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 recreation permitted if it can be populated. MER-C 02:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category not needed until someone of note born in 2020 has an article. Category:2019 births wasn't created until May 2019, Category:2018 births was created until March of that year, and Category:2017 births took two-thirds of the year to pass before it was created. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a births category for each of the last 2,000 years. 2020 isn't going to be an exception. Putting it up for discussion is really just a waste of everyone's time as it is already 2020. It might take a little longer when compared to Category:2020 deaths, but there's no doubt that this category will be used. Category:2020 deaths also links to Category:2020 births. Johndavies837 (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories you mentioned are filled with people who became notable years after their birth. Might as well create categories for 2021 births and 2022 births (and so on) right now then. You are assuming a baby born this year will be notable this year. While likely there will probably be one, we don't know that and this is just a waste of space until that time. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we're talking about 2020 which is the current year. Making a category for 2021 or 2022 doesn't make sense yet. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does having a 2020 one until we know of any notable people born this year. Grutness...wha? 14:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - we'll need it at some point, but there's no need to have an empty cat hanging round until then. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per nom and Grutness. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2019 is already populated. Some people are notable when they are born. Why delete this now when it will be reinstated before the end of the year? Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If and when somebody does have an article to file here, it can be recreated — creating categories is not difficult enough to make it necessary to retain an empty category pending its eventual necessity. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Will be useful, but until someone born in 2020 and is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, we don't need the clutter. Notable deaths are more common than notable births.User:SeemplezmpUser talk:Seemplez 09:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
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.
Support, "journal" is confusing, per nom. "Philately periodicals" (which came up in the previous discussion) might be an option, but "philately magazines" is clearly preferable as it aligns with Category:Magazines. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ww2censor and Johnbod, I am a bit puzzled by the "oppose but rename" !votes. The nom is to rename, so these !votes actually are "support but to a different target". As for that target, there is no "periodicals" category tree where this would easily fit. There is no category "periodicals by subject" (nor should there be, I think), so it is not easy to see where a category "philately periodicals" (preferably not "philatelic") should be categorized. "Magazines by interest" would appear to be a perfect fit, though. The original argument against using "magazines" was that some of the magazines in this category were "high-brow historical works", but "magazine" is most decidedly not synonym with "low-brow", so I don't think that that is a valid reasoning. --Randykitty (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify Randykitty, I'm against the specific rename and I disagree with the proposal, because most of there are NOT magazines in the general sense of the word, they are journals though perhaps not considered academic ones, they are still journals and many describe themselves as such. Philatelic society do not normally produce magazines, but either journals, newsletter or bulletins but not magazines, which as a collection are periodicals. The difference between using philatelic or philately is not too great but philatelists, and many others, normally refer to these publications as philatelic. I don't request or subscribe to a "philately journal" but for a "philatelic journal". Why not use use the WP:COMMONNAME both the topic and the category?
Oppose as not all magazines. Some are newspapers and others are of a scholarly nature. Rename to Philatelic periodicals under Periodicals along with Austrian School periodicals, Magic periodicals, Periodicals about writers, etc. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: On 1 January, Randykitty removed the word Journal from the lead of the articles in the category. Today I restored it to The London Philatelist which describes itself as a journal (see image) and Fakes Forgeries Experts which describes itself thus "A new issue of Fakes, Forgeries & Experts Journal is here". Now I have been reverted on both despite there being no basis for removing the normal English word journal in the first place. "Journal" is not synonymous with "academic journal". Philafrenzy (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Wall Street Journal and its readers will refer to it as "the journal", nevertheless, we call it what it is, a newspaper. Similarly, the publications mentioned above are not peer-reviewed academic journals and following long-standing procedure we call such periodicals "magazines". --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm fine with either magazines or periodicals though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there significant differences in meaning between journals, newspapers and periodicals? Rathfelder (talk) 14:54, 6 January 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.
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. MER-C 02:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to find every permutation of multilingual songs for subcategories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this category partly in the hope that more items would be added. Having lived in the Middle-East I see great value in Judeo-Arabic cultural exchange but think that most of it involves the use of the language of one culture and the cultural style of the other. If anything I'd prefer this category to be deleated, if that may be required, and for Salaam (song) to be placed in Categories: Arabic-language songs, Hebrew-language songs and Multilingual songs. Otherwise it could always be left for a while more. GregKaye 14:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, but Judeo-Arabic cultural exchange may be suitable as the topic of an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 1 January 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: There wasn't a single "Taranaki war"; the pluralised and capitalised name refers to a series of three wars in 19th-century New Zealand, and is a better name for the category. It is also where the key article currently is, but since I put it there that should not be considered a relevant argument for moving the category to suit. Grutness...wha? 12:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should obviously be plural, since we have separate articles about the first and the second war. I am not sure about the capital W though. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with a lower case "W" and a cat redirect from the capitalised form - it looks like history sources are about 50/50 between the two. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 2 January 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:American Journal of Archaeology people[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. MER-C 02:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Textbook case of WP:NONDEFINING. We don't even do this for the top positions of top journals (e.g. EiCs of Nature/Science/etc...). Low-level positions of standard journals don't need a category. (See also this CfD). Randykitty (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. would you actually support deletion of a category for editors of Nature? Unfortunately, most of these are just contributors, for whom it is not defining. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being editor-in-chief of Nature is a full time position and I would regard it as defining. I would not be in support of a category "Nature people". --Randykitty (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know if similar categories exist for other journals, but it seems a bad idea. Association with a journal could be defining for, at most, its editors-in-chief, but given that academics routinely serve as editors of many journals over their careers I think even that's a stretch. Adding everyone who's ever published in a journal (as apparently this category does) would obviously lead to nightmarish overcategorisation. – Joe (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete textbook WP:NONDEFINING per nom. Which is basically per me in the other discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. but rename to Editors of the Americna Journal ofArcheology. At least 3 of the 8 people in this category were editors in chief of this journal, and, as them ajor Americna journal in its field, we should have article on the others also. Remove the ones who were not. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 5 January 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:Women's football leagues in the Republic of Ireland[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:do not rename. MER-C 02:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nobody thinks of American football or Australian rules football when they hear the words Ireland and football. Non of the other subcatgories in Category:Women's association football leagues in Europe have association in their name, not even the UK ones. --Dutchy45 (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 20:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ambiguous with Gaelic football. GiantSnowman 20:03, 2 January 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 9#Category:Fauna of the Pacific Northwest
