Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 1
August 3 >

August 2

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Television shows written by John Swartzwelder

Nominator's rationale: The category contains articles about individual episodes, not shows. Mr slav999 ( talk) 16:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Hotels in Pattaya

Nominator's rationale: Only has 1 entry. LibStar ( talk) 00:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Pages using LPFM station data without facility ID

Nominator's rationale: No longer used in {{ LPFM station data}} after the cleanup was completed. House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Xth-century Indian sculptors

Nominator's rationale: Procedural follow up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 25#Category:12th-century Indian sculptors. Pinging patricipants Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison. These century cats are isolated and unhelpful for navigation. Qwerfjkl talk 15:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Uncategorised film articles

Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem to be used by any template as I couldn't find it in an insource search. As a manual placed category this isn't really useful. Gonnym ( talk) 07:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Sportspeople from Japan by prefecture

Nominator's rationale: per (many) previous precedents. Moved to full Cfd; split should be at the end and it should by "Foo people by region". Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Which prefecture? What country? Can a Japanese player play in a Baseball team in Bangui (Prefecture)? This creates a problem that the previous naming convention did not have. Gonnym ( talk) 13:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't see any issue or confusion here. Its for categorizing by birth place or place where they grew up, not where they played. Majority of categories like this are named like that. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 14:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Procedural close as potential trainwreck per Canadian nomination above. Grutness... wha? 15:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Sportspeople by Canadian province or territory and sport

Nominator's rationale: per previous precedents. Moved to full Cfd. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Which province or territory? What country? Can a Canadian player play in a Baseball team in the Northern Territory? This creates a problem that the previous naming convention did not have. Gonnym ( talk) 13:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't see any issue or confusion here. Its for categorizing by birth place or place where they grew up, not where they played. Majority of categories are named like this. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Olympic Games in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Not well defining, some of the entries can be moved to Category:Works about the Olympic Games, but not all of them. I also suspect that most of those entries are already in one of those subcategories. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 14:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Module documentation pages

Nominator's rationale: Per my comments at WP:VPT#Adding documentation subpage to module doc pages, populating this category properly requires a lot of effort both now and every future time a new module is created. Since a similar list can be found via CirrusSearch, the existence of this category is an unnecessary and wasteful drain of resources. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. WLH only includes pages that transclude {{ Documentation subpage}} directly. Open any doc page in that list and you'll see that the documentation subpage message appears twice. Pppery is wrong. If the category is deleted then finding documentation subpages will become much harder. Nickps ( talk) 17:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I was wrong about that specific point (now removed), but not my broader point: CirrusSearch or frankly even Special:AllPages/Module: since almost half of all module pages are documentation pages should suffice. And what is the value of finding a list of all module documentation pages anyway? That's never been answered. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Adding Category:Module documentation pages to your watchlist and letting category changes through the filter would allow you to see every new documentation page in your watchlist. The utility of this feature is explained in MediaWiki_talk:Scribunto-doc-page-header#Category:Module_documentation_pages. Nickps ( talk) 17:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And why would one want to see every new documentation page on one's watchlist? This still looks like an overengineered solution in search of a problem, causing unnecessary chaos as a result. On the contrary to what you claim, that discussion shows one person who relies on watching template documentation pages and explicitly does not care about module documentaton pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I know I watch the category. I can't speak for anyone else. If you ask me though, both of the arguments made for Category:Template documentation pages apply to modules because, while vandalism in module space is rarer, those pages are also less frequently visited, so it can be harder to spot. Removing a tool that would help with this process is a step in the wrong direction. Nickps ( talk) 17:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And why would one want to see every new documentation page on one's watchlist? – because one is interested in maintaining module documentation. Keeping it consistent, up-to-date, etc. —⁠ andrybak ( talk) 17:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Conversely, pages like Module:Category_disambiguation/doc are not listed in the WLH, despite clearly including the template. Nickps ( talk) 17:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Re: populating this category properly requires a lot of effort [...] every future time a new module is created – /doc pages are populated via preload Template:Documentation/preload-module-doc, so it won't be a lot of effort if {{ Documentation subpage}} is added to the preload. —⁠ andrybak ( talk) 18:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Squares and ball games

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary/overcategorization Gjs238 ( talk) 22:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Three pages are in this category. This category improves WP readers finding things and is helpful. Perhaps some changes in the category name such as "Squares court and ball games" would be better. Happy to progress with the existing name. Rockycape ( talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. It feels unnecessary to have a completely separate category for ball games that involve squares, when "Squares" could simply be added as a subcategory of "Ball games".
Nn88nn88 ( talk) 00:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Ball games --> Category:Squares and ball games --> Category: Squares

