Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 8



Category:Spanish volleyball competitions

 * 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. MER-C 05:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Spanish volleyball competitions into the parent category Category:Volleyball competitions in Spain
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as the content titles are essentially similar, but the parent category is the usual format for this category. Hugo999 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with the proposal. Really good to unify categories. --Raymond Cruise (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the proposal. Djln --Djln (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The tree Category:Competitions by country gathers competitions by location, not the representation of its participants (which is what I think it being attempted here). The locational choice is better than a player representational one as competitions come in many kinds, most of which feature players not of the specified nationality. SFB 21:08, 10 May 2015 (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:AdvancED

 * 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. MER-C 13:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting advanced


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Schools are generally not defined by the organizations that accredit them. I suppose someone could argue that there might be a need for a list in the main article, so if consensus is there I can live with that. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The fact that the organization in question was only formed in 2006, makes it hard to see how being accredited through it is notable to schools that have existed for 50+ years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2015 (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:Protected landscapes in Germany

 * 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  L ondon 07:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting protected landscapes in germany


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. What is a protected landscape. I'm open to a rename if we can figure out what the main article would be.  How is a dam a landscape? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Nature parks in Germany after purging everything that is not a (protected) nature park. The dam should obviously be purged, to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Change my vote to neutral after the discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- A protected landscape would be one that was the subject of some statutory protection from development. In England we have "Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty" and "landscape protection areas" (a lower designation).  I do not know the German system and unfortuntely we do not have a main article.  I suspect this is a case of Americans trying to fit Europe to American bureaucratic systems and it does not work.  I agree that the present situation is unsatisfactory, but until we can find someone who knows, we should leave well alone.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually a good point to check out how the situation in Germany really is. It seems like this is referring to Landschaftsschutzgebiet, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landschaftsschutzgebiet, which can very literally be translated as a landscape protection area. The question is to what extent this is a defining characteristic in English-speaking Wikipedia, also taking in mind that according to this article no less than 28% of German surface is landscape protection area. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * DeleteWith such a high portion of Germany classified as this, this is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2015 (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.

12th century BC

 * 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 as specified. MER-C 05:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * NOTE: this was later reversed for births & deaths categories, see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

See: Category:12th century BC
 * Propose merging Category:1107 BC deaths to Category:1100s BC and Category:12th-century BC deaths
 * Propose merging Category:1111 BC deaths to Category:1110s BC and Category:12th-century BC deaths
 * Propose merging Category:1120s BC deaths to Category:1120s BC and Category:12th-century BC deaths


 * Propose merging Category:1137 BC deaths to Category:1130s BC and Category:12th-century BC deaths
 * Propose merging Category:1145 BC deaths to Category:1140s BC and Category:12th-century BC deaths
 * Propose merging Category:1152 BC births to Category:1150s BC and Category:12th-century BC births
 * Propose merging Category:1155 BC deaths to Category:1150s BC and Category:12th-century BC deaths
 * Propose merging Category:1186 BC deaths to Category:1180s BC and Category:12th-century BC deaths
 * Propose merging Category:1190 BC deaths to Category:1190s BC and Category:12th-century BC deaths
 * Propose merging Category:1191 BC deaths to Category:1190s BC and Category:12th-century BC deaths
 * Propose merging Category:1192 BC deaths to Category:1190s BC and Category:12th-century BC deaths
 * Propose merging Category:1197 BC deaths to Category:1190s BC and Category:12th-century BC deaths
 * Propose merging Category:1199 BC deaths to Category:1190s BC and Category:12th-century BC deaths
 * Propose deleting Category:1107 BC
 * Propose deleting Category:1111 BC
 * Propose deleting Category:1137 BC
 * Propose deleting Category:1145 BC
 * Propose deleting Category:1152 BC
 * Propose deleting Category:1155 BC
 * Propose deleting Category:1186 BC
 * Propose deleting Category:1190 BC
 * Propose deleting Category:1191 BC
 * Propose deleting Category:1192 BC
 * Propose deleting Category:1197 BC
 * Propose deleting Category:1199 BC
 * Propose deleting Category:1100s BC deaths
 * Propose deleting Category:1110s BC deaths
 * Propose deleting Category:1130s BC deaths
 * Propose deleting Category:1140s BC deaths
 * Propose deleting Category:1150s BC births
 * Propose deleting Category:1150s BC deaths
 * Propose deleting Category:1180s BC deaths
 * Propose deleting Category:1190s BC deaths


 * Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete Merge a dozen of these categories per WP:SMALLCAT, usually only one article in each category. After merging, the other categories will become empty and can thus be deleted. In contrast to earlier proposals (which were merging everything by century, see for example 13th century BC), this is now a proposal to merge into "general by decade" categories (that will all have 2 articles at least) and into "by topic by century" categories (since topics are still too small to subdivide by decade). 19:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:SMALLCAT. Unless we have some major archaeological discovery, these categories will never be viable. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support -- These small categoiries for remote periods are useless. I suspect that before long we will reach a period when there is a sufficient population to need to categorise by decades, not centuries.  For example we have approximate birth and death dates for the kings of Israel and Judah.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2015 (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:Serbs of Montenegro

 * 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  L ondon 07:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Serbs of Montenegro to Category:Serbs in independent Montenegro or Category:Serbs in Montenegro after the dissolution of Yugoslavia
 * Nominator's rationale: The controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Montenegro is of very recent date and only got really relevant after Montenegro became an independent republic. So it doesn't make sense - as happens now - to categorize 16th or 19th century people in Montenegro as Serbs of Montenegro: dependent on POV, either all or none of the people in Montenegro in the 16th or 19th century were Serbs of Montenegro. It only makes sense to categorize people by ethnicity in the recent political situation and recent ethnic discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP projects History, Montenegro and Serbia have been informed about this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The most defining characteristic of nationality (or ethnicity) is language, at least prior to the modern obsession with passports. The Serbs and the Croats speak the same language; but they write it in different scripts Cyrillic and Latin respectively; and they adhere in religious to the Orthodox and Catholic brands of Christianity respectively.  Montenegro maintained some independence from the Turks during the Ottoman period.  Serbia did not, while Croatia was subject to Hungarian or Austrian domination.  I am far from sure how it can in practice be possible to define a person as a Serb in Montenegro, rather than as a Montenegrin except in very recent times.  The category is probably only meaningful from 2006, when Montenegro parted ways with Serbia.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This comment can be taken as a support for the 1st rename alternative, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The main article is Serbs of Montenegro and it covers their history since the Middle Ages. I do not see any reason to rename or purge the category. Dimadick (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I know the main article. But the question here for categorization is, since when is Serbs of Montenegro a defining characteristic of people living in Montenegro? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Some of what has been said above strikes me as dated arguments that have not dealt with the reality that linguistic lines are politcal decisions and that the political reality of Croatia and Serbia no longer allows for a concept of a unified language. To make this an even less workable category, even if Serbs are clearly distinct from Montenegrins in 1930, which is debatable, it is unclear that their being in Montenegro in that year is at all defining to them, because it is so easy to travel within a unified country. Likewise, should we categorize as being in Armenia every Russian who spent time there in the 1950s? Is that defining when it is just spending time in one part of a unified country? Even if we view the 14 other Republics as colonies of the Russian one, it is hard to see movements to the outlying ones as defining. I don't think we would even accept Category:Americans in Hawaii, to cover mainlanders there during the Territorial Period, even though going from the mainland to Hawaii is a more deliberate act of moving than going from Russia into Armenia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This category is not about citizenship or nationality, but about an ethnic group, a historical nation, of Montenegro (Royal Montenegro, along with Royal Serbia, being the nation-states of Serbs). Serbs of Montenegro ≠ Serbians of [the Republic of] Montenegro.--Z oupan 22:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This category is about Serbs (ethnicity) and not Serbians (nationality), in Montenegro. Btw, terribly awkward category names, and the connection to the controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Montenegro does only regard contemporary history. "Montenegrin people" in the 16th-19th centuries could roughly either be Serb (Orthodox), Catholic or Muslim. The nominator is obviously lacking in knowledge on the Balkans.--Z oupan 22:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this comment. I'm not sure to what extent there is consensus whether Serbs of Montenegro and Orthodox Montenegrins were synonymous. If there is consensus about that, I wouldn't object to the alternative of splitting Serbs of Montenegro into Category:Eastern Orthodox Montenegrins as a religious category and the proposed Category:Serbs in independent Montenegro as an ethnic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2015 (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:International sports competitions hosted by Georgia

