Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marcocapelle (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 26 August 2018 (→Category:Jews and Judaism in the Byzantine Empire). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< August 22 August 24 >

August 23

Category:Jews and Judaism in the Byzantine Empire

Nominator's rationale: Option A merge, there is insufficient distinction between the two categories. Option B reverse merge, for the same reason. Option C merge both to a new category name Category:History of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire per article name History of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire. Procedural comment: I have tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category with one entry. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orders, decorations, and medals

Nominator's rationale: Kind of a clumsy category. While perhaps motivated in a more narrow sense, such as Category:Orders, decorations, and medals by country, not sure if it is due as a general topic category. See main article Order (distinction). The items that don't fit in neither if these two should probably be contained in Category:Phaleristics and/or Category:Awards. However, hesitating and any arguments pro or con would be welcome. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambassadors to the Republic of China (Taiwan)

Nominator's rationale: Why does this exist? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Ambassadors to Taiwan. We decided several years ago that the polity calling itself Republic of China (from late 1940s) would be known in WP as Taiwan. Both items should be retained as category redirects and the term "Republic of China" should be used in a headnote, since that is the official name of the state. It is important to avoid confusion with the mainland nationalist republic (also Republic of China) as existing 1913-late 1940s. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with the Bengal Renaissance

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCASSOC, hardly any of the articles in this category even mentions "Bengal Renaissance". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably trim. It would be ridiculous to just delete this, but with 130 members, it might be too large. The Bengal Renaissance navbox thing has about 50 names. Several of these mention eg the Young Bengal group, which it is legitimate to count as part of the Bengal Renaissance. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Derozian redirects to Young Bengal. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes no sense - the two things are different, which is why they have two articles. So why restrict the category to those from the smaller part? And the Indian and Bangladesh projects should be informed, rather than just Europeans with no knowledge of the area meddling in it! Another area of the BR was Brahmoism (but not plain Brahmo), and its later splinter groups, which many articles mention. You can be sure not every bio in the "Italian Renaissance" tree includes those words. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very few people in this category are defined as a Brahmoist. Some are of a Brahmoist family but that does not count as a defining characteristic if they were not active in Brahmoism themself. The Indian and Bangladesh projects are informed by the project tags on the category talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's always a highly dubious argument - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh/Article alerts averages less than 1 view a day. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notices left manually for WikiProjects Bangladesh and India.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 07:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Education enrollment

Nominator's rationale: Only one article Rathfelder (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about special forces

Nominator's rationale: Only featured one subcategory, which wasn't even an accurate subcategory, so I removed it. The only existing subcategory that *could* accurately be placed here is Category:United States Army Special Forces in films. I'm sure that there are films featuring non-American special forces, and if categories ever get made for those films, then having a "Films about special forces" parent category could be useful. But for the time being, having both of these categories is redundant. --Jpcase (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also - I'm not a military expert and can't say for sure what the term "special forces" refers to outside the US. In the American military, "Special Operations Forces" refers to various groups within the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force, while "Special Forces" exclusively refers to a single group within the Army. I'm pretty sure that most other countries use the term "Special Forces" synonymously with how the US uses the term "Special Operations Forces". So an explanation of what's covered under Category:Films about special forces should probably be added to the top of that page, if the category is kept. --Jpcase (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete suffers the usual problems of the "films about" categories: objectively define how much about special forces a film must be to be included, and what reliable sources say it's at least that much. Moreover, "special forces" is itself an ill-defined concept: are SS-Sonderkommandos and Einsatzgruppen included? what about James Bond 007 or Jason Bourne or Jack Ryan? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is kept, then I would suggest renaming it Category:Special forces in films, that way we could avoid debates over whether a film is *about* special forces, and instead, the category could simply include any films that *feature* special forces. I agree that "special forces" is a nebulous term though, so there would certainly have to be some discussion over what the category's scope should be. --Jpcase (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose delete for this particular reason (while I'm neutral about deleting for other reasons) and oppose alternative name. "Films about" is exactly right, as the category is about categorizing films for which this is a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Hebrew Christian movement

Nominator's rationale: Option A rename to Category:Hebrew Christian movement per article Hebrew Christian movement. Option B rename to Category:Hebrew Christian movement (19th century), putting the disambiguator at the end of the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ligurian Republic

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the category currently only contains the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crown Prince Party

Nominator's rationale: Different medias have different definition of this term. Don't think it is a good criteria for a category. Also, the current category is far from complete. GZWDer (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Perso-Indian people

Nominator's rationale: Many of the articles in the list, such as "Zaheer Abbas", "Sayed Jaffar (field hockey)", "Faris Kermani", "Syed Kirmani", and "Agha Shahi" (just to name a few) don't include any references to support this category. The implementation and addition of the "category" seems to have been completely random and not according to any WP guideline. A merge won't work as a large amount of the listed articles bear no indication of any Iranian/Persian descent, nor being a supposed "Perso-Indian". - LouisAragon (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : As far i can see, there is not a single article in this category which is related to a supposed "Persian/Iranian ethnicity/nationality", this obviously goes against WP:RS, WP:VER. Support speedy deletion.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I also could not see any reference to Persian descent in any of the articles that I sampled. I suspect these are people from a former ruling class in India, whose mother tongue is/was Urdu. This was the court language of the Moghul emperors and thus of a Muslim ruling class. It is a diglot between Hindi and Farsi. However even if I am right, it is not a clear defining characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional hairdressers

Merge barbers and beauticians into hairdressers. At the top of the hairdressers category is a hatnote,

This category is for Fictional characters who are Barbers, Hairdressers, and Cosmetologists.

So why do we need separate categories for any of these? There may be real-life reasons for separating out the three concepts for living people and deceased people, but they're close enough that we can throw the fictional characters into one. Note that I drew attention to the hatnote at the previous nomination for the beauticians (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 6), so it's not as if this is a new thing or something that nobody's ever noticed. Also, I don't hugely care about the name; if you want to merge hairdressers and barbers into beauticians, or you want to merge all three of them into some other title, that's fine with me as long as the end result can cover everyone. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Marcocapelle, could we merge all of them into a new Category:Fictional cosmetologists? Oculi supported this idea the previous time around; Fayenatic London opposed, basically on the grounds that we don't have a category for real cosmetologists, but to that I'd answer that it's fine to have a more general category for fictional characters, while we should split up the real people more carefully. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe it inaccurate, because beauticians/hair salons/etc. all bill themselves as cosmetologists when they want to sound stuffy and elegant. If I'm right, why retard the merger; but if I'm wrong, please correct me. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people mentioned in the article Cosmetologists were either hairdressers or make-up artists according to their biographies, so the term 'cosmetologist' is merely confusing and ambiguous. I've also been looking at the articles about these fictional beauticians and it seems to me that the occupation of these fictional characters is far from defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_23&oldid=856641304"