Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 2



Category:Chinese history in television

 * 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:Chinese period television series. There is a consensus to change from the current name, so I chose one of the existing naming patterns that exist for other countries. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Chinese history in television to Category:Television shows set in historical China
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. C2C, and the parent category is Category:Television shows set in China. Think about it, the initial category would mislead readers to think the category is for documentary television programs about China's past.NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support & Broaden now that I looked at the contents. Would also support renaming Category:History of Mongolia in television and Category:History of Manchuria in television. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Renaming them as what?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - At what point in time do we distinguish "China" from "historical China"? I think that one of the other potentially pertinent conventions, though they are all far from ideal, would be more appropriate: Category:Television series about the history of China (per Category:Historical television series); Category:Chinese period television series (per Category:Period television series); and Category:History of China in television (per Category:History of China in fiction). -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How about Category:Television shows set in historical periods of China?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Symbolic religiosity

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting symbolic religiosity


 * Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article with little likelihood of expansion. Categorize article as Category:Sociology of religion. Editor2020 17:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: I have nothing against it. --BiH (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, there is no category for the similar 'symbolic ethnicity'. --Tarim2 (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Football venues in the United Kingdom

 * 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: split to Category:Football venues in British Overseas Territories, without prejudice to further nominations. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming  Category:Football venues in the United Kingdom to Category:Football venues in the United Kingdom and dependent territories
 * Nominator's rationale: This category is being used for something wider than the scope implied by its name. The UK consists of the four home nations.  Jersey, Guernsey and Man are all self-governing crown dependencies, belonging to the queen as monarch, with the advice of the Home Office.  The rest used to be called colonies: they are now UK dependent territories, belonging to the queen as monarch, with the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  An alternative might be to split out the dependencies, but the category is so large as to need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * '''Amended nomination - split out Category:Football venues in British Overseas Territories, per comments below. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I would lean toward starting a sports category in Category:British Overseas Territories and splitting this. Not opposed to your suggestion though. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming; support splitting. At the moment this category is a jumble. The overseas locations need splitting out - they are not in the United Kingdom. Jersey, Guernsey and Man may not be legally be part of the United Kingdom but for the purposes of this category that is where they logically should be. Add a hatnote to explain what the category is intended to cover and note that UK (in this category) is not used in its formal sense. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As nom, I am now supporting the last two comments. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Split to Category:Football venues in British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. Restricting the scope to British Overseas Territories only would exclude Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Further Comment -- Technically Black Falcon is correct. The three home Crown Dependencies are not part of UK.  Nevertheless, travel between them and UK is unrstricted, whereas British Overseas Territories citizens do not necessarily have any right to enter UK.  It is an imperfect solution, but I think it is much more sensible to treat the three dependencies as if they were part of UK, explaining the issue in a hatnote.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is true, but that is a change we should consider implementing at the level of Category:British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies in general, and not just for football venues. Frankly, I am starting to think that a three-way split might be best: United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, and the Crown dependencies. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Bugatti engines and subcategory