Look up four square or foursquare in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

"Squares" from Category: Squares the generic name commonly used. As follows from Wiktionary definition: A sport played by four players where players have to hit a ball into other people's squares, and attempt to make a return hit. This category includes Hopscotch, Foursquare, Handball (schoolyard game) and Russian four square. Rockycape ( talk) 05:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • @ Rockycape: I am sorry but Wiktionary is not a reliable source. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • @ Marcocapelle: Happy to use a online OED reference. Sorry it's behind a paywall. Hmmm - need to give some more thought.
    Rockycape ( talk) 00:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Considering the difficulty you have mentioning only one reliable source it is very unlikely that any term is commonly used to describe these three games as a coherent set. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        Should be ok as it is commonly used and it's 2/2 with the paywall being the problem for the AED. Off to the bricks and mortar library for me and to take a squiz at the dictionary there. Rockycape ( talk) 01:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        Macquarie Australian slang dictionary
        Author: general editor James Lambert.
        Imprint: Macquarie University, NSW : Macquarie Library, 2004.
        ISBN: 1876429526
        handball - a common schoolyard game played with a tennis ball which is hit with the hands in a court, consisting usually of either four or six squares, drawn on the asphalt. Four square - The version with four squares also gets called four square

It looks like the Macquarie University reference is of a high standard in addition to backing up the Oxford Dictionary reference(paywall) and the lesser Wiktionary one. Rockycape ( talk) 20:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply

So it's a definition of handball, played with a tennis ball. Sounds like a ball game. Gjs238 ( talk) 10:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
A
B
C
Rockycape ( talk) 10:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
In the diagram above we would have (A) wall, (B) ball_games, (C) squares.
The categories are:
Category:Ball games
Category:Squares and ball games - you can't play these games without the requisite Squares - just like Squares are essential for Hopscotch. (No ball required for Hopscotch but you get the idea)
Category:Wall and ball games - you can't play these games without the requisite Wall - just like the Wall is essential for squash. (No racquet required here but you get the idea)
Category:Wall and ball games exists already
Category:Squares and ball games is the one we are discussing.
I did the diagram for my benefit to hopefully be able to explain my rationale.
We already many, many games in the Ball games category so collapsing either of the above categories is going to be a step backwards in clarity. Rockycape ( talk) 10:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:19th-century feminists

Nominator's rationale: There is no need to have an intersection between political orientation and century. Mason ( talk) 02:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as a defining characteristic of the individuals named. One reason there are so few is that the social cost of being an overall true feminist in the 1800s, and not only those who supported the vote, was substantial. Rarity does not mean it isn't a viable topic, just the opposite. That same rarity makes these individuals even more unique in their approach and support of their fellow women. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    No one is saying rarity is not defining. I don't think having an isolated category is helpful here. How would the keeps feel about an alternative name that doesn't include century? Like Early feminists or premodern feminists? Mason ( talk) 04:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I just added another entry, this is a defining category. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Ok, but @ Randy Kryn, do you have suggestions that could avoid using the term century? The challenge with 19th-century, is that is that there is only 1 century. The norm is to not create 20th or 21st century for activists, so an alternative name would be extremely helpful. Mason ( talk) 23:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the ping. '19th-century' seems fine as a historical era-descriptor. The concept of 19th century feminists is interesting and descriptive. 18th century feminists may be a good essential category as well, tracking encyclopedically the "early" progress and social instinct of activist women such as Mary Wollstonecraft. 20th and 21st century would be a very full list, so they could be created or not. But 19th century notables, yes, it works on several levels. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:1370 in Brussels

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1511 in Brussels.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Museum collections

