Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 6

< October 5	October 7 >

October 6

Category:Sankethi people

Propose deleting Category:Sankethi people - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The Sankethi people are a subcaste of Brahmins. We do not categorise people by caste and this serves no purpose. Sitush (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and undo depopulation. Sankethi people are a community with their own language, culture and traditions. It is no different to having a category of Flemish people, Cornish people or Tulu people. When sources discuss notable people who identify with this community, they mention that person is Sankethi, which shows that the sources disagree that it serves no purpose (e.g. R. K. Srikantan's obituary in The Hindu). The article does not support the claim that the Sankethi are a caste, and even if they are, that does not warrant the depopulation of the category (which has already happened) and its deletion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even they say they are a caste - see, for example, this. Loads of Indian castes and tribes have "their own language, culture and traditions" (the Gondi, for example). In some senses, that is what defines them. - Sitush (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep and repopulate AS EMPTIED OUT OF PROCESS. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional sports leagues in Lebanon

Propose deleting Category:Professional sports leagues in Lebanon - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Lebanon does not have a professional football league, I have created the category by mistake. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you created the category, you can delete it using Speedy deletion. I've tagged it appropriately. Catrìona (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Shadwell, Leeds

Propose renaming Category:People from Shadwell, Leeds to Category:People from Shadwell, West Yorkshire

Nominator's rationale: Per Shadwell, West Yorkshire. I however noticed that this was at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 29#Category:People from Shadwell, West Yorkshire so can't use C2D. Per WP:UKPLACE Shadwell isn't unquestionably within the settlement of Leeds, even though it might sometimes be though of as being part of it. The article was renamed back in 2009 before the exception was even included about using city/town to disambiguate when unquestionably within it. However as the exception added in 2010 doesn't appear to include Shadwell it should still be renamed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support to match the main article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Match main article -- Leeds is relatively unusual for metropolitan districts in having a number of civil parishes. Technically it is part of Leeds since it comes under Leeds City Council, but it is apparently not a suburb. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: How is this different from Category:Container categories? Nowak Kowalski (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The exact meaning of this category is unclear, but it certainly isn't the same thing as container categories. For example, categories for dab/talk pages should not contain articles but are not necessarily container categories. DexDor^(talk) 20:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by lack of a clear rationale. It is the parent category of Category:Container categories, hence it differs by all the sibling categories of Category:Container categories. (Although I'm not sure why Category:Set categories has been put here.) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck vote, below comments may give more food for thought. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I doubt that this category is actually helpful and would lean towards deletion, but a better rationale might be helpful. Catrìona (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previous CFD had a more detailed rationale. DexDor^(talk) 20:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as afaics this category is confusing without being useful for anything. It's confusing because it's not clear whether it's supposed to be for categories that shouldn't contain articles or only for articles that shouldn't directly contain articles. This category doesn't (e.g. from looking at inlinks to it) appear to be being used in any processes. I haven't found this category useful (e.g. when creating User:DexDor/NSCat). DexDor^(talk) 20:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is certainly confusing. Category:Set categories (which should be enormous but isn't) should be removed. There are categories of images and audio files which should be added. No idea whether it could be useful. Oculi (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religion in Bali

Propose merging Category:Religion in Bali to Category:Bali

Nominator's rationale: merge, as a redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asia up to 1500

Propose merging Category:3rd century BC in Southeast Asia to Category:3rd century BC
Propose merging Category:2nd century BC in Southeast Asia to Category:2nd century BC
Propose merging Category:1st century BC in Southeast Asia to Category:1st century BC
Propose merging Category:1st century in Southeast Asia to Category:1st century
Propose merging Category:2nd century in Southeast Asia to Category:2nd century
Propose merging Category:4th century in Southeast Asia to Category:4th century
Propose merging Category:5th century in Southeast Asia to Category:5th century
Propose merging Category:6th century in Southeast Asia to Category:6th century in Asia
Propose merging Category:7th century in Southeast Asia to Category:7th century in Asia
Propose merging Category:8th century in Southeast Asia to Category:8th century in Asia
Propose merging Category:9th century in Southeast Asia to Category:9th century in Asia
Propose merging Category:10th century in Southeast Asia to Category:10th century in Asia
Propose merging Category:11th century in Southeast Asia to Category:11th century in Asia
Propose merging Category:12th century in Southeast Asia to Category:12th century in Asia
Propose merging Category:13th century in Southeast Asia to Category:13th century in Asia
Propose merging Category:14th century in Southeast Asia to Category:14th century in Asia
Propose merging Category:15th century in Southeast Asia to Category:15th century in Asia
Propose merging Category:2nd millennium BC in Southeast Asia to Category:2nd millennium BC
Propose merging Category:1st millennium BC in Southeast Asia to Category:1st millennium BC
Propose merging Category:1st millennium in Southeast Asia to Category:1st millennium in Asia