 * 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, but a redirect may as well be left. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:International sports competitions hosted by Georgia
 * Nominator's rationale: the replacement category (in accordance with the usual country title including (country)) Category:International sports competitions hosted by Georgia (country) already exists Hugo999 (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2015 (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:State Secretaries of the Netherlands

 * 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 05:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:State Secretaries of the Netherlands to Category:Undersecretaries of the Netherlands
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename per C2D, to match article name Undersecretary. It's not a speedy rename because the article name only just changed from State Secretary (Netherlands) to Undersecretary. State Secretary isn't appropriate since it is a too literal translation of the Dutch word staatssecretaris. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, this initially started as a speedy discussion just to remove the capitalization in "Secretary". Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Category:State Secretaries of the Netherlands to Category:State secretaries of the Netherlands – C2A: In Dutch, "staatssecretaris" is not capitalized, so there is no reason to capitalize "State Secretary" either. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Dutch capitalisation conventions aren't to the point: the equivalent English language post titles ARE capitalised: Secretary of State, Home Secretary, etc. Eustachiusz (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment That is not completely correct. The equivalent term would be undersecretary (not Secretary, those are ministers in the Dutch system), which is not necessarily capitalized in English. Minister (government) is not capitalized either, as long as we speak about the general class of positions. We only capitalize it when we talk about a specific position (like Labour Minister and such). --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, Dutch usage isn't relevant. There have been other discussions around exactly this issue of when a post title or an element of it is capitalised and when not, and whatever the rights and wrongs of it, it's not a straightforward C2A change, so it seems to me that it should go to a full discussion.Eustachiusz (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment was about English usage, not Dutch... --Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * At the talk page of the article I left a note that the article should be merged to Undersecretary. If agreed on that, the category can be renamed accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got no problem with that. I just objected to the argument that because the Dutch capitalisation was a certain way the English capitalisation had to be the same.Eustachiusz (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The alternative proposal for Undersecretary is up for full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support rename. I originally proposed the speedy, but this is a much better solution. --Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a sensible solution, and removes the problem caused by a too-literal translation of a foreign-language term and the subsequent attempt to force through a foreign-language spelling convention.Eustachiusz (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2015 (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:Vietnamese men

 * 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: Nomination Withdrawn after no clear consensus.  Gizza  ( t )( c ) 04:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