More nominations
Nominator's rationale: Subcategories of Category:Museum collections for individual museums currently use a mixture of the styles "Collection of [the Foo Museum]" and "Collections of [the Foo Museum]". I propose to standardize to "Collection", singular, as that seems more logical; the article Collection (museum) mostly refers to a museum as having a "collection" as opposed to "collections", plural – although "Very large museums will often have many sub-collections, each with its own criteria for collecting. A natural history museum, for example, will have mammals in a separate collection from insects." Even in those cases, though, it's still idiomatic to refer to the collection of, say, the British Museum – see this Ngram. Ham II ( talk) 06:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose It is indeed correct to use a plural categroy name when a museum has multiple named collections, often each with their own subcategory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose As Andy. Collections in plural (for all but the smallest museums) is correct. Especially for our use, where we regularly have subcategories to more specific collections. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose for the reasons expressed above. I think it would be better to standardize using "Collections", since it is not uncommon for museums to have multiple collections. — SGconlaw ( talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose and standardize 'Collections' per Sgconlaw. For example, I often refer to Wikipedia's topic collections and not overall 'collection of articles'. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong support I'm very puzzled by these opposes - most from people not known for activity in this area. To "standardize using "Collections", since it is not uncommon for museums to have multiple collections" is just NOT an option, as many museums don't have multiple named options. We can indeed use named subcategories though pretty few museum categories actually do so - one exception is Category:British Library. We normally sub-categorize by type of object, area they are from etc. You will very very rarely hear museum people talk about "our collections" rather than "our collection". If, like me, you work a lot in this area, including categories, it is a complete pain to have to keep experimenting to see which form is used by us. Johnbod ( talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Johnbod, that sounds like an argument against the proposal to make everything match. The British Library has many collections, so it should stay at Category:British Library collections (in the plural), and museums that only have one collection should use the singular. Do you really want Category:British Library collections to be renamed to the singular? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, for consistency, which is important here. Alternatively the intermediate Category:British Library collections could just be cut out, and the 15 named collection sub-cats just come off the main BL category. But that will rather mess up parent categories like, in this case Category:Manuscripts by collection. Johnbod ( talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I intend to look at library collections in another nomination. With museums that could be said to have multiple collections, it's better to subdivide by object type and/or the geographical area where the objects are from, rather than by discrete sub-collection, and for the most part that's what we do. There is the added complication of several museums having multiple locations, and that is something that does show up in categorization. But we don't tend to have the equivalent of Category:Burney Collection and Category:Harleian Collection within Category:British Library collections for museums. Ham II ( talk) 09:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support, will take Johnbod's word for this when it comes to museum information. I personally use 'collection' when discussing Wikipedia ("Wikipedia's spaceflight collection", etc.) but that's a personal choice. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • support like Johnbod, i'm confused about the opposition here. his argument makes sense to me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It would be clearer (and more in-line with usual category naming schemes) to have these categories titled as Category:Items Objects in the collection of Foo Museum. But I'm not sure it's a net benefit with the increased wordiness. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC), 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • "Objects" is the correct term, used by museums themselves. "Items" is actually a good deal less clear and adds nothing. Johnbod ( talk) 12:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for the correction. I'm not familiar with the exact wording, but you probably get my intent. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      • @ Johnbod: what is your opinion about Category:Objects of Foo Museum? It seems to me that most articles are about an object rather than about a collection. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        • Certainly they mostly are (though again, the British Library has some about actual collections), but I don't really see the need. "Collection of ..." seems very readily comprehensible. Johnbod ( talk) 15:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        • If we were to go with "Objects" it should be "Objects in the Foo Museum", not "Objects of the Foo Museum", for consistency with subcategories; "Paintings of", "Drawings of" and "Photographs of" would sound like depictions of the buildings.

          I don't think "Objects" is ideal for art collections. "Collection(s)" is more all-encompassing; we just need to pick a side on the question of singular versus plural. It's the categories, rather than the articles, that are about a collection – which is an argument for "Collection" being in the singular in each category name. Ham II ( talk) 18:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion on the objects suggestion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 02:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • 'Collection', per Ham. Museums collect and build collections, and then they either display the diverse works and objects collected or store them. Works differ from objects in important ways, although both are included in institutional collections. Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. For what its worth I'm also a museum professional and frequently talk about the Collections in plural, in a situation where the term refers to all the things in museum institution. I can see a situation where where there is a subcategory of the above naming e..g 'Archaeology collection of...' or 'Natural Sciences collection of...' where the singular makes more sense. But for these broad, high level categories I prefer plural. Personal take. Zakhx150 ( talk) 10:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums. Ham II ( talk) 06:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Came here from aforementioned notification (thank you!). I don't think this is a situation where it can be standardized because the situation of the Met or the British Museum is very different to that of a small museum with one collection. The collections are within the broader collection, yes, but purely singular won't work if there isn't the option for both. Star Mississippi 13:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for the response. If one can say "the collections are within the broader collection" then collection in the singular is acceptable, though. The Met's webpage for searching its holdings is titled " The Met Collection" and the British Museum's is titled " Explore the collection". It would seem that purely singular is viable for both larger and smaller institutions, and purely plural works less well for the smaller ones. Ham II ( talk) 14:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:American veterans activists