Nominator's rationale: merge as a pointless set of container categories. At least until the year 1500 the histories of countries like Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines were unconnected. For this period we do not have any articles across the different civilizations of Southeast Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and beg to differover details - from where I understand the history of the region there are very specific connections between southeast asian countries in the region for a millenia before 1500 - and also subsuming into the asia project was why these were created in the first place - it is hard to identify the very specific inter-country dynasties and former countries that reflect none of the current boundaries. I would be very reluctant to accept until the year 1500 the histories were unconnected unless shown a heap of WP:RS that can completely undo almost all the information gained in the years of my honours degree in asian studies, unless I have mis-read something here in some way, in which case there are quite a few former countries that have been inadequately categorised by the editors who created them. Also, from the perspective of south east asian subjects to subsume back into generic larger categories is actually more counter productive than keeping, imho JarrahTree 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I would be delighted to hear about the pre-colonial relations between for example the contemporary Bali Kingdom, Rajahnate of Butuan and Sukhothai Kingdom, since there is no information whatsoever about it in the respective articles. (2) It is hard to identify the very specific inter-country dynasties and former countries that reflect none of the current boundaries. I find it difficult to understand this as a keep argument because all that the nominated container categories do is collecting subcategories by current boundaries. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your reply - I can hear your concerns, I do hope this not a two editor conversation. Hopefully someone else might choose to join in. CFDs like this are useful if more then 2 try to sort things out JarrahTree 10:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all -- This is covering rather too few countries to make a useful category. I accept that Asia is rather large. However some of the categories are based on current countries, which may be anachronisms at that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural depictions of people

Propose containerization Category:Cultural depictions of people - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Category which needs a purge due to extreme misuse. While it's valid in principle as a container for the subcategories that it contains, and the usage note states that "This category is for categories and lists of cultural and other works (including film, TV and literature) that feature depictions of people", the problem here is that it's often directly applied to random individual films and television series and characters — but virtually every single film or television series or play or novel that exists at all, and every single character within any of them, is by definition a "cultural depiction of people", making this an WP:INDISCRIMINATE category. (For example, The Nanny and Everybody Loves Raymond and Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23, which have been filed here, are not somehow more defined by being "cultural depictions of people" than, say, The Big Bang Theory or Kim's Convenience or The West Wing, which have not.) And further to that, I've also already caught at least one example of a real person being filed here, on the trivial basis that somebody once played him in a film — but since a lot of notable people have been portrayed on film, filing real people here on that basis is also a recipe for extreme indiscriminacy. This is not a good basis for a content category, because it doesn't represent a point of distinction between the things that have been filed here and similar things that haven't — it's a valid parent for the subcategories, but it should not contain a random and arbitrary selection of individual works or characters. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An awful lot of the problems would be solved by renaming to Category:Cultural depictions of real individual people. I don't see a problem with say Rubens (film) being in a subcat, but clearly dramas about fictional characters don't belong, nor social/anthropological documentaries etc etc. Plus a clearer category note, & repeating for the subcats. Is this old discussion partly to blame? The current category note is certainly part of the problem:

For works which are essentially based on real people, see Category:Works based on real people.

This used to be much better, before the discussion. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support containerization per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lübeck law

Propose renaming Category:Lübeck law to Category:Cities with Lübeck law

Nominator's rationale: rename since the large amount of this category consists of cities with Lübeck law rather than articles about Lübeck law itself. When this category is renamed, the first three articles may be moved to the two parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- The eponymous article can remain the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename, create a subcat instead and name it Category:Populated places with Lübeck law to include any place that is not a city, such as the towns I just saw here. Hmains (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the remaining Category:Lübeck law would only contain the eponymous article and the subcategory (because the two other topic articles should be moved up anyway). That is not very helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a city having Lübeck law is probably not a defining characteristic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have been considering too. It is usually mentioned early in the wp articles as if it were very defining, but that may also have been the work of one over-enthusiastic editor. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carlos Catrìona (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biographical films about Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch

Propose merging Category:Biographical films about Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch to Category:Cultural depictions of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Nominator's rationale: All of the films in the "Wild Bunch" category are included in the "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" category so there is no need for it to have its own category. Nicholas0 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mild oppose we'd better add Category:Cultural depictions of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid as a parent category of Category:Biographical films about Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch instead of Category:Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch and move all biographical films from Category:Cultural depictions of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid to Category:Biographical films about Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Category was not tagged for nomination, but now it is. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Satire anime and manga

Propose deleting Category:Satire anime and manga - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Only three members (WP:SMALLCAT) and whose inclusion in this category are no supported by reliable sources per WP:CATVER. —Farix (t | c) 22:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - New category often implies that it will eventually be populated which makes this nomination a little bit premature. WP:CATVER doesn't apply here because the entries are sourced properly. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-Gregorian observances by Gregorian month

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]

Agree with nominator that these are obscure categories. However Category:Observances on non-Gregorian calendars is undesirable as a merge target, since this is largely a container category. I would not mind merging them to Category:January observances though, and so on for the other 11 months. For example Agonalia was celebrated on a day equivalent to January 9, so why not categorize it there? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (probably support) -- This whole tree seems like a load of nonsense to me. We have a mixture of different feasts whose date is determined by lunar and other calendars. Chinese and Tibetan New Year will depend on a lunar calendar. American Mother's Day is always in May, so why is it in this tree at all? The Anglican Mothering Sunday usually falls in March, but its date is determined by that of Easter. The merge target is probably going to be rather large, so that it may be useful to split it based on the specific calendar or event from which the date is determined, e.g. Category:Observances whose date is related to Easter. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holidays based on the date of Easter‎ already exists, and I think all articles that belong there are there already. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete What I see is that this is a way to try to assign the various holidays to approximate time of years, e.g. Category:Shavuot sits in both May and June. I'm not terribly convinced this is a good way to do it. Mangoe (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Some of the categories were not tagged for discussion, but they are now. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films featured in Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes

Propose deleting Category:Films featured in Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes - Template:Lc1

Also nominating Category:Short films featured in Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining and trivial category, not a defining trait. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: for previous related discussions see CfD:Mystery Science Theater 3000 films (2010) and CfD:Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes (2012). --Animalparty! (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining (e.g. for General Hospital) or possibly tighten inclusion criteria and purge. DexDor^(talk) 20:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]