Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
link |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 65:
==== Category:African-American supercentenarians ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' '''merge to both parents'''. I will soft-redirect the current category name to [[:Category:African-American centenarians]], as no appetite has been expressed for the deletion of that category (and the number of opinions for upmerging to it in part suggests a preference that it should exist). [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 03:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|African-American supercentenarians}}<br />
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' There is no good reason to single out african americans by age. We have a parent cat for Super old Americans that works just fine. This goes back to how the 110Club forum categorizes people into four big groups by color (one of which is Latios, which is not a color, but that is another story). [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 10:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Line 96 ⟶ 101:
*'''Merge''' to both parents per above. [[User:Rzvas|Rzvas]] ([[User talk:Rzvas|talk]]) 17:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to both parents per above. It would be better as the same category. Also it is too small for single category. [[User:Davidgoodheart|Davidgoodheart]] ([[User talk:Davidgoodheart|talk]]) 03:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' This is essenitally a by race category. Unless you are prepared to exclude Colin Powell when he reaches 111 years of age, I will not accept it is not. Beyond that, this is a
*'''Delete'''. Why do we need to split up American supercentenarians by race? If there are too many articles to fit in a single category, split them up by state. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 02:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to parents. Virtually by definition, there will be so few of these that splitting by ethnic/racial group under nationality/citizenship is unnecessary. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 08:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Dual Upmerge''' per [[WP:
* '''Procedural comment''', this discussion has been listed, quite a while ago, at the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#CFDs_(general)|administrators noticeboard]] with a request to close. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 16:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
Line 105 ⟶ 110:
* '''Delete''' random intersection of unrelated factors. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Trying to wrap up'''. There is almost unanimous agreement that this category should not stay in place. Besides there has not been any reason stated why it shouldn't be merged to [[:Category:American supercentenarians]]. The disagreement is just between single merge and double merge, i.e. whether or not it should also be merged to [[:Category:African-American centenarians]]. Probably the cause of this disagreement is procedural (because [[:Category:African-American centenarians]] hasn't been nominated as well) but that is not entirely clear. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 17:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Video games by island country of setting ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''relisted, [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_2#Category:Video_games_by_island_country_of_setting|see here]]''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose upmerging''' {{lc|Video games by island country of setting}} to [[:Category:Video games by country of setting]]<br />
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Given that we have [[:Category:Video games by country of setting]], this is a non-defining characteristic for the categories it contains. [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 14:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Line 112 ⟶ 123:
* '''Oppose''' as this is part of [[:Category:Island countries in fiction]]; this category should not be picked off without also discussing the siblings for novels, films and TV shows. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 09:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge.''' per nom. ―<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MattLongCT|<span style="color:black">MattLongCT</span>]] <b>-[[User talk:MattLongCT|Talk]]-</b><sup style="font-size:75%">[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 19:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Peerages with only two holders ====
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
:''The result of the discussion was:'' <!-- Template:Cfd top --> '''no consensus''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 13:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
:* '''Propose merging''' [[:Category:Marquesses of Willingdon]] to [[:Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom]], also:
:**[[:Category:Marquesses of Ripon]] to [[:Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom]]
Line 142 ⟶ 159:
::I don't have a problem with any of that. [[User:Opera hat|Opera hat]] ([[User talk:Opera hat|talk]]) 05:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' I especially love the upmerging of the dukes of the united kingdom. Good suggestion. ―<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MattLongCT|<span style="color:black">MattLongCT</span>]] <b>-[[User talk:MattLongCT|Talk]]-</b><sup style="font-size:75%">[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 19:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose.'''
1. WP:SMALLCAT says 'Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, *unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country*.'
2. There are 5 'national' peerages in the British Isles peerage system - those of England, Scotland, Ireland, GB and the UK. Each of those has 5 levels - duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron. So there are 25 categories. I suggest that whatever system is worked out needs to be consistent across those 25 categories.
3. The biggest of the 25 seems to be 'Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom' with 11 subcats and 1335 entries. I suggest that this category is a candidate for diffusion, and that it illustrates 'the merits of categories like Category:Earls of Leicester', to quote a phrase used in the 2016 discussion.
4. There are many cases of successive creations of an earldom with the same name - e.g. [[Earl of Yarmouth]] is a title that has been created three times in British history, once in the Peerage of England and twice in the Peerage of Great Britain. IOW not all Earls of Y were Earls in the Peerage of E and not all Earls of Y were Earls in the Peerage of GB - so I suggest that it is incorrect that [[:Category:Earls of Yarmouth]] is a subcat of 'Earls in the Peerage of E' and 'Earls in the Peerage of GB'. Contrast [[:Category:Earls of Leicester]] which (I suggest correctly) is not a subcat of any of the 'Earls in the Peerage of X' categories, because it has been created in each of the Peerages of E, GB and the UK. If [[:Category:Earls of X (date)]] were simply merged to [[:Category:Earls of X]], then we would lose the categorisation of the members of the merged category into the various Peerages. I suggest that having [[:Category:Earls of Yarmouth (1679)]] (which is a subcat of both [[:Category|Earls in the Peerage of England]] and [[:Earls of Yarmouth]]) allows the reader to see at a glance (a) which individuals held peerages under which creation and (b) which were in e.g. the Peerage of England or the Peerage of GB.
5. As things stand, there are categories for peerages with two holders, but not for those with one holder. If this proposal is adopted, there will be categories for peerages with three holders but not for those with two holders. I feel that a line has to be drawn somewhere. The logic of the status quo is that [the article for the one holder] can be categorised in whatever way [the category with one article] would be categorised if it existed.
[[User:Alekksandr|Alekksandr]] ([[User talk:Alekksandr|talk]]) 22:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per [[WP:SMALLCAT]]. These categories are the thin-but-short tail of a huge and well-established series, and in several cases the provide useful distinctions been multiple creations of the same title. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 08:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
==== Category:Hebbar Iyengars ====
| |||