mic_none

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 21 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_21

< September 20 September 22 >

September 21

[edit]

Category:World Aquatics Championships templates

[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 category and merge contents as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to category:Swimming templates per WP:SMALLCAT. Izno (talk) 23:58, 21 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:Roman Catholic Personal Prelates

[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) 04:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, unnecessary category layer because Opus Dei is the only existing personal prelature. A speedy renaming request was put on hold. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
speedy discussion
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:Linguists of the Mesoamerican languages

[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) 04:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word "the" is not necessary, and mostly absent within Category:Linguists by language group of study, but three of the current names were chosen at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 20 and may not be eligible for speedy renaming. – Fayenatic London 16:49, 21 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:Rebellious children

[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. This seems like it was a fait accompli at the time of close, what with the creation of Category:Rebellious princes, the category was left empty. This is without prejudice to a new nomination for Category:Rebellious princes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have a full category structure at Category:Rebels and the people in this category were not children when they rebelled. (They were adults who rebelled against their father.) Also, this category could be treated as a joke. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: You are misunderstanding the category, perhaps the name is tad misleading. Its purpose is to list children who rebelled against their parent(s), it has nothing to do with their age. I thought the original name for the category People who rebelled against their parent was a mouthful.--Go-Chlodio (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I don't see how it's broad? Some people I have spoken to actually argue that it was somewhat rare, which is a part of the reason why I decided to create this category. Anyhow, it has nothing do with the English nor pretenders, most of these rebellious children just wanted to more power, but didn't necessarily want to depose their parent. I suppose it could be a subcategory of Category:Rebels.--Go-Chlodio (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Rebellious princes would be nice. Go-Chlodio (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Curthose did rebel against his father; William the Conqueror actually died from wounds that were caused by his rebellion. William was bitter about the whole thing and considered disinheriting Robert on his deathbed, but was convinced to leave him Normandy.
William II and Robert did war, but I wouldn't say that Robert rebelled because he wasn't a subordinate of the king of the English, but the king of the Franks. Go-Chlodio (talk) 16:43, 23 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:Psorospermum 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: merge categories; delete template. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only used on 2 articles. Merge category by replacing Template:Psorospermum-stub with Template:Malpighiales-stub then delete both the category and the template. – Fayenatic London 11:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, what is the general rule for how big stub cats need to be to be used? As I eventually create more articles in the Psorospermum genus, the stub category will populate. In addition, it is properly nested within Mapighiales-stubs and within the Hypericaceae category. I'm not sure what the point of removing it would be. Thanks Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
60 is the usual minimum size for a stub category. @Pegship: please comment, as our resident expert on stub categories.
As for the hierarchies above the nominated category, it's only within that parent stub category after I added it today. – Fayenatic London 16:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. What about a stub template and category for the tribe the genus is in, which I believe is Hypericaceae? There would be a lot more articles to populate that stub category. I am by no means an expert in this area, I'm just trying to better organize the Hypericaceae family, so whatever would seem to be the right course of action, by all means take it. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 19:49, 21 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:Non-Gregorian observances by Gregorian month

[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 2018 OCT 6 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: If the observance isn't on the Gregorian calendar, it doesn't belong to a Gregorian month. 37.26.146.197 (talk) 10:26, 21 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:Incorporations based in Australia

[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) 04:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining Rathfelder (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the term is not used in Australia JarrahTree 09:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Incorporation, or whatever other equivalent term is used in Australia in lieu, is not a defining point of distinction between some organizations and others — it's simply the legal process by which all organizations or companies become organizations or companies, and it's also not a class noun that can be pluralized as a set term for what organizations are: they can be incorporated as an action, but that fact does not make them incorporations as a thing. So it's indiscriminate and not relevant to the category tree. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- What is the normal term for these in Australia? In US they would be called Non-profit organisations, but in Britain, they would be charities. I note that there is a sibling for charities. Are they all charities? If so, Distribute to appropriate charity categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All charities are non-profit organizations, but not all non-profit organizations are automatically charities. Even in Britain, it's still possible for a non-profit organisation to be something other than a charity, so the terms still aren't strictly interchangeable. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 30 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:People associated with the MMR vaccine controversy

[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) 04:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, per WP:OCASSOC, it is also not defining for many people in this category, and if it is they are already prominently mentioned in the MMR vaccine controversy article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do already have Category:Anti-vaccination activists. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:55, 23 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:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Satanism

[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; place article in Category:Former Satanists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category with literally only one member (Bartolo Longo). It's hard to imagine there being many -- or even any -- others. Calton | Talk 05:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then he definitely belongs in Former Satanists (he was, then he wasn't) but not in Converts to Roman Catholicism. Actually looking into the contents of the Bartolo Longo article, growing up in 1840s Italy with "devout Roman Catholic parents" would without the shadow of a doubt involve infant baptism and Catholic education. He was however beatified by the Roman Catholic Church for renouncing Satanism and returning (word found in the first lede line) to Catholicism, so this conversion (although to his original faith) is a defining topic. Note to @Carlossuarez46: is your upmerge opinion your final say in the matter? Current indentation does not suggets that. Place Clichy (talk) 13:31, 27 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:Selina Jen

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two albums which are appropriately categorized under an "albums by artist" subcategory. This is an unnecessary parent category per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every musician who exists does not automatically get one of these just to parent her albums category and WP:BLP — this is done only for artists who have a lot of spinoff content that needs artist-related categorization beyond the standard "albums cat + songs cat + BLP". But that's not present here at all, so there's no navigational need for this. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:49, 21 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:Ella Chen

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only related article is an album which is in an appropriate albums category. Unneeded eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every musician who exists does not automatically get one of these just to parent her albums category and WP:BLP — this is done only for artists who have a lot of spinoff content that needs artist-related categorization beyond the standard "albums cat + songs cat + BLP". But that's not present here at all, so there's no navigational need for this. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 21 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.