 * 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 Category:Bugatti engines to Category:Bugatti and to Category:Engines by maker, which has at least one other aircraft engine sub-cat already. The nominator may have intended to nominate Category:Bugatti aircraft engines for deletion, but mis-pasted this in the nomination, so I don't think there is sufficient consensus to delete that, especially as keeping it meets Vegaswikian's objection. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Bugatti engines with Dual Upmerge to Category:Bugatti and Category:Volkswagen engines
 * Propose Deleting Category:Bugatti engines
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. These two categories contain only one article combined (and a redirect to that same article) so they serve no navigation function. There is no complete set of engines by automaker let alone engines by subsidiary. No objection to recreating later if/when the article count grows. RevelationDirect (talk)
 * Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. – RevelationDirect (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No objection to the deleting Category:Bugatti engines, but dubious about the dual upmerge as the only engines in the category long predate any association of the Bugatti brand name with the Volkswagen company. I see no reason why an upmerge to Category:Bugatti wouldn't suffice. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've struggled with this a lot for larger corporations too. When they buy a company, it ends up placing a large number of products and people under a company that were never made by them (or never worked for them). I don't have a good solution though.RevelationDirect (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, I have opposed renames and upmerges when something is acquired by a new company or when a team moves. These are historic categories and for sports, the players on the old team may have never played on the new team.  For engines the acquiring company may not build the engine in which case it belongs in the old company category.  I think we are seeing a trend in keeping old countries in the category trees for clarity and would like to see that expanded to more classes of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With sports teams, I think there is at least a clearer line: this player played for the Washington Senators but not the Minnesota Twins. But how would that work with companies? Would we have different (sub)categories for each of the many owners of the Motors of Great Britain? {Again, I have no problem not upmerging this article to the Category:Volkswagen engines category, but I think this concern involves a broader realignment of corporate categories.)RevelationDirect (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Corporations can be complicated because of the many parts. When a brand is acquired, then it needs to go into the categories for the new company.  Any subcategories need to be reviewed on a case by case basis and not all just renamed at speedy, even if the top level category is.  In the case of cars, subcategories for vehicles, and parts should be left with the old name if they are identified with the old company, and parented to the new company at the highest reasonable level.  Some might need dual parents if they were developed by the old company and marketed by the new one (Lets ignore Fiat/Chrysler here).  In this case, there is no harm, and probably a lot of goodness by keeping the engine category and parenting it with Category:Bugatti.  Deletion needs to consider that it is a part of a series.  Now does it also get Category:Volkswagen engines as a parent? I'm not convinced since VW had nothing to do with the products.  My understanding, which could be wrong is that anything new produced under the Bugatti nameplate will be made by VW and those should be in the VW categories with any car being in both the Bugatti and VW categories. But I'm open to more discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support upmerge to Category:Bugatti, Oppose upmerge to Category:Volkswagen engines. To me it's pretty disorienting and nonsensical that a 1916 Bugatti aero engine or a 1980s Ducati engine be classified as "VW Group Engines". Suggestion: how about for the time being we leave Category:Lamborghini engines and Category:Ducati engines out of Category:Volkswagen engines, while including in it only the few single engines that were actually developed under the VW Group (e.g. Lamborghini V10 engine)? - Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarification My original nomination proposed to eliminate Category:Bugatti engines because it had no articles. Is your suggestion to keep the category but remove a parent category? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Populate -- While we have a convention that alumni of merged institutions are deemed to be alumni of the successor. I apply that to renamed sports teams, but I think this would be taking it too far.  VW, Ducati, and Bugatti are distinct brands.  They may NOW be in common ownership, and but that implies a common parent, not merger.  The category is not empty: it has an article on an aero-engine.  Should it not have articles on engines for Bugatti cars too?  However one category should be ample.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Once this closes, it will be interesting to see what really should be done with Category:Bugatti. It is not clear that the various companies are tied together by more then acquiring the brand name and not the products.  If that is correct, we really should have a category for each of the companies.  Acquiring a brand and then effectively starting from scratch is not the same as a merger of two companies.  But as I said, that is for after this close.  If anything it builds the case for most of this not being upmerged to VW. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I struggle with that too, for instance with Indian Motorcycles. Since categories are for navigation, people are likely to look by brand name even when that doesn't coincide with a specific company, in my opinion. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarification what additional articles would you populate these categories with?RevelationDirect (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep since Category:Bugatti engines is part of a well established series, Category:Engines by maker. I did remove the VW and motorcycle parents since the only content is aircraft engines and clearly they don't belong in either of those parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:University of Florida Gators' men's Cross Country athletes

 * 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: procedural close as nominator did not tag the category.  It has since been speedily deleted as empty. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:University of Florida Gators' men's Cross Country athletes

Nominator's rationale: Empty category; only article deleted per recent AfD. Category does not follow the established naming pattern of related family of categories, e.g., Category:Florida Gators women's cross country runners. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Xth Kenyan Parliament

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:9th Kenyan Parliament to Category:Kenyan parliaments
 * Propose merging Category:10th Kenyan Parliament to Category:Kenyan parliaments
 * Propose merging Category:11th Kenyan Parliament to Category:Kenyan parliaments
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC. Categories only contain one or two articles, and they don't have a potential for growth. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable, I'm not opposed to this. Jenks24 (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay by me.-- Auric    talk  10:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a good idea, given the current number of articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support -- WE do not need categories that will never have more than their main article. I suppose there may be room for sub-cats such as members of ... and legislation passed by ..., but until we do, these shouldbe merged.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support -- There are not enough pages to fill these categories. Spumuq (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Animated human characters

 * 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, though I caution against applying real-world classification schemes to fictional universes and against assuming that "humanoid" implies "human". -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting animated human characters


 * Nominator's rationale: I think that this is too broad of a cat, but if we don't delete, then it is need of some serious populating because dozens, if not hundred, of article are missing. JDDJS (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Question If this passes, what will be the next step with the Japanese subcategories? RevelationDirect (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Leave it be. It is far less broad. JDDJS (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is potentially useful as a container category if nothing else. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and populate. I've added a few, but there are hundreds more. Animated characters by species seems reasonable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Question does a character like Superman who has been animated as well as seen in live action belong here or not?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Indian animated characters

 * 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: upmerge per Black Falcon. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting indian animated characters


 * Nominator's rationale: Basically an empty cat JDDJS (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or Populate, depending on what happens to the parent category nomination, above. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Populate -- The lead sayts this is the second most popular character, so there ought to be an article on the most popular. At worst, merge to parent.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Fictional Indian people and Category:Animated human characters. This is an excessive quadruple-intersection of object (fictional character), character type (person, unless we start assigning nationality to non-human characters), nationality (Indian), and genre (animation). -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.