference between these concepts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I can think of two differences, though I'm not sure if they are worth separate categories: (1) humane societies can be human-focused and not animal-focused (e.g. Royal Humane Society); and (2) humane societies generally focus narrowly on mitigating cruelty and saving lives, whereas animal charities can have wider goals such as conservation of species. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 14:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Black Falcon moved the page already, without closing this discussion. I agree with Carlossuarez on merging, but that would apply to the two subcategories in particular. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I closed it (asWP:CSD#G7) and reopened it after seeing there was no top-level Category:Humane societies. I am not averse to closing this discussion and having a new one for merging if you think that's cleaner. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 14:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's cleaner to start a fresh discussion that includes the Canadian and US subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Animal charities and subcats with Category:Animal charities based in the United States and siblings. Leave cat-redirect, as it is a plausible search term. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Lumping everything into "Animal Charities" is not specific enough. We humane societies in Canada, the USA and probably other countries with articles to be added in the future. These humane societies require a separate category, so people can find them grouped together more easily. IQ125 (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I stand by my previous vote. The Humane societies categorised here are animal rescue charities. Others call themselves Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), probably reflecting RSCPA in UK, Australia, etc. Note there is Royal Humane Society, which is related to saving human life, something quite different. If kept, the capitalisation proposed should be used. However, the Humane Society and SPCA threads differ only in shared name. We do NOT allow SharedName categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: did you miss a "not"? Please just delete this line if you insert the missing word! – Fayenatic London 13:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • CORRECTED. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to "Animal charities" etc, or if that's too specific then to the parent Category:Animal welfare organizations. IMHO the article humane society should also be discussed for merging along with Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals into List of animal welfare organizations, leaving a redirect hatnote about the British Royal Humane Society and no other mention of it on the page. – Fayenatic London 13:11, 19 September 2018 (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:19th-century Iranian people and previous centuries people[edit]

The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 13:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:19th-century Iranian peopletoCategory:19th-century Persian people
• Propose renaming Category:18th-century Iranian peopletoCategory:18th-century Persian people
• Propose renaming Category:17th-century Iranian peopletoCategory:17th-century Persian people
• Propose renaming Category:16th-century Iranian peopletoCategory:16th-century Persian people

and so on.

Nominator's rationale: Rename 19th-century and previous centuries cats as Persian people. Persia was the name used mostly in the western world for more than two millennium and those cats should be renamed to Persian people. Also Persian term also refer to people who use to live in Central Asia and were follower of Persian culture. There are some nationalist who prefer to call themselves 'Iranian' which might be suitable for 'Persian Wikipedia' but not EN Wikipedia. We don't use Deutchland as on the page's title because they call it so in their native language or 'prefer' the term. Störm (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we have to differentiate Iranian people (ethnicity) from the People of the Islamic Republic of Iran (nationality). Same with Persians. For instance we do have Category:19th-century Jews as an ethnic group. Iranians in this regard are a pan-ethnic group, with Persians, Baluchis, Kurds and others as its subgroups.GreyShark (dibra) 13:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: We have already been through this a billion times (this is not the first RFC, if someone could link the others that would be great): Majority of prominent western academic scholars tend use to Iran(ian) pre-1935 since the word is way more accurate (and it's only increasing by every year), and there are various other Iranian groups who are not Persian, all which Storm doesn't seem to have any knowledge of whatsoever, and instead proceeded to accuse me of 'bias' [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, we have meanwhile come to realize that Persians is one of multiple peoples in Iran. These categories are referring to the inhabitants of the kingdom, not to the ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per HistoryofIran and Marcopelle. Using "Iranian people" seems a less-conflicted categorization. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2018 (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.