*Propose deleting Category:Vietnamese men.
 * Nominator's rationale: Basically redundant category, given existence of Category:Vietnamese people by occupation and a circular redirect. Unnecessary. Quis separabit?  02:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC) '''NOMINATION WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR.  Quis separabit?  02:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: the same goes for most other country categories within Category:Men by nationality. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. I just noticed this one because I was editing a particular area. @Fayenatic -- do you want to expand this to include the others?? Quis separabit?  21:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't object if you do – but note that some don't have a "by occupation" sub-cat, e.g. ; for those, probably best to nominate for renaming (& re-parenting) rather than deletion. Then again, some categories do have a function as head cats for men in remote geographical possessions, e.g. Category:American men. I'd be inclined to leave things as they are. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I've created several of the national men-type categories and I actually think a better solution would be to merge the occupational subcategories into the main national category. It makes no sense have a subdividing category name like "Vietnamese men by occupation" when there is no need to subdivide it from any content at "Vietnamese men". I think a better way of gathering and navigating information would be to have the occupational categories in the main "x-ian men" categories then allow readers to navigate the specific national/occupation combination through Category:Men by occupation and nationality. Then, we give readers the opportunity to (a) see all topics about men of a certain nationality in one place (rather than two), and (b) have a way of looking at certain male occupations across nationalities. I do not see any benefit in splitting these up with an additional layer at Category:Men by nationality and occupation, which is better catered for by having just the "x-ian men" and "Male actors by nationality‎" style divisions. SFB 21:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge of Category:Vietnamese men by occupation -- if anything it is that one which is the redundant category. We may get a Vietnamese man who does not fit into one of its occupational subcategories.  It may be that with other nations, the population is such that a "men by occupation" level is needed, perhaps because there is also a "men by" something else branch of the tree.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * SFB and Peterkingiron, I cannot support your suggestion. It would be overcategorisation to place biographies directly in "Fooian men" or "Fooian women"; those should exist only as container categories. The categories named "by occupation" must stay. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't advocated categorisation without occupation – I just think the occupational categories should be placed directly in the "fooian men" categories, rather than having "fooian men" as a pointlessly empty space that only contains "fooian men by occupation". Anything else is a maintenance issue. SFB 16:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We should not leave Category:Men by nationality and occupation without a Vietnamese sub-cat, and if we put Category:Vietnamese men directly into that one as well as Category:Men by nationality (where it obviously must belong), that breaks the normal WP:SUBCAT rule. Better to have nothing at the upper level if it's not needed. After all, Category:Men by nationality and occupation  is a sub-cat of Category:Men by nationality, so from the latter it's still possible to navigate to the Vietnamese men by occupation, even if we delete  Category:Vietnamese men.  – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: some of the "men" caregories are of some use for navigation, e.g. American and German as stated above. However, not many of them provide that function, and it does look a bit annoying to have a category layer that mostly only holds "men by occupation" categories. I notice that the US and UK have a further layer,  and, and it would probably be a better idea to merge/rename at least some Fooian men categories into that pattern; then it would be possible to add other parts of the Category:Men hierarchy into those national sub-cats, e.g. each country's components of Category:Men's sports by country‎ and Category:Men's magazines.
 * However, unless there is any such content to go into "Men in Vietnam", then I'm coming round to supporting the nomination to delete this one. Others with only one sub-cat should be renamed "Fooian men by occupation" if that does not exist already; otherwise, "Men in Foo" if there is additional content, or deleted. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have done a sample check on the parent category to what we are discussing. Almost all the Fooian men categories contain nothing but a Fooian men by occupation category.  My suggestion is that the occuptaional categories, such as Vietnemese sportsmen, Vietnamese actors, and Vietnamese politicians (not all of which necessarily exist) should be children of the category we are discussing, not grandchildren.  I observe that there are two forking trees men by nationality and occupation and men by occupation and nationality, which are presumably two routes to the same place.  I would not encourage the widespead development of "Men in Vietnam" type categories: we have traditionally treated demonyms loosely, rather than confining them strictly to nationality.  Men in Vietnam would include French and American soldiers who served there, which might perhaps make a useful container, standing above Vietnamese men.  My suggestion of merging the "men by occupation" categories to "men" categories, will eliminate one rather useless level of category, without doing other harm.  This requires a nom of about 149 categories.  I am afraid that I do not have the time or resources to make such a nomination.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the lack of harm, as upmerging the "men by occupation" layer to "Fooian men" would make it unclear from the category name that these are meant to be container categories (holding no articles directly). Better to rename/downmerge/delete the "Fooian men" layer where it contains nothing else. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This has the obvious drawback that this solution doesn't work all the categories concerned – thus we actually end up continuing the forked trees and (even worse) let people go to a still existing Category:Men by nationality and let them think there is very little expansion on men of many nationalities. As far as these being unclear in scope – that's what header templates are for (and as I said, many "fooian men" categories will remain extant anyway). Also, they are not container categories as they could reasonably contain many things (such as various lists of fooian men) – they are non-individual biography categories. SFB 16:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that drawback is easily handled by adding a note to the category page, or by using a category tree. In case you are not familiar with those, here is one for Vietnamese men by occupation:


 * In this case, if Category:Men by nationality ended up with few nationality sub-cats, we could add onto that page a category tree for Men by nationality and occupation, to show how large that sub-cat is. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as is The tend in gender studies and the general over-time growth of the encyclopedia mean that it will be useful to have this category in the future, and it does no harm now. Currently Wikipedia has an over abundance of articles that are biographies or on specific things, but an under abundance of articles on broad social concepts. With the current state of gender studies it would be possible to create an article Men in Vietnam and for every other country of an equal significance. Thus we have every reason to expect at least one direct article in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * John Pack Lambert, that would support renaming to "Men in Vietnam", not keeping "Vietnamese men" which is only suitably named for biographies. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a nomination for a single category- I see no reason why single out this category, and not any of the other 200+ categories in, most of which have just one subcat each and no other articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:51, 5 June 2015 (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.