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

July 2

Religion in China Redux

Nominator's rationale: The rationale given by Marcocapelle for the previous CFD back in May:

"in" is an odd preproposition in relation to a dynasty, "under" or "during" makes more sense.

This is usually the case, but as regards China X dynasty is the most common and natural form in English for the name of the state itself. Per the standard for analogous categories, e.g. Category:Religion in the Byzantine Empire, I think reassuming the previous pattern would be ideal. Remsense 诉 22:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose, Category:Religion in the Byzantine Empire is not an analogous category because Byzantine does not refer to a dynasty. A good analogous example is Category:People under the Almoravid dynasty. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    The state is what is being referred to here, wholly in line with the language used in English-language literature about China. Remsense 诉 04:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • A dynasty is something else than a state. If anything, the state is China. With the other example, the Almoravid dynasty, there is no commonly used state name at all, and that is also fine. State names may be derived from the dynasty name, e.g. Sassanid Empire and Sassanid dynasty but that is not the case here either. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      I don't mean to be rude, but I feel this is being overly deliberate about universal boundaries between interwoven concepts in a way that, I stress, ignores actual usage. In part, these lexical differences can be ascribed to the distinct paradigms of dynasties in China compared to elsewhere. Byzantium was not really dynastic at its core at all, with the legitimacy of the state always clearly surpassing that of lineages. China was not the opposite per se, it's just that there was a totally different, more consubstantial relationship between the Chinese state and its ruling dynasty.
      Putting an even finer point on the "actual usage" argument: in a fulltext search of my library of China-related books, "under the Han dynasty" appears verbatim at some point in 14 books, while "in the Han dynasty" appears in 91! This ratio is 1:27 for the Shang, 11:21 for the Jin (both represented), 8:67 for the Tang, 6:54 for the Song, 11:42 for the Yuan, 16:52 for the Ming, and 7:51 for the Qing. This must reflect some conventional usage of "dynasty" in the name of a state, right? Remsense 诉 05:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Colonial Puerto Rico

Nominator's rationale: rename in accordance with the category description, it only refers to the Spanish colonial period, not to the American period which can (especially in the beginning) can be regarded as colonial too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Hijacked journals

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Proposal: listify, where it could be better sourced. Currently this content is not discussed in the eponym article, Hijacked journal, nor in most member artciles, e.g., Sylwan. fgnievinski ( talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep None of these are reasons for deletion. If it's not discussed in each article, it should be. That individuals are not discussed in the main eponimous article is irrelevant, because they shouldn't be. We mention the first known case, Archive des Sciences as an example, but there's no reason to mention the others. WP:NONDEF also does not apply because journals do not control if they are hijacked or not, but it's very much an important thing to know about a journal. And if you want to have a list, have a list, but that does not make the category irrelevant or useless. Also an important defense for WP:CITEWATCH. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, lots of things can be a "important thing to know" (for whom?) but that does not put WP:NONDEF aside. No objection to listification if someone volunteers for that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    for whom? For the reader. If you stumble upon a citation to e.g. Sylwan, it's important to know that Sylwan was hijacked, and that you may not be looking at the real Sylwan but the fake one. Also, per WP:NONDEF
  • a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
  • We have multiple reliable sources describing these journals as hijacked
  • if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;
  • If it's not mentioned in the lead, it should be.
  • if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.
  • It doesn't fall into any of them.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Hieronymus Praetorius scholars

Nominator's rationale: This cat was created with the sole purpose of being added to the categories of musicologist Jeffery T. Kite-Powell (same user created the cat & expanded the Kite-Powell article). I'm afraid that Hieronymus Praetorius is so impossibly niche that there are probably less than three "Hieronymus Praetorius scholars" in human history. Aza24 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Tracker musicians

Nominator's rationale: Tracker software is commonly used to create chiptunes, such that there is a very significant overlap between the two categories. Given the mostly overlapping and duplicative nature of the categories, a merge seems warranted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:13, 7 June 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) 00:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also tagging Chiptune musicians.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention

Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this category is unclear. Some categories were added manually, while others are tagged by Template:Category class — based on the template's source code, this happens if and only if the name is incorrect. 
{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}{{subst:!}}{{PAGENAME:{{{class}}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{class{{subst:!}}}}}}}{{subst:!}}unassessed{{subst:!}}{{subst:!}}-Class}} {{{topic}}} articles}}{{subst:!}}
   {{subst:!}}[[Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention]]
  }}
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I've asked WP:AWBREQ to auto-tag all of the categories here that are manually added, almost all of which have only the category listing in their source code. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh wait, Category:Template Category class with class parameter not matching title exists. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Can {{ Category class}} handle pages like Category:Disambig-Class Bihar articles of Low-importance‎? It has both class and importance. Gonnym ( talk) 11:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, I don't think there is an existing template that covers cateegory navigation for the quality–importance intersection. I'm also seeking to standardize category names fo this type with a recent WP:CFDS for the intersectional ones of WikiProject Amphibians and reptiles. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Are you going to tag all 333 categories in Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention? Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Liz: This nomination is only about the parent, not its subcategories. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The "manually tagged" ones were added because while this has now faded somewhat, last year in particular there was an absolute epidemic of people making hasty, half-baked "standardization" edits to wikiproject templates that had the side-effect of spewing out new redlinked wikiproject class and importance rating categories (sometimes even for wikiprojects that don't even do importance-rating at all) at an absolutely alarming rate — meaning that as a person who works to clean up categorization errors at Special:WantedCategories, for several weeks I was getting slapped in the face with dozens of those at a time on every new generation of that report.
    They can't just stay red, which means they have to be either created or removed before the next generation of the report 72 hours later — but removing a template-generated category is impossible without either editing the template in ways that surpass my understanding of template-coding infrastructure, and thus likely breaking stuff, or totally reverting the changes that caused the redlinked category to exist in the first place, and thus being disruptive, so my only option was to create all of those categories myself. But creating a class or importance rating category is a more complex process than creating a mainspace category, especially in the cases where I would have had to create the entire importance-rating infrastructure from scratch (which I don't even know how to do), so it would have taken me weeks to do all the work myself — so especially given the sheer amount of crap I was having to deal with, my only realistic option was "do the absolute bare minimum necessary to make the category blue instead of red, and leave it in a place where the experts in wikiproject-rating categorization can fix it": namely, create a virtually blank category that doesn't contain all of the category-making code that a wikiproject assessment category should really contain, and then leave it in a "wikiproject categories that need to be fixed by people who actually know what they're doing" queue.
    There's absolutely nothing on this category that says it's only for naming errors, and there are other kinds of attention that a wikiproject assessment category can need besides naming problems alone — so it makes sense to create the proposed category as a subcategory of this if desired, but it doesn't make sense to move the existing category to this since there can be other legitimate reasons for its use besides naming problems alone. Bearcat ( talk) 14:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Why not automate the creation and labeling of these categories? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    That would have to be done by somebody who knows how to do that, wouldn't it? Said somebody would not be me, so while those should be automated I'm not the one who can do that. Bearcat ( talk) 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm fine with splitting the incorrect names subcategory with the template-categorized system through Template:Category class and Template:Category importance, and leaving this category here. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:MEPs from Italy 2024–2029

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: speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Created by self in error. PatGallacher ( talk) 17:04, 2 July 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.

Category:2024 in professional wrestling in Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. The sole article is already in Category:2024 in Boston so no further merging is needed. User:Namiba 16:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Patrons of Romantic artists

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. People are patrons of whatever era of artists they happen to be alive during Mason ( talk) 12:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's employers and patrons

Nominator's rationale: Rename the cat to make what's happening a tad clearer. We tend to avoid possessives Mason ( talk) 12:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support More natural, shorter, and consistent with the rest of the tree. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Destroyed Hindu temples

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per nom Mason ( talk) 12:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Military history of Australia during the Korean War

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, the parent category of each is nearly empty. Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per nom Mason ( talk) 12:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:National military histories by war

Nominator's rationale: I find this name very confusing. I think, based on the contents, it would be better off as Military history by war and country, and the child categories could be renamed Vietnam War military history by country etc Mason ( talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Beauty pageant controversies

Nominator's rationale: Most of the contents of this category are people, not events. Describing people as "controversies" simply because they've attracted some sort of negative media attention during their career - or, in some cases, for no evident reason at all - seems inappropriate and potentially a BLP concern. Omphalographer ( talk) 04:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on purging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 00:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Well I favour purging, but 4 items is barely viable for a category, although there is no absolute minimum. NLeeuw ( talk) 04:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to relist a further time, but my current thoughts on consensus is that everyone in this discussion agrees that BLPs should not be in the category – the real debate is whether those four pages should be in the category. That is a long way of saying: if there is no further participation in a week, I would personally close this as purge with not consensus on whether the category should exist or not..
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Timelines of video games

Nominator's rationale: This category has become redundant. Judging by the titles of articles, none of them are "Timelines", except for a single article that is "Timeline of arcade video games", so if we categorized stuff correctly, we would get a category with only one article. It also overlaps almost entirely with the other category "Video game lists by genre".

The Persian and Malay versions of this category only have subcats btw, which isn't a good thing. QuantumFoam66 ( talk) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per QuantumFoam66. Of the articles they removed, Timeline of arcade video game history is the only one that is a timeline, and List of games using procedural generation is in Category:Video game lists by technology or feature. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_2&oldid=1232522370"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE