Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 4

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kablammo (talk | contribs) at 19:00, 4 August 2019 (→Category:Clippers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< August 3 August 5 >

August 4

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Face games

Nominator's rationale: Per proper naming conventions in Wikipedia if the company had an article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm:Well, the proposed renaming ain't bad so, go ahead... Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American inspired aircrafts

Nominator's rationale: plural of aircraft is aircraft Petebutt (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once renamed ( if not deleted: I happen to agree with Milborne One) then they can be re-populated without any hassle. The category names were so obviously incorrect, it was not possible to leave them populated.--Petebutt (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian first-class cricketers of South African origin

Nominator's rationale: For the same reason an almost indentical category was deleted at the end of last year. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what we deleted was a NZ category. "First class" is redundant, because any others will be NN anyway. The category is in practice about South African expratriate cricketers in Autralia. At worst it should be upmerged, rather than deleted, but I suspect there may be scope for populating it better and getting it up to the normal minimum of 5. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clippers

Nominator's rationale: Talk:Clipper (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 June 2019 was closed as no consensus to disambiguate the ship at Clippers (singular), while Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 5#Clippers was closed as retarget "Clippers" to Clipper (disambiguation) which previously targeted Los Angeles Clippers. While the singular "Clipper" is certainly ambiguous, the plural "Clippers" is more so given that the tools for cutting things are more commonly known in the plural form. Category:Friends was converted into a DAB page as a result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 2#Category:Friends despite the article being at Friends because again plural are used in the category namespace and there is more risk of confusion. In addition Category:Plymouth and Category:Perth are DAB pages even though Plymouth and Perth aren't. Category:Clippers should become a DAB to and can also include Category:San Diego Clippers, Category:Los Angeles Clippers, Category:Columbus Clippers, Category:Baltimore Clippers, Category:Agua Caliente Clippers, Category:Oakland Clippers and Category:Concordia Clippers. Some editors at the RM suggested using "Clipper ship", thus Category:Clippers ships might be a possibility. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically oppose the suggested solution Category:Clippers ships or Category:Clipper ships - both of these imply to some that a clipper barque, clipper brig, or clipper schooner, etc, are excluded from being a clipper - the point being that the ambiguous word "ship" can denote a fully rigged ship. This whole mess appears to arise from a historical difference between American clippers, which were designed to sail round Cape Horn and were virtually all fully rigged ships, versus the opium clippers, some tea clippers and others which were not. Therefore American focused sources can talk about "clipper ships" without any gross lack of correctness, whilst those directed at the Australian emigrant trade, the tea and opium trades and (though Wikipedia does not seem to have noticed this) transatlantic trade cannot. In short, this usage of "clipper" means a commercial sailing vessel designed to sail quickly and probably built between the mid 1830s and the end of the 1870s - it can be of any type of rig, whilst "ship" is ambiguous as possibly implying one rig. I have no problem with fixing the overall problem stated, but not with the suggested solution. I would offer Category:Clipper (ship type) as a possible alternative.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Absolutely no need for a rename. Clippers are ships and this is the primary meaning of the word alone. Any other type of clippers will have another word added. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom. A clipper is also an occupation in the hand-made shoe trade and no doubt his tool. A clipper is also a type of sailing ship. We should stock to the standard WP format of putting a disambiguator in brackets. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No need; one looking for another usage will be referred there; those looking for the nautical usage (which itself is the parent of some others) will already be where they wanted to be. Kablammo (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alkenones

