Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 12 September 14 >

September 13[edit]

Category:Catholic Church Councils by country[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: keep. ℯxplicit 04:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: . This one was evidently renamed along with other "(Roman) Catholic Church by country" categories in error. The parent Category:Roman Catholic Church Councils specifies that it is only for Councils after the schism of 1054, so the word Roman is needed. – Fayenatic London 23:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @Chicbyaccident, Marcocapelle, Peterkingiron, Laurel Lodged, and Johnpacklambert: as participants in the previous CFD. – Fayenatic London 23:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sometimes the pre-Great Schism church is referred to with the term Great Church. But where are the arguments for a post Great Schism disambiguator, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The precedent has been set. Multiple CFD decisions now rule that Roman Catholic becomes Catholic. There is no error here. There is no danger of this being confused with Ecumenical Councils. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the rationale. Pre-1054 ought to be Christian, post-1054 Catholic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Catholic" was used for the main body of the universal church until 1054, e.g. against the Donatists, see Donatism#Decline. – Fayenatic London 23:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, thanks for the explanation. It becomes confusing though to use the term Catholic while it intends to include the Byzantine and eastern Slavic part of Christianity, this particular use of the term Catholic is no longer common language. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The recent trend has been to renames that drop "Roman" from article names. I have been opposing that for post-Reformation Britain, where "Roman" needs disambiguating from "Anglo" and a few minor denominations, such as "Old Catholic". In this case the English Councils are all medieval, at a period for which Catholic is entirely appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 17 September 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:Medchal district geography stubs[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: upmerge to Category:Telangana geography stubs (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This district is new from a recent split of the districts. (Well, about a year old now.) Permanent category only contains 11 articles. Perhaps the permcat is also not fully split from the former parent district. Propose deleting this category and upmerging template to Category:Telangana geography stubs. Also propose renaming template to {{MedchalMalkajgiri-geo-stub}} to match the permanent category and main article. I have nothing against recreating with a name matching the permanent category once at least 60 articles are tagged with the template. Dawynn (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Supprt per Dawynn. I would also like to add that upmerging, and eventually recreating, this stub category takes very little human effort - depopulate it now, and repopulate it later, in a single edit to the stub tag. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:05, 14 September 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:All Wikipedia articles written in American English[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: keep as hidden category (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is just an unimportant way to distinguish articles. Georgia guy (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Category is added by a template, {{Use American English}}, and is part of the Wikipedia articles written in a national variety of English category tree. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making it hidden again. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 14 September 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.

Ottoman 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: rename all. ℯxplicit 04:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
more nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: rename to same format as Category:People of the Habsburg Monarchy and Category:People of the Achaemenid Empire. The current format wrongly suggests there was an Ottoman nationality or ethnicity, while the Ottoman Empire was nothing more or less than the Turkish empire named after the ruling Ottoman dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • support This seems reasonable and helpful to category users Hmains (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ottoman is not considered an ethnicity. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Strictly "Ottoman" applies only to the dynasty. The contemporary term was probably "Turkish", but that has implications of ethnicity, which are unhelpful. Before Greek independence, Greek people were Ottoman subjects, but calling them Ottomans or Turks would produce anger. However, I would like us to consider the ethnic descent categories further, as I am not convinced of their merits. Wherever possible people should be in their proper ethnic category. For example all the Druze of the Ottoman period were Ottoman subjects, so that a descent category is not useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This was a multiethnic empire with a diverse group of peoples under its control. Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 23 September 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.

