Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 27 March 29 >

March 28

[edit]

Category:NBL Philippines

[edit]
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: rename. MER-C 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To be concurrent with National Basketball League (Philippines) Howard the Duck (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2020 (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:Phang Nga F.C.

[edit]
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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Completely unnecessary. (One of Rathfelder's) Oculi (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably this is a WP:POINT nomination or otherwise I'm not following what this is about. By the way, I have just added the (very brief) stadium article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this in order to rescue the subcategory from Wikipedia:Database_reports/Uncategorized_categories. There are thousands of similar categories for sports clubs. Rathfelder (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion -- This raises a common problem. The category currently has the club, its stadium (which is a multipurpose one and WP:OCVENUE might apply - please do not bite on that); and the players subcat. One answer might be for the parent to be Football in Thailand, with the players as a direct subcat and the club as its main article. The stadium is linked in the main article so that the loss of it from the present category would not matter. If so, restructure tree and delete. However this would need to be treated as a sample test case, to be followed by similar ones for (1) rest of Thai football clubs (2) other sports (3) other countries worldwide. This is a viable enterprise for clubs where there are not at least 5 articles or other items. In some cases there will be a seasons subcat too, or other things. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of them only have a couple of subcategories, but there are thousands of such categories. Similarly universities, most of which have subcategories for alumni and faculty. Rathfelder (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2020 (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:Wikipedia concepts

[edit]
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: delete. – Fayenatic London 09:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: a non-defining category with a single page, which is already categorized into Category:Wikipedia essays about building the encyclopedia and Category:Wikipedia edit-a-thons. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several other pages I intend to create in this category, De-bloat-athon and Source-a-thon. These are concepts related to developing Wikipedia NOT contests or editathons. You are the one who added "Wikipedia edit-a-thons". Concepts describes them perfectly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, could you please clarify: is CfD a Wikipedia concept? Is One revert rule? A WikiDragon? A Userbox? To me, all of these are Wikipedia concepts, i.e. concepts related to Wikipedia. However, inclusion of them in such a category would be a meaningless grouping. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In main space there is Category:Concepts by field and even Category:Wiki concepts. But such a project administration category is too broad to be useful. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Wikipedia development concepts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:41, 29 March 2020 (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:Wikipedia template management

[edit]
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: Rename Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Wikipedia administration, Category:Wikipedia portal administration, Category:Wikipedia citation administration. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2020 (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.

Shrines by country

[edit]
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: merge/delete per nomination. – Fayenatic London 08:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete for other countries
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, this is a redundant intermittent category layer in by far most countries, where they only contain a single subcategory. In a few countries, on top of this nomination, there is some more content, but in most cases the religious subcategories can be excluded from the merge and only in exceptional cases the articles are not in the religious buildings tree yet. It will lead to at most 20 extra articles directly in Category:Shrines. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contents are irrelevant to my argument. My point is that you're attempting to delete an intermediate category under too-small grounds when there's a lower-level category, and that doesn't make sense. If it's appropriate to have a subtype-of-concept category (in this case, Catholic shrines), you need a concept category (in this case, shrines). If either one's too small, you should get rid of the lower level, because the upper level necessarily has more potential for size: it obviously can contain everything from the lower, and it can also contain examples of the broader topic (in this case, shrines in Argentina) that don't fit into the narrower topic. Either the lower-level category should be deleted on too-small grounds and the contents moved up (it could hold both the Catholic shrines and any hypothetical Shinto shrines), or the current setup is fine. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, think of it this way. Imagine that we had a bunch of articles about French archaeological museums, but no articles about other French museums, so we deleted the French museums category on too-small grounds. Someone comes along and is looking for articles on museums in France, so he looks at museums-by-country and sees no France category. He's not going to go through the archaeological museums category tree, so won't he assume that we don't have any categories about museums in France? Same here. Someone's looking at the shrines category and wants to find Argentine shrines, so when he sees that Shrines by country has no Argentine contents, he assumes that there aren't any categories for Argentine shrines, and Category:Shrines shouldn't have any Argentine shrines, so he concludes that there aren't any articles about Argentine shrines. Now...if you delete the Catholic shrines in Argentina category and move them into Catholic shrines and Argentine shrines, they'll still be findable through the normal route, but if you delete only the Argentine shrines, the Catholic shrines won't end up in Category:Shrines because it's a multi-levels-up parent category where they don't belong. They won't be findable by anyone who's not looking at the Catholic shrines tree. When the only problem is that something's too small, deleting an intermediate level of the category tree almost never makes sense because it interrupts relationships between upper and lower levels. Keep the intermediate level and move the low-level items up, or keep everything. Nyttend (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Someone's looking at the shrines category and wants to find Argentine shrines, so when he sees that Shrines by country has no Argentine contents, he assumes that there aren't any categories for Argentine shrines, and Category:Shrines shouldn't have any Argentine shrines, so he concludes that there aren't any articles about Argentine shrines." That is incorrect in two respects. First, the proposal is to delete Category:Shrines by country so there is no way that anyone would see that Shrines by country has no Argentine contents. Second, the conclusion that there aren't any articles about Argentine shrines is wrong, the right conclusion is that Argentine shrines may be found in the Roman Catholic or Shinto subcategory. Anyone with a little bit of knowledge of Argentina will know that Roman Catholic is the place to find them. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so simple -- I am not clear what the distinction is between shrines on the one hand and religious buildings and structures on the other. Some of the problem relates to secular (which are non-religious) and national shrines (e.g. two articles in Philippines category). I assume that a statue can be in buildings and structures. I would like to see us eliminating the shrines tree, by merging (or manually recategorizing) into the religious buildings and structures tree. In some cases, "Catholic buildings and structures" may be directly in "religious buildings and structures by country", because there are no others. The non-religious and national ones can go into "buildings and structures" category and also an international "national shrines" or "secular shrines" category, according to circumstances. If we reach a consensus on this, I would suggest that the closing admin should declare the result and relist. The nom (and perhaps others) can then add the revised categories to articles. When they can assure us that has been done, the discussion can be closed as a delete or soft redirect/dab-category. It is not reasonable to ask the closing admin to undertake something as wide-ranging as I am proposing. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge/delete per nom. Basically, a shrine is just a placed considered as sacred by some, which is pretty much also the definition of a place of worship. Drawing the line between the two is highly dependent on the specific culture and or religion, so that it is very risky to maintain a high-level separation between shrines and other holy places. I have no objection to keep the notion of shrine within each specific religion, such as Islamic shrines, Roman Catholic shrines or Shinto shrines, because a specific religion will usually be able to define its own internal rules on what it considers to be a shrine or not. Place Clichy (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clicking through these articles, the distinction between what is a shrine versus not is not worth maintaining, especially given different religious traditions and translation issues. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2020 (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:Scripts encoded in Unicode

