< November 20 November 22 >

November 21

Category:People from Mohelnice, Moravia

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:People from Mohelnice, Moravia to Category:People from Mohelnice (Šumperk District)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the town article name at Mohelnice (Šumperk District). Darwinek (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wouldn't "Mohelnice, Šumperk District" be more normal than brackets for en.wiki? Furius (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the naming convention we have for the localities in the Czech Republic. - Darwinek (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2016 (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:Archaeological corpora

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: relisted after tagging sub-category as well, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 6#Category:Archaeological corpora. – Fayenatic London 14:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Archaeological corpus" does not mean "a literary corpus which was discovered archaeologically" - it just means "material from one (or more) archaeological sites." Many of the items in this category are not literary corpora, anyway, and the category largely duplicates the Cat:Epigraphy and Cat:Papyrus trees. Furius (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can actually find articles that are about archaeological corpora. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: "Category:Archaeological corpora documents" should be deleted too, actually. The pages within it have in common that they are archaeologically discovered texts - but there are hundreds of thousands of such texts, not the 26 items which appear in said category. Essentially the intent of the category seems to be to contain every page in the epigraphy and papyrus trees - which is pointless. Corpus Speculorum Etruscorum records Etruscan mirrors - it shouldn't be in the Category:Corpora tree at all, but somewhere in Category:Archaeology publications. Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae belongs in the epigraphy tree, I think. Furius (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response @Fayenatic london and Furius: Apologies, I lost track of this. I agree with Furius, delete the sub-category. It's pointless. I agree with Furius's other comments also. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I've tagged that category as well and re-listed this discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:43, 6 January 2017 (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:1st millennium in Thailand

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 all to use "Thailand". – Fayenatic London 23:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what the best way to deal with this is. Neither Thailand nor Siam (in the broadest sense referring to any of the Tai kingdoms based in the Chao Phraya plain) existed as civilisations in the first millennium, as Tai peoples had not yet settled in the area. I understand that the categories are supposed to be placed under the Years/Decades/Centuries/Millennia in Thailand tree, but the names aren't technically accurate. It's quite like having a 15th century in the United States category. 1st millennium in the area now occupied by Thailand wouldn't work either, so looking for suggestions. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that we shouldn't split (most) countries by millennium. But we should allow millennia categories for the 4th millennium BC and earlier (for actual articles) and as container categories for centuries in the 3rd millennium BC and more recent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very few countries have survived more than one millennium, if a country crosses a millennium year it is likely to be a coincidence (e.g. established in 831, disestablished in 1095, these are fictitious years), so a split of a country by millennium is seldom useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations. I agree that millennium categories should rarely if ever exist. Egypt might possibly be able to have 50 century categories, but that is not too much for a single parent. Accordingly support last few comments. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even in case of Egypt, this is a retroactively applied continuity illusion. Egypt changed dramatically over the past millenias - both demographically and politically. You can of course understand that Ancient Egypt dynasties were often discontinued by either internal changes or foreign occupation (Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman) since Iron Age. Maybe we can only utilize Ancient Egypt in some sense, but modern Egyptian Arab Republic (actually officially named Jamahuriyyah Misr al-Arabiyya by locals) discontinued from Egypt Kingdom of the Albanian dynasty of Mumammad Ali, which in turn pretty much differed from Ottoman ruled-Egypt, preceding Mamluc sultanate, Ayyubid Kurdish dynasty, Fatimids, Abbasids, Rashiduns, Ummayads, Byzantine Christian Egypt, Roman pagan Egypt, Ptolemaic Egypt, etc.GreyShark (dibra) 06:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm submitting a request for help at WP:THAI to see if we can get some help from someone who is knowledgeable on this topic
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it has been pretty much a consensus to name categories upon contemporary entities. There is a lot of mixup currently among various categories, but most of the discussions here resulted in avoiding usage of modern names and borders for historic categories. It also has much sense per Wikipedia's guidelines (stability of Wikipedia): just imagine that Iraqi Kurdistan proclaims independence - would we rename all "Years in Iraq" categories relevant to Kurdish areas to "Years in South Kurdistan"? imagine another case that Scotland approves independence from UK - would north UK categories be retroactively renamed into Scotland? The Thai people arrived to what is now Thailand around 1,000 CE; i don't think it makes sense to use "Thai" name prior to the advent of the name.GreyShark (dibra) 06:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • About consensus to name categories upon contemporary entities, I would rather add here "if reasonably possible". At the top level we have a category "History of country" for every country and the tree covers the entire history of that country starting in prehistory. At lower levels we try diffusing everything within that tree based on contemporary entities. However for too ancient times a diffusion by contemporary entities is not possible (because there wasn't any entity) or not practical (because of SMALLCAT). That is exactly what is happening here. In this case, the articles are apparently in Category:Former countries in Thai history (as earlier noted by User:Fayenatic london) and that should be sufficient within the Thai history tree. Next to that, we can still merge the nominated categories to century categories in Asia, in order to keep the articles in the right centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2016 (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:Songs from films