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason ( talk) 03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Mason, there are many types of activists beyond just advocating for "rights". With the merge, it is unclear if everyone in the category to be eliminated fits in "rights" advocacy, nor does it allow for more complete capturing of veterans activists in the future. There's also two cat scheme connections here with the current setup. Category:American veterans activists as subcat of Category:American activists and Category:American veterans' rights activists as subset of Category:Veterans' rights activists by nationality. Semper Fi! ( talk) 11:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, I understand all that it would be unclear, that is why I am asking. @ FieldMarineDo you have any example of an American veterans activist who does not fit into the "rights" advocacy bucket? Please be specific because I don't see how they aren't fully overlapping right now. Mason ( talk) 11:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Mason, in checking the first three, I do not see the word "rights" mentioned at all. I do see advocacy mentioned. In one case I see suicide prevention, which fits with advocacy not " rights". Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 13:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Ok, let me rephrase. I'm asking because I am trying to understand how this category is substantively and meaningfully different. It would be extremely helpful for you (as the category creator) to provide concrete examples of why you think these categories are unique. I'm not opposed to reverse merging, however, reverse merging would eventually lead to renaming and reparenting a lot of other sibling categories. Hence, I'm trying to understand if this distinction is fundamentally meaningful. Suicide prevention is useful, but it doesn't really seem from looking at the categories that this group is unique other than they don't seem to have mentioned activism for rights specifically, but still they are advocating for veterans to have a better life. As a counter example, we don't have both a disability activists category and a disability rights activists category. They are highly overlapping because the core element is advocacy on behalf of disabled people. Mason ( talk) 23:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with the issue raised about the possible disruption to the sibling categories with a merge or reverse merge for the reason I mention above – right now as separate subcats they are aligned with the parent cats. As for the counter example, "We don't have both a disability activists category and a disability rights activists category." I am not aware there's such a thing as a "disability activist", so it is unclear how that could ever be a cat. However, veterans activists do exist. Also of note to this discussion, the "disability rights activist" cat is a subcat of a higher-level activist cat.
Rights has a specific meaning and there are veterans activists who advocate beyond "rights". None of the articles in this category mention veterans rights at all. The veteran suicide issue is a good example because it encompasses a wide range of activists, well beyond advocating for rights. In my opinion, straying away from meanings or taking a loose view invites an improper or unmeaningful cat scheme. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 13:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Cochise County conflict

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPSEP, this should be split into a non-people and people category, enabling the people to be places in such categories as Category:19th-century people by conflict, etc. -- wooden superman 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:People with Asperger syndrome

Nominator's rationale: and also manually merge where needed to categories in Category:People on the autism spectrum. Many of these are already there, I would say. In some cases, I can't find sources which say they were diagnosed with it; in which case purge. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Pages using FM station data without facility ID

Nominator's rationale: No longer used by {{ FM station data}} now that the cleanup has been completed. House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 22:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Pages using AM station data without facility ID

Nominator's rationale: No longer used by {{ AM station data}} after the cleanup was completed. House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 22:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:2022 establishment in Venezuela

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: withdrawn. Going to CFDS. House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 17:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Obvious duplicate categories. House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 12:53, 2 August 2024 (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.

Families by person

More categories
Nominator's rationale: The subcategories of Category:Families by person are inconsistently named in the forms "Full Name family" and "Family of Full Name". "Full Name family" sounds awkward and doesn't match the titles of articles, which seem to usually be in the form "Family of Full Name" (e.g. Category:Lyndon B. Johnson family vs Family of Lyndon B. Johnson). The natural way you would refer to the family of a person named John Smith is either "the family of John Smith", "John Smith's family" or "the Smith family" but never "the John Smith family". "Full Name family" also doesn't work well for people named mononymously (e.g. Category:Family of Aaron‎ vs "Aaron family") or people with titles or suffixes in their name. Following the recent CfD for Category:Family of Boris Johnson, there seemed to be consensus that "Family of Full Name" is better.
(Note there are also many other categories named in form "Surname family", e.g. the subcategories of Category:American families. The only difference with some of these full name family categories is that the surname would be too ambiguous to be used alone, although I'd argue the same is true of many of the surname family categories. Why does Category:Abbott family refer exclusively to that particular American family and not the family of former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott, for instance?) MClay1 ( talk) 11:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Etsu Patigi

Nominator's rationale: delete, the articles already link to each other directly. No merge needed, the articles are already in Category:Nigerian traditional states and Category:Nigerian traditional rulers. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Zazzau

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Brazilian Armed Forces

Nominator's rationale: The only article in this category is Future of the Brazilian Armed Forces, which is also in Category:Military of Brazil, to which this category is redundant. Category:Brazilian Armed Forces is also improperly categorised - its only parent is itself. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 05:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_2&oldid=1238202057"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 1
August 3 >

August 2

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Television shows written by John Swartzwelder

Nominator's rationale: The category contains articles about individual episodes, not shows. Mr slav999 ( talk) 16:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Hotels in Pattaya

Nominator's rationale: Only has 1 entry. LibStar ( talk) 00:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Pages using LPFM station data without facility ID

Nominator's rationale: No longer used in {{ LPFM station data}} after the cleanup was completed. House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Xth-century Indian sculptors

Nominator's rationale: Procedural follow up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 25#Category:12th-century Indian sculptors. Pinging patricipants Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison. These century cats are isolated and unhelpful for navigation. Qwerfjkl talk 15:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Uncategorised film articles

Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem to be used by any template as I couldn't find it in an insource search. As a manual placed category this isn't really useful. Gonnym ( talk) 07:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Sportspeople from Japan by prefecture

Nominator's rationale: per (many) previous precedents. Moved to full Cfd; split should be at the end and it should by "Foo people by region". Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Which prefecture? What country? Can a Japanese player play in a Baseball team in Bangui (Prefecture)? This creates a problem that the previous naming convention did not have. Gonnym ( talk) 13:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't see any issue or confusion here. Its for categorizing by birth place or place where they grew up, not where they played. Majority of categories like this are named like that. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 14:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Procedural close as potential trainwreck per Canadian nomination above. Grutness... wha? 15:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Sportspeople by Canadian province or territory and sport

Nominator's rationale: per previous precedents. Moved to full Cfd. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Which province or territory? What country? Can a Canadian player play in a Baseball team in the Northern Territory? This creates a problem that the previous naming convention did not have. Gonnym ( talk) 13:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't see any issue or confusion here. Its for categorizing by birth place or place where they grew up, not where they played. Majority of categories are named like this. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Olympic Games in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Not well defining, some of the entries can be moved to Category:Works about the Olympic Games, but not all of them. I also suspect that most of those entries are already in one of those subcategories. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 14:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Module documentation pages

Nominator's rationale: Per my comments at WP:VPT#Adding documentation subpage to module doc pages, populating this category properly requires a lot of effort both now and every future time a new module is created. Since a similar list can be found via CirrusSearch, the existence of this category is an unnecessary and wasteful drain of resources. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. WLH only includes pages that transclude {{ Documentation subpage}} directly. Open any doc page in that list and you'll see that the documentation subpage message appears twice. Pppery is wrong. If the category is deleted then finding documentation subpages will become much harder. Nickps ( talk) 17:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I was wrong about that specific point (now removed), but not my broader point: CirrusSearch or frankly even Special:AllPages/Module: since almost half of all module pages are documentation pages should suffice. And what is the value of finding a list of all module documentation pages anyway? That's never been answered. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Adding Category:Module documentation pages to your watchlist and letting category changes through the filter would allow you to see every new documentation page in your watchlist. The utility of this feature is explained in MediaWiki_talk:Scribunto-doc-page-header#Category:Module_documentation_pages. Nickps ( talk) 17:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And why would one want to see every new documentation page on one's watchlist? This still looks like an overengineered solution in search of a problem, causing unnecessary chaos as a result. On the contrary to what you claim, that discussion shows one person who relies on watching template documentation pages and explicitly does not care about module documentaton pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I know I watch the category. I can't speak for anyone else. If you ask me though, both of the arguments made for Category:Template documentation pages apply to modules because, while vandalism in module space is rarer, those pages are also less frequently visited, so it can be harder to spot. Removing a tool that would help with this process is a step in the wrong direction. Nickps ( talk) 17:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And why would one want to see every new documentation page on one's watchlist? – because one is interested in maintaining module documentation. Keeping it consistent, up-to-date, etc. —⁠ andrybak ( talk) 17:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Conversely, pages like Module:Category_disambiguation/doc are not listed in the WLH, despite clearly including the template. Nickps ( talk) 17:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Re: populating this category properly requires a lot of effort [...] every future time a new module is created – /doc pages are populated via preload Template:Documentation/preload-module-doc, so it won't be a lot of effort if {{ Documentation subpage}} is added to the preload. —⁠ andrybak ( talk) 18:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Squares and ball games

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary/overcategorization Gjs238 ( talk) 22:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Three pages are in this category. This category improves WP readers finding things and is helpful. Perhaps some changes in the category name such as "Squares court and ball games" would be better. Happy to progress with the existing name. Rockycape ( talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. It feels unnecessary to have a completely separate category for ball games that involve squares, when "Squares" could simply be added as a subcategory of "Ball games".
Nn88nn88 ( talk) 00:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Ball games --> Category:Squares and ball games --> Category: Squares

