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 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:Tatar topics
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.
Withdraw second nomination of merging
Category:Tatar peoples as I note (based on previous comment) that it overcomplicates the discussion. However, I am not fond of the society solution. Having 'culture' and 'history' as subcategories of 'society' would be inconsistent with country categories, in which 'society' is a sibling of 'culture' and 'history'. Tatars, as nominated, is as simple and obvious as it can ever get.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
It isn't at all simple or obvious. The convention throughout category space is that 'foo' is a topic category, and 'foos' the corresponding list sub-category. This is why
Category:Tatars was
renamed at cfd with no support whatever for the name Tatars.
Oculi (
talk)
15:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Support rename (i.e. reverse the result of the 2008 cfd) per Marcocappelle and the convention that we don't use the word "topic" in category names. DexDor(talk)06:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Revelation 5
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 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:ARU referees
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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a category which organises referees by the governing body the referee is in. For example ARU stands for Australian Rugby Union. Since abbreviations should be spelled out these categories should be renamed to Australian Rugby Union referee, South African Rugby Union referee etc. However the trouble with that is we already have categories based on nationality, so a referee from Australia is an Australian rugby union referee. The difference between these two distinct categories is only capitalisation. Some referees have refereed in more than one country so will be a South African rugby union referee, South African Rugby Union referee and Australian Rugby Union referee (e.g.
Rasta Rasivhenge). I feel the differences in naming are so minor in this case that they would be confusing to the general audience. I propose we use the slightly longer version that says "affiliated" to more clearly illustrate what the category contains.
AIRcorn(talk)19:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)reply
It is also missing about a half dozen categories RFU referees, SRFU referrs, UAR referees etc. It is a relatively new category so I am guessing it is still being populated. So it is probably the best time to decide how to handle it as there will only be a few articles to update.
AIRcorn(talk)00:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
SARU referees refereed in South Africa under the SARU and South African rugby union referees are referees with South African nationality. They are not always the same thing, especially when referees move around. See
Talk:Rasta Rasivhenge for the discussion that led to this CFD. Another example is
Steve Walsh (rugby referee).
AIRcorn(talk)02:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
That's two referees out of a few hundred. It is understood that the wording of the proposed new categories makes the distinction. However, in the case of South Africa (and I suspect for many countries) the set membership is exactly identical. The exceptions are few indeed, which suggests it is better to merge.
Propose merging
(Additional text added for clarification 13–15 April 2018:)
Rationale: Avoids substantial duplication. The parent categories could be merged to, say, "Category:Rugby union referees by national affiliation" or "Rugby union referees by governing body affiliation" or similar.
Rasivhenge and
Walsh can be safely included within two categories. --
Ham105 (
talk)
03:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I am not too bothered by this personally, but know some editors like to categorise people by nationality. There is also
Category:Rugby union referees by nationality to consider. @
Ham105: do you mind if I ping Shudde and TheMightyPeanut. They were involved in the Rasivhenge discussion and know more about rugby than me. Am surprised they have not commented already.
AIRcorn(talk)10:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
By all all means, please do. I have contacted those editors as well. In regards to
Category:Rugby union referees by nationality, that was the parent category I was referring to. It could be become Category:Rugby union referees by national affiliation", or perhaps "Rugby union referees by governing body affiliation" or similar. --
Ham105 (
talk)
11:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment:@
Djln: As the creator of all these categories to be moved, would you please explain whether the referees mentioned in my earlier comment above have been excluded from
Category:SARU referees by intention or unintentionally? I'd like to understand the scope of this category. @
Aircorn: I think your move proposal has some issues. Some minor ones to start – the "Australian Rugby Union" no longer exists under that name, neither does the New Zealand Rugby Union. --
Ham105 (
talk)
17:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I am fine with the changing to the new official names (New Zealand Rugby and Rugby Australia). I still think Referees affiliated with Rugby Australia is better than Rugby Australia referees, but it does solve the virtually identical category name problem somewhat.
AIRcorn(talk)22:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment The answer to the question as to the right name is that it should be the present one. The precedent is alumni categories, where the alumni of a merged or rename college are deemed to have attended the successor.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Ham: I was quiet happy to just have referees defined by nationality. However the TheMightyPeanut insisted on placing two referees in "Category:Australian rugby union referees" even though they were not actually Australian. There are a number of referees who are employed by one union but have another nationality. I initially established "Category:Referees by rugby union" to try to resolve this issue. Some of these categories may not be fully populated, I may have unintentionally missed some referees out.
DjlnDjln (
talk)
19:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong support for merge — It was the overwhelming consensus in
this recent discussion re players with dual nationalities that a player's representative country is more important than his actual nationality (which is not necessarily easily verifiable and might be completely non-notable), and I still see no reason why the same principle should not apply to referees.