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 to Category:Songs written for films and purge. – Fayenatic London 13:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Songs from films to Category:Songs used in films
Nominator's rationale: The lead for the category specifically notes that this includes "songs...written independently and later used in a film". I have concerns that this shouldn't be considered a defining trait of the film, but the category itself may have some merit. That said, if the song was written apart from the film and then incidentally used, I think "Songs from films" is a misleading name for the category. DonIago (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct in assuming that you believe the category should be redefined instead, then? DonIago (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to that option, FWIW. DonIago (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest Songs written for films instead? DonIago (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's also fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer "Songs written for films". Should the subcategories follow suit (eg. "Songs written for Dirty Dancing"?) --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so, unless there's a substantial objection to it. DonIago (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2016 (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:American Splendor artists

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. This close does not rule out an early re-nomination, as the editors in favour of keeping the category do not appear to have countered the WP:PERFCAT argument, nor indeed WP:DEFINING. – Fayenatic London 13:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: as with categoring actors by films they are in, these are artists hired to draw his stories, and are not the primary creators of the work. true, they are secondary, not tertiary, but i still believe this is an inappropriae use of categorization. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2016 (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:Sent by Ravens albums

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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The band has only released two notable albums Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article should be categorised by defining characteristics. The paramount fundamental defining characteristic of To Kill a Mocking Bird is its author, that of an album is the recording artist. Whether there are other articles is secondary. Oculi (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2016 (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:Chasen (band) albums

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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The band only had one notable release. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2016 (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:Write This Down (band) albums

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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The band only released one album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2016 (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:Wikipedian gentlewomen who strive to inspire

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 23:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. It's not really clear exactly what the idea behind this category even is, let alone how seeking out users would assist in improving some facet of Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (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.

Wikipedian honor society categories

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 all. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Violates WP:USERCAT in that these categories do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in these categories & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. It's not useful in any way to provide a grouping of users who proclaim themselves to be part of a particular honor society - Such users cannot be expected to be more able or willing to collaborate on topics more than any other user. These feel far more like bottom of the page notices that were created as a form of bragging rather than as an invitation to be sought out to help improve the encyclopedia. Fairly similar to this CfD resulting in delete. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (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:Autodidact Wikipedians

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 22:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. It's not useful in any way to provide a grouping of users who proclaim themselves to be self-taught. This has essentially already been deleted before here as well. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (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.

YouTube categories

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 both. – Fayenatic London 22:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Delete both. Violates WP:USERCAT in that these categories do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in these categories & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. It's not useful in any way to provide a grouping of users who use a site that almost everyone on the English Wikipedia has used. There is a longstanding precedent for deleting non-reference based "Wikipedians by website" categories, see here. Since these categories are duplicative at minimum the latter should be merged to the former. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (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:Wikipedians willing to assist with 2FA

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 to delete, therefore rename. – Fayenatic London 17:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete (first choice) or rename to Category:Wikipedians willing to assist with two-factor authentication (second choice). This one is different from the below category in that there's actually an argument to be made that such people could be sought out for help, benefiting the encyclopedia. However, I'm not entirely convinced, which is why my first choice would be deletion. It's unclear why anyone would need more help than is already described here. However, if people feel like there could be issues beyond what that page discusses that would cause someone to seek out users in this category for help, then perhaps this category is warranted - but should be renamed to match two-factor authentication. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - again as creator of the category, I understand the rationale but argue that I've already had users contact me requiring help enabling two factor authentication. You're 100% spot on that if kept "2FA" should be changed to "two-factor authentication" -- samtar talk or stalk 12:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if Kept The current acronym is unclear. (This is not a "keep" vote though; I have no opinion on whether to delete the category entirely.) RevelationDirect (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I have added a link to Wikipedia:Simple 2FA to explain what this is all about, hopefully. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[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:Wikipedians who use 2FA

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. It's not useful in any way to provide a grouping of users who proclaim themselves to have enabled two-factor authentication. Also, "2FA" is an extremely non-intuitive, informal way of labeling things so if for some reason this category were kept (it shouldn't be), it at minimum needs a renaming. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator of the category - this was to be used with a userbox and to keep track of the uptake of 2FA. Obviously this isn't needed and indeed could well be used to target 2FA users -- samtar talk or stalk 12:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if Kept The current acronym is unclear. (This is not a "keep" vote though; I have no opinion on whether to delete the category entirely.) RevelationDirect (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2016 (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.
More