Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 4

< April 3	April 5 >

April 4

Category:Swedish-speaking people

Propose containerization Category:Swedish-speaking people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All of the Fooish-speaking people categories ought to be containerized, so this is a trial balloon. While Sweden is not 100% Swedish-speaking, there is nothing remarkable about any of the hundreds of notable Swedes to be proficient in the language nor are people really notable for speaking Swedish. If this is successful, I'll nominate the others for containerization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Shouldn't we containerize the subCategory:Swedish-speaking Finns as well? For people who are not in any of the ~~three~~ two subcategories of the latter it does not seem a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle Yes, if this passes, I'll put the lot of Fooish-speaking whatevers up. But rather than tag them all now, wanted to test the waters. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom -- The existence of subCategory:Swedish-speaking Finns is warranted and it needs parenting somehow. However the one article in the category is a Swedish expatriate - a missionary - for whom the ability to speak the language is unremarkable. If there were Swedish speaking minorities elsewhere, similar categories might be merited, but often the category would be similar to a normal expatriate or descent category, with the difference that the person had retained their native language, rather than being assimilated. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I'm surprised that BHG hasn't nixed this - she usually hates trial balloons. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Treaties extended to Kingman Reef

Propose deleting Category:Treaties extended to Kingman Reef (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_28#Category:Kingman_Reef. This would be a different story if Kingman Reef had ever been independent or had any population but it's really just a small island of the United States that has no meaningful legal distinction other than be a protected wildlife zone. @BrownHairedGirl, RevelationDirect, Peterkingiron, and Marcocapelle: from the last CfD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the individual island subcategories of Category:Treaties extended to insular areas of the United States are part of the United States Minor Outlying Islands jurisdiction. (This category still wouldn't be defining there but at least there'd only be one to CFD.) There certainly are some issues with how dependent territories fit in with treaties (like Greenland–European Union relations). But these seem to just throw every treaty signed by the parent country that applies to all jursidictions. We might as well have Treaties extended to Kansas. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom -- If we kept anything we might make it into Category:Treaties extended to United States Minor Outlying Islands, but few have any inhabitants, except scientists studying the island. Kingman Reef is not even an island at high tide. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Apple Inc. ex-employees

Propose merging Category:Apple Inc. ex-employees to Category:Apple Inc. employees

Nominator's rationale: This distinction is redundant. There are no other "ex-employee" categories. The parent "employees" category works perfectly fine for both current and former employees and this category creates ambiguity. Eventually, all members currently in the parent category will also belong to this one. Should Steve Jobs or Steve Wozniak be listed in this category? Should it only include those who were "fired"? If anything, perhaps having a "current" employee category would make sense. - Paul^T+/_C 14:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I don't even remember what was my idea when creating this in 2015, I don't think I thought it through. :) I guess there wasn't really an established structure for categories back then. Your proposal makes very much sense. This should be merged, along with Category:Apple Inc. people. -- intgr [talk] 14:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Apple Inc. people makes sense because of Category:People by company and there are some names listed there that aren't technically employees, like Paul Terrell. Either way, Ottawahitech should probably get pinged. - Paul^T+/_C 14:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am opposed to any scheme of categorizing by present status. We shouldn't have Category:Former Prime Ministers of Canada or all of the defunct companies categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We don't usually distinguish between current and former holders of a position. Dimadick (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places established in 1168

Propose merging Category:Populated places established in 1168 to Category:Populated places established in the 12th century

Nominator's rationale: A single entry in this category with very little or no prospects for growth. In line with the category guidelines, where reliable foundation dates exist, populated place articles should be categorised by year for 1500 and later, by decade from the 1200s to the 1490s, by century from the 10th century BC to the 13th century and by millennium for the 2nd millennium BC and earlier. Greenshed (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, categorization by year would be too granular in the 12th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- We are unlikely to get enough content for annual categories in this period. In England, a lot of market towns were chartered in the 13th century, so that I support the guideline. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations based in East Timor

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: Procedural close until this RFC is closed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Option A - "Organisations" to "Organizations" (Rename 8)

Option B - "Organizations" to "Organisations" (Rename 3)
Merge Category:Organizations based in East Timor to Category:Organisations based in East Timor Rename Category:Defunct organizations based in East Timor to Category:Defunct organisations based in East Timor Rename Category:Religious organizations based in East Timor to Category:Religious organisations based in East Timor

User:Od Mishehu launched a series of cfds on this topic in 2017, the premise being that a given country should use either 'z' or 's' (but not a mixture thereof); eg France, Brazil, Bolivia, Iran, Angola, Greece, Poland, Israel, Puerto Rico, Turkey.