TheMightyPeanut (
talk)
06:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted from
CFD 2018 March 15 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion has now moved on to a proposal to merge 4 referees-by-union categories and their respective nationality categories into a new set of combined categories. The 4 referees-by-union categories were not tagged (I will tag them now for this relisting), but more importantly there has been no discussion of the fact that
Category:Rugby union referees by nationality has 16 consistently-named subcategories. Does this proposal intend to create 4 exceptions to that naming convention? Or to remove those 4 nationalities from
Category:Rugby union referees by nationality? Either option breaks the consistency principle of categorisation. The number of loose ends here currently adds up to an unworkable proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Clarification of Merge proposal in reply to questions from
BrownHairedGirl: My intention is for consistently-named subcategories; there is no plan to create 4 naming exceptions. I have added additional text to my merge proposal above (between Green markers) to define the suggested change better and to try to make this intention clearer. In essence:
(a) the word "affiliated" will be inserted into the names of the existing 16 consistently-named subcategories;
(b) the parent category will include the words "by national affiliation" instead of "by nationality";
(c)
Rasta Rasivhenge will be a member of both the South African affiliated and Australian affiliated categories; and
(d)
Steve Walsh will be a member of both the New Zealand affiliated and Australian affiliated categories.
This will avoid having two parent categories for rugby referees (currently more than a hundred pages) with almost identical set membership (greater than 95% overlap) as per
WP:OVERLAPCAT. --
Ham105 (
talk)
04:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Re @
BrownHairedGirl:'s comment – there are currently only 4 referees-by-union categories, so that in itself is inconsistent. As a full 'merging' proposal, I would recommend expanding @
Ham105:'s proposal to:
Agreed - I think
TheMightyPeanut has clarified my proposal in much the same fashion as I did a few minutes earlier (we must have been typing our replies at the same time!) - but it is quite a simple proposal in reality and will not affect naming consistency amongst the subcategories --
Ham105 (
talk)
04:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment. thanks for clarifying your intent, @
Ham105. However, your proposal still can not be the basis of a valid CfD consensus unless you
set out precisely what you intend to do with each named category, listing all of them as TheMightyPeanut did with categories above. A vague wave at "12 other categories" is not enough.
tag each category which you intend to merge or rename
If that is done, then the closer can weigh the discussion and see if there is a consensus.
But without the tagging and listing, there can be no consensus.
I should also stress that this discussion has already become v long and confusing. It might be better to take this idea off to a discussion in project space, and come back to CfD later with a single, clear proposal, properly formatted. The chances of more editors wading through all this discussion are slim, which makes it unlikely that a closer would conclude that there is a consensus for the radical step of renaming the standard "nationality fooers" (used across all other occupations) to the novel "nationality-affiliated fooers". Breaking such a convention used on tens of thousands of categories would need clear and broad consensus that this case genuinely requires an exception. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Groups connected to the Khazars
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.
Nominator's rationale:selectively upmerge per
WP:OCASSOC. This category is intentionally vague in whether these peoples and tribes are Khazars or not. If they are Khazars they belong in the parent category, but if there is too much doubt then they shouldn't be in the Khazars tree at all. For example, the
Akatziri article says "the theory that they were ancestors of the Khazars is not backed up by any solid evidence".
Marcocapelle (
talk)
13:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The meaning of "connected" is indeed vague, but the topic of Khazar connection is notable and significantly discussed. Which groups are to be listed in this category is a good question, but this doesn't mean it should be deleted.
GreyShark (
dibra)
05:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - the category lists various groups, vaguely linked to the Khazars - sometimes by conspiracy theories or by known forks. Wikipedia shouldn't present theories and forks as facts!
GreyShark (
dibra)
09:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Greyshark09: Do I understand correctly that you would prefer to delete the category? The intention of the nomination is roughly along the same lines, in the sense that selectively has been added very deliberately and I also gave an example of an article that should be purged.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't get it. Keeping the category as is means keeping a category based on conspiracy theories or known forks which you seem to object.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Yoruba-speaking people
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.
@
Eruditescholar: I think your opposition and usage of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS skirts the reason behind my nomination of this category for cfd. As you point out Yiddish and Cornish are comparitivly minor languages, while Yoruba is a very popular language with double digit millions of fluent speakers. The main issue here is
WP:NONDEF, how for example is fluency in Yoruba relevant and important to
Hakeem Olajuwon's life and career? A category such as this could be theoretically made for any language but that does not make it useful in terms of categorization. There already exists
Category:Yoruba people for those individuals of Yoruba ethnicity, so this category seems to be rather unneeded.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
18:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Maybe rename to
Category:Yoruba-speaking peoples and repurpose to include various tribes that use the Yoruba language? I agree that the category's quite useless as it is, but if we have enough articles about Yoruba-speaking tribes, this would work well to hold them; an ethnic group's traditional language is definitely deserving of a category.