English-language albums[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 all (non-admin closure). I may not agree, but consensus is consensus and with more than two months to discuss, this should be sufficient. After I suggested a closure for lack of consensus and then someone changing his vote from containerizing to deletion, I figure that deletion is what the community wants. I think we should seriously discuss or consider other media by language and English-language media categories as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Purge of content that overlaps with English-speaking artist nationalities. There is little benefit in categorising American, Australian, British, Canadian (etc) albums as English-language, since this applies to the majority of the national output. For precedents see Category:English-language singers, which has always excluded Anglophone-nationality singers, and Category:English-language songs which has followed that example since 2012 (see CFD in 2012). The remaining contents should then be split to e.g. Category:English-language German albums containing Category:Boney M. albums, etc etc. – Fayenatic London 09:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Category:English-language singers holds pages directly where there are only one or two singers of a given nationality for whom English-language singing is WP:DEFINING. However, Category:English-language songs is a full container category, with no pages held directly, because even if there is only one current member, it is likely that more examples will arise. IMHO the English-language albums category should be structured like the songs category. – Fayenatic London 09:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree First off, there are many millions of persons who live in English-speaking areas but speak other languages (e.g. Christina Aguilera has released English and Spanish music) plus there are many millions who don't live in the Anglosphere but still record in English (e.g. Shakira also records in English and Spanish). Plus, many forms of music are almost entirely instrumental--classical and jazz. Also, since some artists record in multiple languages, it would be misleading to have them all group by nationality. Think about how many dozens of incorrect subcategories you will have and hundreds of incorrect pages: John Coltrane is from America but Ascension doesn't have English-language lyrics (or any lyrics at all). Mi Reflejo is by an American in Spanish. Would Indian and South African artists be subcategorized as "English-speaking" when they have a dozen national languages each but English is the primary lingua-franca? This just introduces far more problems then it solves. The current scheme is simple and intuitive: if an album has lyrics in English, it goes in Category:English-language albums. It doesn't matter where you were born or reside--just if you recorded in English. See also Category:English-language books or Category:English-language journals. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this has been nominated twice before, the second time nominated by me.
  • Delete all for rationale I gave the last time. We don't identify/define albums by what language they are in (it is usually the artist/performer which determines that) and the scheme itself is not useful because few if anyone would be looking for other English-language albums within that category. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Adding to what Koavf noted, I think a significant number of Canadians speak French as a first language. Canada's official languages are English and also French. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not at all useful. Rathfelder (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination as a good compromise between deleting and keeping. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A recording being sung in English is just as much of a defining characteristic as it being recorded in any other language. This being the English Wikipedia does not deflect that characteristic. We have Category:English-language media for different mediums. Why the music categories are always the target is beyond me. ℯxplicit 04:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination. As nominator for Category:English-language songs I repeat my delete nomination for that category: 'Somebody is presently populating this category with every song sung in English by any singer, and, as such, it would be non-defining and fail Wikipedia:Overcategorization by about 60,000 members (there are presently 2100 plus entries including one instrumental with la-la-las only!). If it was intended, as I suspect, to be songs sung in English by non-english speakers it needs to be renamed to avoid confusion. In any event there are now so many members that starting afresh would be the simplest way to proceed.' There are presently 11,000 plus albums, who is going to use such a large category? What real purpose does it have linking a Howlin' Wolf song with a Rihanna song, other than the singers sing in English? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Not unhappy with a full delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Richhoncho: These language categories can easily be diffused even further by genre and artist nationality if needed: Category:English-language pop albums by Canadian singers. ℯxplicit 02:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see any reason why the guidelines set down in songs and in singers Category:English-language singers should be any different for albums. This nomination brings a little harmonisation to WP and that's not a bad thing. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Richhoncho: This harmonization between the music-related categories wrecks the one set by the Category:English-language media category tree, and makes me wonder if the related WikiProjects it directly affects received notice of the previous nominations. This should be reviewed, and probably reverted. It still remains unexplained as to why the other media-related categories don't receive similar treatment. Category:English-language journals holds nearly 6,000 articles. Category:English-language films holds over 55,000. Is it more defining in these cases? It is unclear how that is. Is it just as defining? Then there's a clear error here. And in both of those cases, just like the albums category, diffusion can easily be implemented. ℯxplicit 05:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I still don't see this as a useful point of categorization — nobody needs a category in which Ed Sheeran albums are filed directly alongside Taylor Swift albums and Bob Dylan albums and Radiohead albums and Ella Fitzgerald albums and Merle Haggard albums and Jane Siberry albums and some Céline Dion albums solely on the basis of what language the lyrics happen to be written and performed in — whether "defining" or not, it fails to help anybody do anything that anybody needs to do. There may potentially be some benefit in categorizing English-language albums by artists who frequently record and perform in multiple languages, such as Céline Dion or Christina Aguilera, but there's very little use to having one giant catch-all category for every album that happens to be sung in English regardless of whether there's any substantive point of genre commonality that would make grouping those albums together useful for research reasons. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: That is an incredibly broad view on these categories. Would you support the deletion of other language categories like Category:Japanese-language albums? Unless Ayumi Hamasaki's A Ballads, Loudness's Disillusion, Charisma.com's Distopping, or Arashi's Love are somehow more defined by the language than the examples you provided. ℯxplicit 02:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit: I listed it at the project for you, but it would have shown up for anybody watching notifications in any event. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggesting close as no consensus Between keeping, purging, and deleting, we have no clear consensus on this after five weeks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf:. Not sure I agree with you here, Justin, we have two precedents in the music category, Category:English-language singers and Category:English-language songs which are container categories. We have two objections to the nomination, 3 supporting delete and 3 supporting the nomination (including the nom). I have further muddied the waters by supporting the nomination, but making the point I would support delete as an alternative to keeping a limitless and meaningless category. Perhaps the simple question would be if @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, @Rathfelder: and @Bearcat: would consider the compromise and change from a delete to support the nomination? Obviously the closing admin will have consider the weight of the arguments too. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still support delete of all and would support deletion of all albums by language categories by the native language. If a Croatian band has an album of songs sung in the Croatian language, it's not a defining aspect of the album. The Croatian aspect of the album is more definitely covered by inclusion in Category:Albums by Croatian artists. If Lada Gaga releases an album in which she sings all the song in Croatian, that would be defining. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to say that I think this is not quite as bad as Category:English-language singers. Being able to sing in a language does not show much proficiency in it, and many people can sing in 5-plus languages. It leads to category clutter. If there were not so many such categories, I would do a mass nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Pointless and non-defining categories. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I voted support nomination before but, in addition, I would definitely prefer deletion over keeping. Categorizing so many albums by the native language of the performers is just completely useless. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 19 November 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.

Christadelphians by nationality[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 26#Christadelphians by nationality. ℯxplicit 04:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename/merge per WP:SMALLCAT, it is a global denomination, but very small, and only the English/British categories are worth keeping apart. Note that Category:Christadelphians isn't a great merge target because it is the top category with articles about the denomination, therefore I've suggested Category:Christadelphian people instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size is an argument per WP:SMALLCAT. There is an exception mentioned in this guideline (when a single nominated category is part of a large overall accepted scheme) but the exception is not applicable here: the scheme is not large and the nomination is not about a part but about the whole tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is untrue. If you had been nominating "the whole tree" then I would not have opposed your proposal. Mais oui! (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially you are in favor of the proposal but you want to have the British and English category merged as well? I would be fine with that too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nearly correct. I would rephrase that as "not opposed" rather than "in favor", but you have the right gist. Mais oui! (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These alternative names work fine for me as well. The essential thing here is that we have a category with topic articles about the denomination and a subcategory with biographies of adherents. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 18 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_13&oldid=1138411555"