Here both Category:Organisations based in East Timor and Category:Organizations based in East Timor exist, the former being older and better populated. Oculi (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the status quo would be Option B. On the other hand I am not aware of any pressing need for East Timor to use 'organisation' rather than the more widely accepted 'organization'. Oculi (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option A. Consistency is important, and the Z spelling should be used. Z is the std form in American English, and one of two acceptable form in British English. The case for using the "S"-spelling is very weak even in UK-related topics, and for a country such as East Timor with minimal links to the UK it is non-existent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use 'z' Timor-Leste isn't English-speaking and doesn't have any strong colonial or cultural ties to the anglo world but uses USD for currency and probably has more US connections than UK ones. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RFC. I have opened an RFC about whether to standardise on the "Z" spelling in descriptive category names, i.e. to use "Organization" in all cases. I estimate that this affects the naming of about ten thousand categories.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC:_spelling_of_"organisation"/"organization"_in_descriptive_category_names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support the zed (or zee) option. As a bit of a traditional Brit, I support Oxford spelling which prescribes -ize endings and hence avoids transatlantic conflict. Greenshed (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Portal-Class Canadian comics articles

Propose deleting Category:Portal-Class Canadian comics articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is empty and best I can tell has always been empty. It is unlikely that many or any portals about Canadian comics will be created as they would tend to fail portal guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a caveat Only if the category isn't automatically generated by a wikiproject banner. If it is, then keep it and mark how it shouldn't be deleted even if empty. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portuguese discoveries

Propose merging Category:Portuguese discoveries to Category:Portuguese exploration in the Age of Discovery

Nominator's rationale: merge, we do not have any similar category and the articles in this category are not quite about discoveries - they are biographies and history articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge few if any of the articles are actually Portuguese discoveries; some are explorers but most are about Portuguese colonization etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia requested images of computing equipment

Propose merging Category:Wikipedia requested images of computing equipment to Category:Wikipedia requested images of computer equipment

Nominator's rationale: Seems like two categories for the same thing. Unless I'm missing something. I don't have a preference on which category name is better. Nessie (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who were rejected for the Victoria Cross

Propose Deleting Category:People who were rejected for the Victoria Cross

Nominator's rationale: Per some through-the-looking-glass version of WP:OCAWARD

The Victoria Cross is the top medal from the United Kingdom so receiving it is obviously defining. This category asks the opposite question: Is not receiving it also defining? The biography articles in this category offer sad stories of British dying in battle, who were submitted for this award, but it was determined there wasn't enough documented valour so they received a different medal instead. I suspect a great deal of applicants were denied though and it's just not mentioned in their Wikipedia articles. Imagine all the other anti-categories we could create! - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST is not a valid rationale. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete oddly specific category. People rejected for policical office? People who never got an Order of Canada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 07:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Terminate With Extreme Prejudice - Good grief, what's next?!? Category:Models rejected by Victoria's Secret?? This category could serve as the basis for a Monty Python movie. Category:Ministry of Silly Walks, anybody?? Seriously, though, we don't have a category for nominees who didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There has to be a selection mechanism for such awards, so that there are inevitably people who are for one reason or another judged to be not quite of the requisite standard. The basis for this category seems to be that a person was recommended for the award but not given it, the reasons sometimes not being wholly apparent. One of the difficulties has to be that the bravery must be witnessed by someone of suitably high standing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would suggest reading some of the entries here, in order to understand the significance of the category. And it's a sad comment on contemporary society to compare the VC to lingerie modelling. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blues Hall of Fame inductees

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Blues Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)

The Blues Hall of Fame is is a small museum in Nashville. The award is usually mentioned in passing in the articles with other honours in the body of the articles and, if an award is in the intro, it's generally a Grammy. Most of the recipients of this award were prominent long before the Hall of Fame started in 1980. This award doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background We deleted similar halls of fame by musical genre here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to Navbox - I know that's not a "standard option", but it would be good to have something more than a list in the article. Is there some way that could be handled by a bot or something? Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalous+0: In general I'm certainly open to Templates for awards. In this case, it would have 200+ names in it so I'm not sure how helpful that would be. Converting the current static list into a sortable one like this one might be a better use of time. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is in effect a case of OCAWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]