Nyttend (
talk)
23:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
That's why I said I agree that the category's quite useless as it is; there's no real reason to have this category and use it for individual biographies. My reason for preferring the current title, pluralised, rather than "Yoruba tribes" is that I don't know how the Yoruba self-define; maybe it's on the basis of language (in which case I'd support your title), but if some tribes speak Yoruba but aren't ethnically Yoruba, your proposal and mine would inconveniently produce different results.
Nyttend (
talk)
00:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Inter&anthro: I have been restrained by logistics to make further contributions to this discussion until now. I was going to add yesterday prior to my restraint that the main purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to users. In my opinion,
WP:NONDEF does not apply here because the people in the category
Category:Yoruba-speaking people are speakers of the Yoruba language but they do not use it mainly in their respective occupations like those in the related subcategory
Category:Yoruba-speaking people by occupation. Other reasons why the category is important is that there are many people from other ethnicities who speak the Yoruba language and not all Yoruba people are fluent in the Yoruba language. This phenomenon is mostly evident among some Yoruba people in the diaspora. -
Eruditescholar (
talk)
12:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Presumably the defining characteristic here is not language but ethnicity. Nearly all articles of this category are also somewhere else in the ethnicity tree of
Category:Yoruba people. The fact that Yoruba emigrants may no longer speek Yoruba language is irrelevant for this category, because these people will not show up in this category anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
13:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Events at the 1997 European Athletics U23 Championships
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.
Nominator's rationale: The typical organisation of these is to hold event articles at the main level, as the parent holds practically zero content otherwise (compared to the Olympics, for example). This also allows the
event level categorisation to focus on events, and not be cluttered with needless year bi-sections.
SFB21:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment, this probably requires a broader nomination, "event" seems to be quite commonly used in the category tree in the meaning of a sports event, which these categories are all about. For example we have a double mentioning of "events" in the name of
Category:Events at multi-sport events.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, we are thinking the same here. My thinking is that anyone looking for a by-year grouping won't be going through the by-event tree, but rather the eponymous categories which are only one click away.
SFB13:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Apologies for late reaction, I must have missed the previous ping. A vague term like event is perfectly fine for opening ceremonies and the like, but competitions should be named competitions and not events. Don't get me wrong, I am supporting the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:16th-century animal births
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.
Replying on the previous comment of 4 April: these examples are probably really exceptional and I wouldn't mind having the article in multiple century categories in that case.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Question and comment If we are to eliminate the animal births by century categories, then would it not also be logical to get rid of the [human]
births by century as well? Of course, I am not in favour of this (generally we single out birth years as defining attributes of people and, to some extent, animals) but mention it because it seems to me that the decision regarding animal births has rather wider implications. On the other hand, if this nomination is just about WP:SMALLCAT then 16th-century animal births and Category:17th-century animal births currently have three articles each which is certainly a small number but probably have modest prospects for growth and so on balance I would say keep these two categories and merge the rest.
Greenshed (
talk)
01:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
It stretches a bit further than just SMALLCAT because the century of living is more defining than the century of birth, or in other words century of living overrules century of birth. They are strongly overlapping concepts anyway, with very few exceptions on that. This wouldn't be any different for human beings except for the fact that humans are usually categorized by year of birth and by century of living.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge all cats here proposed That's helpful, thank you. What I think you're saying is that year of birth is quite distinct from century of existence and so both categories should stay. If a century of birth category is principally used a container for births by decade and year then that it a reason to keep such a century of birth category (not applicable for the 16th and 17th century animal births cats). On that basis I think you have persuaded me that all cats proposed here should be merged but that Category:18th-century animal births and onward should be kept (the animal births years in the 18th-century might need upmerging into decade cats).
Greenshed (
talk)
14:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Province of Venice
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.
Nominator's rationale: The province became the Metropolitan City in 2015. It's almost speedy-able, but I thought some people might want to keep the old category alongside the new name.
Le Deluge (
talk)
20:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Good point. I thought there would be quite a lot but on inspection the nom as it stands doesn't seem to introduce anachronisms, as
Category:Venice could sit in either as immediate parent.
Oculi (
talk)
09:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Because "province of Venice" can refer to either one, and having a category for the ecclesiastical province is quite reasonable.
Nyttend (
talk)
11:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.