Nominator's rationale: Besides Alkenones, all of the pages in Category:Alkenones belong in Category:Enones but not Category:Alkenones. The six other pages each describe a chemical that has an oxygen-carbon double bond that's conjugated to a carbon-carbon double bond and is therefore an enone. Meanwhile, per the lead of Alkenone, the term alkenone only applies to a ketone that: has a methyl or ethyl group on one side and a linear hydrocarbon group on the other, which rules out all other members except Methyl vinyl ketone and 3-Penten-2-one; is formed by a member of the class Prymnesiophyceae, which I don't think applies to the other pages since Alkenone is the only page in the category that mentions phytoplankton; and has between 35 and 41 carbon atoms, which rules out all members of the category except Alkenone in and of itself. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Contra: The content of Alkenones is very special. Alkenones are a complete subgroup of enones. They contain a keto group, a C=C-doublebond and rest is completely alkylic. There is no need that they ar conjugated. An enone contains only a keto group and a C=C-doublebond. And just think of Alk-en-one = Alkyl, a doublebond and the keto group. There is a need to rewrite the article alkenone. And de:Alkenone tells you, what an alkenone really is. By the way – The_Nth_User – have you studied chemistry, specially organic chemistry? PhD? Regards JWBE (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they do not need to be conjugated, then they are not a complete subgroup of enones. Also, if Alkenone does not describe the category adequately, why is it the category's main article? The image on the page Alkenone has three double bonds, so your statement that alkenones have "a keto group, a C=C-doublebond and rest is completely alkylic" is at best misleading. If the category Alkenones is just about alkenes that happen to also have keto groups, I would argue that it should be deleted per the same rationale as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_4#Category:Keto_acids. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 16:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians by religion

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIAL among others. Past CFDs (see here and here) have resulted in a pretty clear consensus that categories such as these are problematic and should be deleted. In addition the articles in this category are almost all from either Indian politicians, these categories would be too big if all politicians were included. Lastly there are already perfectly fine categories out there for politicians who belong to religious political parties and whose religion is relevant to their political career, namely Category:Politicians of Christian political parties, Category:Politicians of Islamic political parties, Category:Politicians of Hindu political parties etc. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most or rename. A politician's religion (particularly in India) is far from trivial. It will determine how they operate in politics in support of their community (religion). However, we can lose the 20th/21st century split my merging; also Indian Jain since I doubt there will be enough non-Indian Jains to merit a category. The Christian category should be Category:Indian Christian politicians, which is correct for both articles. Christians are currently a persecuted minority in much of India, so that Chritian politicians will be particularly important to them. I only sampled Category:Muslim politicians, but those I looked at also seemed to be Category:Indian Muslim politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron I understand the logic of having categories for politicians whose heritage or beliefs are a defining factor, but unfortunately I must disagree in this instance and here is why: first for Category:Muslim politicians most politicians in this category seemed to be placed here because they either have an Islamic-sounding name, or are from Muslim-majority regions such as Pakistan or Kashmir. Therefore their Islamic faith is not a defining aspect in their political career, unless they are a part of an Islamic political party, which as mentioned before there is already a category for. Similarly for most of the articles for Christian politicians don't have any mention of the subjects faith and are placed there rather for their Christian-sounding names. Also there are several regions of India such as Mizoram and Nagaland where Christians form the vast majority and thus being a Christian would not be a defining characteristic at all. Similarly almost all the articles in Category:Hindu politicians belong to either the BJP or Shiv Sena, both of which are Hindu nationalists political parties so one would assume that the politicians belong to these parties are Hindu. The only category of which I am having second thoughts about is Category:Sikh politicians as like Jews, Sikhs are more of an ethno-religious group rather than other religions which are more trans-cultural and trans-national. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Institutes of the Roman Curia

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, it is not clear how the scope of these two categories is different. Note if the related discussion of yesterday is closed as merge, then this proposal is turning into merging with Category:Roman Curia. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support something like a combined category like that. PPEMES (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cow and Chicken

Nominator's rationale: Only five articles fall in this category. Of them, one is the main series article, one is the episode list, one is the creator, and the other two are about a related spin-off. This category does not need to exist. The editor who created this category has a questionable edit history. Paper Luigi T • C 00:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Prussia

Nominator's rationale: rename per C2A, decapitalizing kings, per WP:MOS. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
opposed speedy

Kings of Sardinia

Nominator's rationale: rename per C2A, decapitalizing kings, per WP:MOS. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
opposed speedy


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_4&oldid=909333487"