Look up four square or foursquare in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

"Squares" from Category: Squares the generic name commonly used. As follows from Wiktionary definition: A sport played by four players where players have to hit a ball into other people's squares, and attempt to make a return hit. This category includes Hopscotch, Foursquare, Handball (schoolyard game) and Russian four square. Rockycape ( talk) 05:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • @ Rockycape: I am sorry but Wiktionary is not a reliable source. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • @ Marcocapelle: Happy to use a online OED reference. Sorry it's behind a paywall. Hmmm - need to give some more thought.
    Rockycape ( talk) 00:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Considering the difficulty you have mentioning only one reliable source it is very unlikely that any term is commonly used to describe these three games as a coherent set. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        Should be ok as it is commonly used and it's 2/2 with the paywall being the problem for the AED. Off to the bricks and mortar library for me and to take a squiz at the dictionary there. Rockycape ( talk) 01:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        Macquarie Australian slang dictionary
        Author: general editor James Lambert.
        Imprint: Macquarie University, NSW : Macquarie Library, 2004.
        ISBN: 1876429526
        handball - a common schoolyard game played with a tennis ball which is hit with the hands in a court, consisting usually of either four or six squares, drawn on the asphalt. Four square - The version with four squares also gets called four square

It looks like the Macquarie University reference is of a high standard in addition to backing up the Oxford Dictionary reference(paywall) and the lesser Wiktionary one. Rockycape ( talk) 20:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply

So it's a definition of handball, played with a tennis ball. Sounds like a ball game. Gjs238 ( talk) 10:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
A
B
C
Rockycape ( talk) 10:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
In the diagram above we would have (A) wall, (B) ball_games, (C) squares.
The categories are:
Category:Ball games
Category:Squares and ball games - you can't play these games without the requisite Squares - just like Squares are essential for Hopscotch. (No ball required for Hopscotch but you get the idea)
Category:Wall and ball games - you can't play these games without the requisite Wall - just like the Wall is essential for squash. (No racquet required here but you get the idea)
Category:Wall and ball games exists already
Category:Squares and ball games is the one we are discussing.
I did the diagram for my benefit to hopefully be able to explain my rationale.
We already many, many games in the Ball games category so collapsing either of the above categories is going to be a step backwards in clarity. Rockycape ( talk) 10:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:19th-century feminists

Nominator's rationale: There is no need to have an intersection between political orientation and century. Mason ( talk) 02:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as a defining characteristic of the individuals named. One reason there are so few is that the social cost of being an overall true feminist in the 1800s, and not only those who supported the vote, was substantial. Rarity does not mean it isn't a viable topic, just the opposite. That same rarity makes these individuals even more unique in their approach and support of their fellow women. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    No one is saying rarity is not defining. I don't think having an isolated category is helpful here. How would the keeps feel about an alternative name that doesn't include century? Like Early feminists or premodern feminists? Mason ( talk) 04:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I just added another entry, this is a defining category. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Ok, but @ Randy Kryn, do you have suggestions that could avoid using the term century? The challenge with 19th-century, is that is that there is only 1 century. The norm is to not create 20th or 21st century for activists, so an alternative name would be extremely helpful. Mason ( talk) 23:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the ping. '19th-century' seems fine as a historical era-descriptor. The concept of 19th century feminists is interesting and descriptive. 18th century feminists may be a good essential category as well, tracking encyclopedically the "early" progress and social instinct of activist women such as Mary Wollstonecraft. 20th and 21st century would be a very full list, so they could be created or not. But 19th century notables, yes, it works on several levels. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:1370 in Brussels

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1511 in Brussels.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Museum collections

