Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 22



Category:Counts of Rosselló

 * 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) 00:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Counts of Rosselló to Category:Counts of Roussillon
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge because the two categories have identical scope, Rosselló is just the Catalan translation of Roussillon. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support -- The main article is at Counts of Roussillon. Roussillon is now part of France, and English will tend to follow French (as a more familiar language).  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 24 October 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.

Countships of the Holy Roman Empire <-> Counties of the Holy Roman Empire

 * 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 to Category:Counties of the Holy Roman Empire. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Countships of the Holy Roman Empire and Category:Counties of the Holy Roman Empire
 * Nominator's rationale: merge as it's unclear how the two categories are distinct from each other. Both categories contain counties. I've no preference for a particular merge direction so I've tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Delete/Selective Merge Articles that start with "Holstein..." ( Holstein-Itzehoe, Holstein-Kiel) are actually about lineages that serve as counts so they're worth keeping. (I do wonder if Category:Holstein family might be a better name though.) Merge all other contents as nominated. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please double-check? The article Holstein-Itzehoe starts with "Holstein-Itzehoe was a county...", the article Holstein-Kiel starts with "The imperial county of..." and the tree in the article is not a family tree but a county tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction That example was bad, but the point still stands. Look at Holstein-Rendsburg and Holstein-Plön. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we'd better edit the first line of the article and change family line into county. The body text of the article says: "... Holstein was divided into 3 parts. From this emerged the counties of Holstein-Plön, Holstein-Pinneberg and Holstein-Rendsburg." and the map also shows "County of Holstein-Rendsburg". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- A county is an area of land ruled by count. A countship is the title held by the ruler.  This is a theoretical distinction, but I suspect that as WP is using the terms the distinction is not a practical one to apply in the category scheme.  It is the same one as between a dukedom and a duchy.  English analogies will not help us here as most English titles long ago lost their territorial link.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As do I. If there is some agreement for counties/counts, I'll go along. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Here we have a problem in that we are translating all these to "county" when they cover several language names. See the tables at Count. During the time period of the Holy Roman Empire, there could be counties in several different places, called several different things. But that said, I think I'll just defer to the article titles (counties) for now, especially since the whole Category:Countships tree seems to have been made by a single editor.... - jc37 18:03, 24 October 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:Automata (computation)

 * 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 to Category:Automata (computation). Could have gone either way, but Category:Automata (computation) seems to be broader in scope than Category:Automata theory. This is without prejudice to a reconsideration of the name of Category:Automata (computation). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Automata are the subject of automata theory, so the two categories have the same subject. (Regarding the "theory" part in the name, I've never heard of "automata practice" even though automata have many practical applications.) Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Automata (computation) to Category:Automata theory
 * Merge to Category:Automata (computation) (no objection to merging the other way if others prefer it)
 * See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_5 for the original creation of this as a disambig between mechanical and computing automata. This merge should have been done then, not the two names for computation. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 22 October 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:Rappers' birth decades

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting
 * rappers born in the 60s
 * rappers born in the 70s
 * rappers born in the 80s
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:Overcategorization; having a category for one's birth year is already enough by itself, and so is having a "rapper" category. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete with a drive-by shooting.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete asap. (I do find Category:1880s racehorse births etc, so it ought to be Category:1960s rapper births etc if rappers and racehorses are thought to be equivalent.) Oculi (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial, we haven't divvied up other musicians of other genres much less any occupations - of humans, as noted by Oculi - by decade of birth, although the stub categories seem to do that for some but I think that's just to get between 60 and 600 items per their norms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Your lack of respect for the genre shouldn't count as a valid reason for deletion. The individual categories are great, but this will be a simple and clear way to find Hip-Hop artists that all belong to a certain age range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BxBerto (talk • contribs)
 * My reason has nothing to do with genre; I'm more concerned about redundancy since there are already categories for individual birth years (i.e. Category:1961 births, Category:1972 births, Category:1983 births) which are already enough. We don't need to categorize one's birth more than once. Snuggums (talk / edits</b>) 16:22, 26 October 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:Fraternalists
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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, but there seems to be a consensus that at least a rename could be appropriate, though there wasn't any strong consensus on which specific name. For now, I will rename to Category:Members of fraternal service organizations to match Category:Fraternal service organizations, but this should by no means be seen as the final say on the name of this category or on whether its subcategories should continue to exist. There is no consensus on these matters as a result of this discussion.


 * Propose deleting fraternalists


 * Nominator's rationale: Another SHAREDNAME cat, and trivial to boot. None of these orders are related to one another, and being a "Fraternalist" is, in many cases, a trivial item.  We had this issue specially with the Freemasons cat, and we limited it to those who were notable in the realm of Freemasonry, not simply for being members.  There's no reason to put all these groups together by membership in any case. MSJapan (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename/Keep To Category:Members of fraternal service organizations to match Category:Fraternal service organizations and Category:Members of organizations. MSJapan's concern that some of the sub-categories are overpopulated (I'm looking especially at Category:Members of the Orange Order) is valid but orphaning questionable categories from a de facto container category doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note I nominated five of the subcategories here. Your thoughts (pro/con/other) on those proposals are welcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Retain in some manner. This should be a container for fraternal-order-members categories by order, e.g. "Freemasons", "Oddfellows", etc.  Having a container to hold bios by order, as long as there are several orders with bio subcategories, would be quite useful for navigation.  No opinion on what to call it; keep the current name or rename it to anything coherent, and I'll be happy.  Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply Except we deleted Category:Freemasons because it ended up being a collection of people who were simply named as members, and went so far as to get subcatted by country. In short, it got out of hand, and did not really present a meaningful connection between the names in the category.  For example, Harry S Truman and Mozart have nothing in common besides being Freemasons (which is why SHAREDNAME applies). MSJapan (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it got deleted, but a five-years-later deletion review resulted in its restoration. Anyway, imagine that there's consensus for RevelationDirect's current "Members of the Orange Order" CFD, to convert it into "Grand Masters of the Orange Order".  I'm imagining putting that category into this one, even should the rename-and-purge idea be accepted.  Whether we're including just the Grand Masters of the Order, or whether we're including all Orangemen, the category is a collection of bios because their subjects were all somehow related to the Order.  As long as we have several categories of this sort, we ought to have a container for them.  Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename -- I would suggests Category:Members of fraternities or Category:Members of fraternal organisations and tag it as a container for categories and lists. Whether we should categorise people by what organization they are members of is another question, but while we have the categories (or lists) we need a category such as this to parent them.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment do we really think that one's membership in some secret society or another is sufficiently notable to categorize them on? If so, we dump Odd Fellows, with KKK members, (but not with other secret hate groups, interestingly - is that because we believe that fraternity didn't exist or some other WP:OR or WP:SUBJECTIVECAT), and of course, masons. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The 2nd KKK in the 1920s was cloaked as fraternal lodges, per the article. Thomas Pegram has a controversial book on the somewhat mundane workings of local lodges. (Note that I also share concerns about some of the subcategories, see above.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are numerous secret societies but that doesn't mean that any have anything to do or in common (except the secrecy) with each other. There are secret societies where the public don't know who the members are (organized crime, the KKK, Skull & Bones, and others fall in that formulation) and others who have members known to the public but what happens there is secret (the Odd Fellows, most social fraternities, the SS, the House Republican Caucus, or Privy Council of the United Kingdom, fall into that). But here these sorts of different groups formed for different purposes at different times are being tied by some veil of "secrecy" which is not uniform. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - I do not think this is defining with respect to the vast majority of organizations. Neutralitytalk 21:22, 1 November 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.