[edit]
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: delete subject to checking that all member pages will remain within Category:Writing systems. – Fayenatic London 06:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few. PetScan now shows that the following member pages are not currently within Writing systems:
  1. Kokborok, represented by Kokborok script
  2. Parthian language, represented by Pahlavi script
  3. Isotype (picture language)
  4. Sindhi script – this language has used various scripts
  5. Litumol script – no information except that it's a script of Nepal
  6. SolReSol script – a constructed musical language
@DePiep: you may wish to do further checking from the list that you made, as some pages are only within Writing systems via Category:Writing system stubs. – Fayenatic London 07:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: delete as Unicode is a non-defining characteristic of these scripts. Illustrative is the fact that the information about Unicode is usually mentioned somewhere at the bottom of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, Unicode details are provided prominently in the info box at the top of the page in most cases, along with ISO 15924 script codes (which add Category:Scripts with ISO 15924 four-letter codes to the article, which is no more defining as Unicode inclusion is). From the perspective of a user of the script, whether it supported by the Unicode Standard or not is very much a defining feature, because if it is included in Unicode they can read and write it on the internet, but not if it is not yet included in Unicode. BabelStone (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this comment, I have added this other category to the nomination. It is even more evident that not being encoded in Unicode is not a defining characteristic, the script articles do not even mention this. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that this isn't a defining characteristic, but it will be highly relevant to the reader. I oppose removing this information from Wikipedia, but could support listifying. Daß Wölf 16:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Available: Script (Unicode)#List of scripts in Unicode. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the navbox {{Unicode navigation}} has the Unicode list, but as a navbox it is not true content (and absent in mobile view). -DePiep (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, conditional. I must admit, reluctantly, the deletion for reason of Non-defining is correct. (Later more on that reluctance).
The condition I want to add is: all script articles categorised (currently: 154+87=241P) must be present in Category:Writing systems (possibly through a script subcategory). Otherwise, a removal would remove the article from the parent category altogether.
My reluctance stems from an other aspect of these two categories: a fine, useful list of eponymous script articles they make. Were there a some category 'Category:Script articles only' we could find them easily, there would be no issue. However:
  • Category:Writing systems is titled with a synonym for Scripts (which is used elsewhere). Category:Scripts is a redirect. This is confusing (I had to do a research to check that they are synonyms). Throughout our topic of WS/scripts, this fails WP:COMMONNAME and does not nicely apply WP:ELEGANT. For now & here, we must leave this problem.
  • Script articles now may be buried one or more subs deep in this parent WS category, if at all (example in case: subsubcat Category:Arabic writing system does not list Arabic script; in fact Arabic script is hard to find if at all).
  • Meanwhile, subcategory like Category:ISO 15924 might fit the same non-defining issue (let's not mind this for now), and anyway it is not an natural search-route for a specific script(-article).
  • All in all: the cat:WS tree may be incomplete, incorrectly implemented, and too diffused (into subn-categories) to be useful as a reader's navigation aide.
A solution could be to have all straight script articles (say, those 241P) in one category. I thought there was a rational guideline for this ('repeat article in parent catgory'), but cannot find it. That parent could be existing cat:WS, or a dedicated new subcategory.
Asking User:Marcocapelle for advice on how to handle this request, i.e., the part from 'reluctance' onward. Do we discuss elewhere/outside, ask Project WP:WPWR, or put this deletion in a holding pen?
-DePiep (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle this might have escaped your attention, but I'd still be interested in your view re this issue. My view is that all scripts must be in the Category:Writing systems in a script-related subcategory (max 2 deep?). So not ISO-id based etc. This before removal. Reasonable? -DePiep (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One example, there may be harder ones. Checking how Category:Arabic script is categorised: not through any defining "Foo family of scripts" that helps searching/finding it from top down. Should this CfD be in a holding pen (when accepted to delete)? Or start a talk at WP:WPWR? -DePiep (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Current content list (240P) saved at Talk WP Writing systems. -DePiep (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: normally the closer of this discussion will list this at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual for us to do the manual checking. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To Closing admin, @Marcocapelle:: So not an argument to prevent deletion then. Clear. -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2020 (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:Pontianak, Indonesia

[edit]
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: rename. MER-C 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: asked in User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Cat Moved Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2020 (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:Buildings and structures in Pontianak, Indonesia

[edit]
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: rename. MER-C 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: asked in User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Cat Moved Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_28&oldid=952051331"