More nominations
Nominator's rationale: Subcategories of Category:Museum collections for individual museums currently use a mixture of the styles "Collection of [the Foo Museum]" and "Collections of [the Foo Museum]". I propose to standardize to "Collection", singular, as that seems more logical; the article Collection (museum) mostly refers to a museum as having a "collection" as opposed to "collections", plural – although "Very large museums will often have many sub-collections, each with its own criteria for collecting. A natural history museum, for example, will have mammals in a separate collection from insects." Even in those cases, though, it's still idiomatic to refer to the collection of, say, the British Museum – see this Ngram. Ham II ( talk) 06:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose It is indeed correct to use a plural categroy name when a museum has multiple named collections, often each with their own subcategory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose As Andy. Collections in plural (for all but the smallest museums) is correct. Especially for our use, where we regularly have subcategories to more specific collections. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose for the reasons expressed above. I think it would be better to standardize using "Collections", since it is not uncommon for museums to have multiple collections. — SGconlaw ( talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose and standardize 'Collections' per Sgconlaw. For example, I often refer to Wikipedia's topic collections and not overall 'collection of articles'. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong support I'm very puzzled by these opposes - most from people not known for activity in this area. To "standardize using "Collections", since it is not uncommon for museums to have multiple collections" is just NOT an option, as many museums don't have multiple named options. We can indeed use named subcategories though pretty few museum categories actually do so - one exception is Category:British Library. We normally sub-categorize by type of object, area they are from etc. You will very very rarely hear museum people talk about "our collections" rather than "our collection". If, like me, you work a lot in this area, including categories, it is a complete pain to have to keep experimenting to see which form is used by us. Johnbod ( talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Johnbod, that sounds like an argument against the proposal to make everything match. The British Library has many collections, so it should stay at Category:British Library collections (in the plural), and museums that only have one collection should use the singular. Do you really want Category:British Library collections to be renamed to the singular? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, for consistency, which is important here. Alternatively the intermediate Category:British Library collections could just be cut out, and the 15 named collection sub-cats just come off the main BL category. But that will rather mess up parent categories like, in this case Category:Manuscripts by collection. Johnbod ( talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I intend to look at library collections in another nomination. With museums that could be said to have multiple collections, it's better to subdivide by object type and/or the geographical area where the objects are from, rather than by discrete sub-collection, and for the most part that's what we do. There is the added complication of several museums having multiple locations, and that is something that does show up in categorization. But we don't tend to have the equivalent of Category:Burney Collection and Category:Harleian Collection within Category:British Library collections for museums. Ham II ( talk) 09:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support, will take Johnbod's word for this when it comes to museum information. I personally use 'collection' when discussing Wikipedia ("Wikipedia's spaceflight collection", etc.) but that's a personal choice. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • support like Johnbod, i'm confused about the opposition here. his argument makes sense to me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It would be clearer (and more in-line with usual category naming schemes) to have these categories titled as Category:Items Objects in the collection of Foo Museum. But I'm not sure it's a net benefit with the increased wordiness. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC), 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • "Objects" is the correct term, used by museums themselves. "Items" is actually a good deal less clear and adds nothing. Johnbod ( talk) 12:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for the correction. I'm not familiar with the exact wording, but you probably get my intent. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      • @ Johnbod: what is your opinion about Category:Objects of Foo Museum? It seems to me that most articles are about an object rather than about a collection. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        • Certainly they mostly are (though again, the British Library has some about actual collections), but I don't really see the need. "Collection of ..." seems very readily comprehensible. Johnbod ( talk) 15:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        • If we were to go with "Objects" it should be "Objects in the Foo Museum", not "Objects of the Foo Museum", for consistency with subcategories; "Paintings of", "Drawings of" and "Photographs of" would sound like depictions of the buildings.

          I don't think "Objects" is ideal for art collections. "Collection(s)" is more all-encompassing; we just need to pick a side on the question of singular versus plural. It's the categories, rather than the articles, that are about a collection – which is an argument for "Collection" being in the singular in each category name. Ham II ( talk) 18:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion on the objects suggestion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 02:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • 'Collection', per Ham. Museums collect and build collections, and then they either display the diverse works and objects collected or store them. Works differ from objects in important ways, although both are included in institutional collections. Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. For what its worth I'm also a museum professional and frequently talk about the Collections in plural, in a situation where the term refers to all the things in museum institution. I can see a situation where where there is a subcategory of the above naming e..g 'Archaeology collection of...' or 'Natural Sciences collection of...' where the singular makes more sense. But for these broad, high level categories I prefer plural. Personal take. Zakhx150 ( talk) 10:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums. Ham II ( talk) 06:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Came here from aforementioned notification (thank you!). I don't think this is a situation where it can be standardized because the situation of the Met or the British Museum is very different to that of a small museum with one collection. The collections are within the broader collection, yes, but purely singular won't work if there isn't the option for both. Star Mississippi 13:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for the response. If one can say "the collections are within the broader collection" then collection in the singular is acceptable, though. The Met's webpage for searching its holdings is titled " The Met Collection" and the British Museum's is titled " Explore the collection". It would seem that purely singular is viable for both larger and smaller institutions, and purely plural works less well for the smaller ones. Ham II ( talk) 14:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:American veterans activists

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason ( talk) 03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Mason, there are many types of activists beyond just advocating for "rights". With the merge, it is unclear if everyone in the category to be eliminated fits in "rights" advocacy, nor does it allow for more complete capturing of veterans activists in the future. There's also two cat scheme connections here with the current setup. Category:American veterans activists as subcat of Category:American activists and Category:American veterans' rights activists as subset of Category:Veterans' rights activists by nationality. Semper Fi! ( talk) 11:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, I understand all that it would be unclear, that is why I am asking. @ FieldMarineDo you have any example of an American veterans activist who does not fit into the "rights" advocacy bucket? Please be specific because I don't see how they aren't fully overlapping right now. Mason ( talk) 11:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Mason, in checking the first three, I do not see the word "rights" mentioned at all. I do see advocacy mentioned. In one case I see suicide prevention, which fits with advocacy not " rights". Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 13:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Ok, let me rephrase. I'm asking because I am trying to understand how this category is substantively and meaningfully different. It would be extremely helpful for you (as the category creator) to provide concrete examples of why you think these categories are unique. I'm not opposed to reverse merging, however, reverse merging would eventually lead to renaming and reparenting a lot of other sibling categories. Hence, I'm trying to understand if this distinction is fundamentally meaningful. Suicide prevention is useful, but it doesn't really seem from looking at the categories that this group is unique other than they don't seem to have mentioned activism for rights specifically, but still they are advocating for veterans to have a better life. As a counter example, we don't have both a disability activists category and a disability rights activists category. They are highly overlapping because the core element is advocacy on behalf of disabled people. Mason ( talk) 23:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with the issue raised about the possible disruption to the sibling categories with a merge or reverse merge for the reason I mention above – right now as separate subcats they are aligned with the parent cats. As for the counter example, "We don't have both a disability activists category and a disability rights activists category." I am not aware there's such a thing as a "disability activist", so it is unclear how that could ever be a cat. However, veterans activists do exist. Also of note to this discussion, the "disability rights activist" cat is a subcat of a higher-level activist cat.
Rights has a specific meaning and there are veterans activists who advocate beyond "rights". None of the articles in this category mention veterans rights at all. The veteran suicide issue is a good example because it encompasses a wide range of activists, well beyond advocating for rights. In my opinion, straying away from meanings or taking a loose view invites an improper or unmeaningful cat scheme. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 13:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Cochise County conflict

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPSEP, this should be split into a non-people and people category, enabling the people to be places in such categories as Category:19th-century people by conflict, etc. -- wooden superman 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:People with Asperger syndrome

Nominator's rationale: and also manually merge where needed to categories in Category:People on the autism spectrum. Many of these are already there, I would say. In some cases, I can't find sources which say they were diagnosed with it; in which case purge. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Pages using FM station data without facility ID

Nominator's rationale: No longer used by {{ FM station data}} now that the cleanup has been completed. House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 22:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Pages using AM station data without facility ID

Nominator's rationale: No longer used by {{ AM station data}} after the cleanup was completed. House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 22:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:2022 establishment in Venezuela

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: withdrawn. Going to CFDS. House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 17:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Obvious duplicate categories. House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 12:53, 2 August 2024 (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.

Families by person

More categories
Nominator's rationale: The subcategories of Category:Families by person are inconsistently named in the forms "Full Name family" and "Family of Full Name". "Full Name family" sounds awkward and doesn't match the titles of articles, which seem to usually be in the form "Family of Full Name" (e.g. Category:Lyndon B. Johnson family vs Family of Lyndon B. Johnson). The natural way you would refer to the family of a person named John Smith is either "the family of John Smith", "John Smith's family" or "the Smith family" but never "the John Smith family". "Full Name family" also doesn't work well for people named mononymously (e.g. Category:Family of Aaron‎ vs "Aaron family") or people with titles or suffixes in their name. Following the recent CfD for Category:Family of Boris Johnson, there seemed to be consensus that "Family of Full Name" is better.
(Note there are also many other categories named in form "Surname family", e.g. the subcategories of Category:American families. The only difference with some of these full name family categories is that the surname would be too ambiguous to be used alone, although I'd argue the same is true of many of the surname family categories. Why does Category:Abbott family refer exclusively to that particular American family and not the family of former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott, for instance?) MClay1 ( talk) 11:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Etsu Patigi

Nominator's rationale: delete, the articles already link to each other directly. No merge needed, the articles are already in Category:Nigerian traditional states and Category:Nigerian traditional rulers. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Zazzau

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Brazilian Armed Forces

Nominator's rationale: The only article in this category is Future of the Brazilian Armed Forces, which is also in Category:Military of Brazil, to which this category is redundant. Category:Brazilian Armed Forces is also improperly categorised - its only parent is itself. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 05:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_2&oldid=1238202057"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE